Site Update Solutions LLC v. Accor North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Site Update Solutions LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Accor North America, Inc., et al. (Various)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: GOLDSTEIN, FAUCETT & PREBEG, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00151, E.D. Tex., 05/11/2010
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 1400(b), with the complaint alleging that each of the more than 30 defendants does business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ websites, which use XML Sitemaps to update their content's visibility in internet search engines, infringe a patent related to maintaining ongoing registration for pages on a search engine.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technical processes by which website operators inform search engines like Google or Bing about the structure and content of their sites, a fundamental aspect of search engine optimization (SEO).
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,253,198. Reissue proceedings can alter claim scope and involve a patentee's admission of error in the original patent, which may become relevant during claim construction.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-05-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,253,198
2001-06-26	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,253,198 (Original Patent)
2009-03-24	Issue Date for U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE40,683
2010-05-11	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE40,683 - "Process for Maintaining Ongoing Registration for Pages on a Given Search Engine"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of search engines displaying outdated or incorrect information because of the long delays between when a search engine's "spider" indexes a website and when content on that site is changed, moved, or deleted (RE40,683 Patent, col. 3:18-34). This can lead to "spurious, misleading, or irrelevant results" for users and a poor representation of the website (RE40,683 Patent, col. 3:35-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed system where the website owner, rather than the search engine, takes responsibility for tracking content changes. The solution involves software tools on the website owner's server that create and maintain a local database of the site's content. This system identifies new, modified, or deleted pages and then transmits a set of "indices" of these changes directly to the search engine, ensuring the search engine's database is kept current (RE40,683 Patent, col. 4:18-41, Fig. 1b).
• Technical Importance: This approach shifts the burden of maintaining index accuracy from the centralized search engine to the distributed website owners, which could theoretically allow for a more scalable and up-to-date index of the entire web (RE40,683 Patent, col. 4:5-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶¶43-77).
• The prayer for relief more broadly references "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. p. 18, ¶A).
• Independent Claim 8 (Apparatus Claim) Essential Elements:
  • A means for creating and modifying a database of a web site...
  • A means for identifying, using said web site database, new, deleted, or modified content;
  • A means for transmitting to said internet search engine a set of indices...
  • A means for opening, by a user, a form on a computer to enable or disable internet search engines...
  • A means for enabling or disabling...the appropriate internet search engines on said form;
  • A means for submitting...said information to a script;
  • A means for parsing...said information from said form; and
  • A means for updating...said database of search engine.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the systems and methods used by each of the more than thirty defendants to operate their respective websites (e.g., www.motel6.com, www.adobe.com, www.amazon.com) (Compl. ¶¶43-45).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that each defendant "updates internet search engine databases with current content from its website... by using an XML Sitemap ('Sitemap') and submitting it to various search engines" (Compl. ¶¶43-77). XML Sitemaps are files that list the pages on a website, allowing website administrators to provide information about their content to search engines. The complaint alleges that by "utilizing such systems," the defendants infringe the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶43-77). The defendants are all major commercial entities for whom search engine visibility is a significant component of their business operations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit or sufficient detail to map specific accused functionalities to each claim element. The infringement allegations are presented in a narrative, repetitive format. For each of the more than thirty defendants, the complaint contains a nearly identical paragraph stating that the defendant "updates internet search engine databases with current content from its website... by using an XML Sitemap ('Sitemap') and submitting it to various search engines. By utilizing such systems [Defendant] has in the past and continues to infringe at least claim 8 of the RE‘683 patent" (Compl. ¶¶43-77).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 8 is an apparatus claim comprising multiple "means for" performing various functions. A central dispute will be whether the defendants' "XML Sitemap" systems constitute the claimed "apparatus." The infringement allegation focuses on the act of using a system, and the plaintiff will need to establish that each defendant makes, uses, or sells an apparatus containing all the claimed "means."
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how an "XML Sitemap" system performs the functions recited in the claim, such as the "means for opening, by a user, a form on a computer to enable or disable internet search engines" or the specific "means for parsing... information from said form." A key question will be whether the evidence shows that the accused systems actually perform these specific, claimed functions, or if there is a technical mismatch between how sitemap protocols work and what the patent claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the plaintiff might seek to construe specific terms. However, given the structure of the asserted claim, the following terms will be critical.

• The Term: "a means for [performing a function]" (e.g., "a means for creating and modifying a database," "a means for identifying... modified content," etc.).
• Context and Importance: Claim 8 is drafted entirely in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. The scope of each "means for" limitation is not the function itself, but rather the specific structure, material, or acts described in the patent's specification for performing that function, and their equivalents. The outcome of the case will depend almost entirely on how the court identifies the corresponding structures for each of the eight "means" clauses in Claim 8.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may argue over what constitutes the "corresponding structure." For example, for the "means for creating and modifying a database," a party might argue the structure is the generic concept of software that "builds a database of the resources on the web site" (RE40,683 Patent, col. 4:35-37), potentially encompassing any software that performs this role.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue the structure is limited to the specific implementation details and algorithms described. The patent discloses specific processes, such as a CGI script that interacts with a "Table of Files" (RE40,683 Patent, col. 7:1-8:6) and pseudo-code outlining the logic (RE40,683 Patent, col. 9:32-67). A court could find that the "structure" is limited to these specific software routines, narrowing the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction under § 112, para. 6: What are the specific software structures and algorithms disclosed in the RE40,683 patent that correspond to each of the eight "means for..." limitations in Claim 8? The scope of the patent will be defined by the specificity of these disclosed structures.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendants' accused "XML Sitemap" systems—which are part of a standardized, public protocol—are structurally equivalent to the specific, proprietary-seeming software architecture described in the patent specification? The complaint itself provides no evidence to support this equivalence.
3. A foundational legal question will be one of liability for an apparatus claim: Does each defendant's use of its website and sitemap-generating software constitute "use" of the complete claimed apparatus within the United States, or will the plaintiff fail to prove that any single defendant "makes" or "uses" a system containing every element of the asserted claim?