TG 2006 Holdings LLC v. Acronis SCS Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TG--2006 Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Acronis SCS, Inc. (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00292, D. Colo., 01/31/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a Colorado corporation with an established place of business in the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business information tracking systems infringe patents related to using a hierarchical tree-view display where visual attributes of folders change to signal the status of underlying tasks or events.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the domain of business process management and project tracking software, where visual interfaces are used to provide at-a-glance status updates on complex operations.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a family; U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741, which itself is a continuation of an earlier application filed in 2004. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741, “System and method for tracking information in a business environment,” issued September 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that tracking business information can be "time consuming and confusing," and if information is not displayed in a "visually clear and meaningful way," the tracking system defeats its own purpose (’741 Patent, col. 1:15-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented system that uses a hierarchical "folder tree view" to manage business tasks (’741 Patent, col. 2:27-34). Specific documents or tasks, termed "in-house products," are placed within child folders. These tasks have associated time triggers. When a time-based event occurs (e.g., a deadline is missed), the "visual attributes" of the child folder change, and this change cascades up to alter the visual attribute of the parent folder, providing a high-level visual alert (’741 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-39).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a user to monitor the status of numerous, potentially interdependent, time-critical processes at a glance by observing the visual state of high-level folders in the hierarchy without needing to inspect each individual task (’741 Patent, col. 3:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims" identified in an external chart (Compl. ¶12). The patent contains one independent claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • establishing a parent folder;
  • establishing a child folder associated with the parent folder;
  • establishing an in-house product;
  • associating at least one task with the in-house product;
  • associating products and labor codes with the task;
  • associating a first alert interval and a time trigger with the task and in-house product;
  • starting and monitoring a system clock;
  • changing the color of the child folder when the system time exceeds the alert interval; and
  • changing the color of the parent folder when the child folder changes color.

U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323, “System and method for tracking information in a business environment,” issued October 31, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’323 Patent addresses the need for a "visually clear and meaningful way" to track complex business information to avoid confusion and inefficiency (’323 Patent, col. 1:17-23).
• The Patented Solution: The ’323 Patent claims a similar system based on a hierarchical tree-view where folder attributes change to reflect event status. The claims are framed more broadly than those in the ’741 Patent, referring to a "time critical task" rather than a specific "in-house product" and a changeable "attribute" rather than only "color" (’323 Patent, Claim 1). The core mechanism of a child folder's status change triggering a change in the parent folder's attribute remains central (’323 Patent, col. 4:10-24).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a customizable framework for visually managing time-sensitive tasks in a business environment, where alerts cascade up a hierarchy to ensure high-level visibility of issues (’323 Patent, col. 2:48-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims" identified in an external chart (Compl. ¶21). The patent contains two independent claims.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • establishing a parent and an associated child folder;
  • correlating the child folder with a time critical task;
  • associating a first alert interval with the task;
  • starting and monitoring a system clock;
  • changing an "attribute" of the child folder when the system time exceeds the alert interval; and
  • changing an "attribute" of the parent folder when the "attribute" of the child folder changes.
• Independent Claim 8 (Method):
  • This claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 but specifically requires changing the "color" of the child and parent folders.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 3 (for the ’741 Patent) and Exhibit 4 (for the ’323 Patent) (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). This suggests the products are software systems for tracking business information. However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality, operation, or market context of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4), which were not provided with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the exhibits, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions (’741 Patent): A primary question may be whether the accused products meet the specific limitations of Claim 1 of the ’741 Patent. For instance, the analysis may focus on whether the accused functionality can be characterized as establishing an "in-house product" and associating it with "labor codes," terms that suggest a specific manufacturing or production context that may not be present in general-purpose business software (’741 Patent, col. 11:10-13).
• Technical Questions (’323 Patent): For the ’323 Patent, a key technical question will likely be whether the accused products’ notification or alerting systems operate via the specific cascading mechanism claimed. The dispute may center on whether a change in a lower-level item's status indicator directly and automatically causes a "chang[e in] an attribute of the parent folder," or if the system uses a different, non-hierarchical method to display alerts (’323 Patent, col. 12:14-16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "in-house product" (’741 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the method claimed in the ’741 Patent. Its construction will be critical in determining the scope of the patent, specifically whether it is limited to manufacturing environments or can be read more broadly to cover other types of projects or data objects in business software.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the invention in the general context of a "business enterprise" and "tracking business information" without limitation to manufacturing, which may support an argument that "in-house product" is merely an exemplary work item (’741 Patent, col. 1:15-17).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly uses manufacturing-specific language, defining an "in house product" as something a company "manufactures that has specific tasks that lead to its completion" and providing examples like "production subassemblies" (’741 Patent, col. 3:30-34). Figure 2 and its description also focus on a production-line context (’741 Patent, col. 4:51-54).

Term: "attribute" (’323 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The breadth of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis for the ’323 Patent. The case will depend on whether the status indicators in the accused product constitute a changing "attribute" of a "folder" as understood in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "attribute" is a broad concept, stating an alert "will typically comprise a change in the color, size, animation, or other visual attribute of the folder, but may also include audible and textual information" (’323 Patent, col. 4:59-63). Dependent claim 7 further defines attributes to include a group of "visual, color, animation, textual, size and audible" properties, supporting a broad construction for the independent claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict the "attribute" change as a modification to the folder icon itself within the tree-view hierarchy (e.g., ’323 Patent, Figs. 3a-3c). A party could argue that "attribute" should be narrowly construed to mean a persistent property of the folder representation itself, as opposed to a separate notification, a status icon in an adjacent column, or other common UI alerting mechanisms.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The factual basis asserted is that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage customers to use the products in a manner that allegedly infringes (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." It pleads "Actual Knowledge of Infringement," but states this knowledge arises from "The service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit, but not pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

1. Applicability of Scope: A central issue will be one of technical scope: Can the claims of the ’741 Patent, which recite specific elements like an "in-house product" and "labor codes" that are described in a manufacturing context, be construed to cover the features of what may be general-purpose business software?
2. Equivalence of Mechanism: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused software’s alerting system perform the specific, two-step hierarchical process required by the ’323 Patent, where a change to a "child folder" attribute automatically and directly causes a corresponding change to a "parent folder" attribute? The case may turn on whether the accused system uses this precise cascading logic or an alternative notification architecture.
3. Sufficiency of Pleadings: An initial question for the court may be procedural sufficiency. Given that the complaint's factual allegations of infringement rely entirely on incorporating by reference external exhibits that were not filed, the court may be asked to determine if the complaint, on its face, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.