Linfo IP LLC v. BruMate Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Brumate, Inc. (Delaware, with a principal place of business in Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00440, D. Colo., 02/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to methods for analyzing and interacting with text based on its semantic attributes.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-assisted linguistic analysis, allowing users to identify, categorize, and act upon specific types of information (e.g., positive or negative opinions) within large bodies of text.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity with no products to mark.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "information overload," where users struggle to find specific, relevant information within large volumes of unstructured text, such as product reviews, articles, or emails ('428 Patent, col. 1:12-21). For example, a user may want to find only the negative comments about a hotel's "room service" from hundreds of reviews, a task that is time-consuming with conventional search methods ('428 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words or phrases ('428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides a user interface with objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to select a specific attribute (like "positive opinion" or "negative opinion") and perform an action (like "extract," "highlight," or "hide") on all text segments matching that attribute ('428 Patent, col. 3:16-25; Fig. 1). This allows users to filter and organize information based on meaning, not just keywords.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide more sophisticated, context-aware tools for information discovery than simple keyword searching, enabling users to efficiently digest and analyze large datasets of user-generated content or technical documents ('428 Patent, col. 1:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A computer-assisted method for discovering and presenting information in a text content.
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Selecting a first and second semantic attribute for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text content associated with the first or second semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an actionable user interface object.
  • Allowing the user to select one of the semantic attributes via the user interface object.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the word or phrase associated with the user-selected semantic attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It refers generally to a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's system performs the infringing methods, but provides no specific details about how the accused system operates or its features (Compl. ¶8). The complaint also does not provide information on the accused system's commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement allegations are stated at a high level, alleging that Defendant's system infringes claims 1-20 of the '428 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The complaint refers to a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" for support, but this exhibit was not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶9). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the general allegations in the complaint's body.

'428 Patent Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: The primary question will be evidentiary. What specific features of Defendant's unnamed system perform the claimed steps? The complaint's reliance on a missing exhibit leaves open the fundamental question of what conduct is actually being accused.
• Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether Defendant's system, once identified, truly identifies and acts upon a "semantic attribute" as taught in the patent (e.g., an opinion), or if it performs a more conventional keyword-based or syntactic filtering that falls outside the claim scope.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused "user interface" qualifies as "actionable" in the manner required by the claim, specifically by allowing a user to select a pre-defined semantic category and then automatically performing an action on all text associated with that category.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"semantic attribute"

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the invention. Its definition will determine whether the accused system's text analysis falls within the scope of the claims. The patent contrasts this concept with simple keyword matching. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case hinges on whether the accused system categorizes text based on its inherent meaning (semantic) or on other criteria.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "semantic attributes" can be varied, including an "opinion" (col. 8:30-31), whether a term is a "drug" (col. 8:25-26), or its general "connotation" (col. 8:24). This could support a broad definition covering any classification of a term's meaning.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary examples focus on opinion-mining (positive, negative, neutral) and sentiment analysis ('428 Patent, col. 9:1-5; col. 13:20-32). An argument could be made that a "semantic attribute" must relate to these types of subjective or contextual meanings, as distinguished from objective classifications (e.g., categorizing "aspirin" as a "drug"). Claim 3 further specifies the attributes are in "contrast" and relate to "sentiment or opinion."

"actionable user interface object"

Context and Importance

This term is critical for defining the required user interaction. Infringement will depend on whether the accused UI provides the specific "select attribute -> perform action" workflow claimed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the object can be "a set of radio buttons, a slider, or any sort of object that allows a user to selectively indicate an option" ('428 Patent, col. 10:1-3). This suggests flexibility in the form of the UI element.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently describe a two-step process: the user selects from predefined attributes (e.g., "positive comments only") via the object, and the system then performs an action ('428 Patent, col. 16:13-24; Figs. 9A, 11). This may require the object to be more than a simple filter; it must be linked to a subsequent, automated action like "extracting" or "highlighting" on the associated text.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers)" on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). Contributory infringement is also alleged on similar grounds (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the '428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10-11). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Prayer ¶e).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of "What": The central and most immediate question is factual: what specific Brumate product, service, or feature is being accused? The complaint's failure to identify an accused instrumentality or provide the referenced claim chart (Exhibit B) means the initial phase of the case will likely focus on contention interrogatories and discovery to establish the basis for the infringement allegations.
2. A Definitional Question of "How": A core legal issue will be the construction of "semantic attribute." The case may turn on whether Brumate's system, once revealed, is found to operate on the basis of word meaning and context (e.g., sentiment), as taught by the '428 Patent, or whether it employs a non-infringing method like keyword filtering that does not rise to the level of analyzing "semantic attributes."
3. A Functional Question of "Action": A key technical question for infringement will be one of functional operation. Does the accused system's user interface constitute an "actionable user interface object" that allows users to select a semantic category and have the system automatically perform an action (e.g., highlight, extract) on the corresponding text, or does it merely provide a more conventional search or filtering functionality?