DCT

1:13-cv-01025

Ubicomm LLC v Urban Outfitters Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:13-cv-01025, D. Del., 06/07/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant’s operation of its commercial website, which is accessed by residents of the state, and its operation of retail stores within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to context-aware computing by sending reminder emails for abandoned shopping carts.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of "ubiquitous computing," where systems automatically trigger events based on monitoring a user's context, such as their location, environment, and predefined policies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on June 7, 2013. A request for ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent was filed on December 5, 2013. On November 24, 2014, the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate cancelling all claims (1-8) of the patent. This subsequent cancellation of all asserted patent claims raises a fundamental question about the viability of the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-12-03 '054 Patent Priority Date
1997-02-11 '054 Patent Issue Date
2013-06-07 Complaint Filing Date
2013-12-05 Ex Parte Reexamination of '054 Patent Requested
2014-11-24 Reexamination Certificate Issued; All Claims Cancelled

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,603,054 - "Method For Triggering Selected Machine Event When The Triggering Properties Of The System Are Met And The Triggering Conditions Of An Identified User Are Perceived"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,603,054, “Method For Triggering Selected Machine Event When The Triggering Properties Of The System Are Met And The Triggering Conditions Of An Identified User Are Perceived,” issued February 11, 1997.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a computing paradigm shift away from static personal computers toward a "ubiquitous" environment where many computing devices are integrated into the user's surroundings ('054 Patent, col. 2:5-12). Conventional notification systems like pagers or calendars were considered limited because they could not automatically tailor message delivery to the user's specific physical location and environment ('054 Patent, col. 3:35-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for triggering machine events by monitoring a user's context (e.g., location, proximity to devices, time of day) and evaluating that context against predefined "interaction policies" ('054 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture relies on software "agents" representing users and devices, which communicate with system "services" (like a Location Service) to gather contextual data and execute actions accordingly ('054 Patent, col. 7:26-51, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The patent describes foundational concepts in context-aware and ubiquitous computing, a field that aims to make technology responsive to a user's real-world situation, predating many modern applications like location-based mobile alerts or smart home automation ('054 Patent, col. 2:54-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is the broadest method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 elements:
    • selecting a type of machine event to be triggered;
    • selecting triggering properties of said system necessary for triggering said selected machine event;
    • selecting triggering conditions of an identified user necessary for triggering said selected machine event;
    • perceiving said triggering conditions;
    • determining whether said triggering properties are met; and
    • triggering said selected machine event when the triggering properties are met and the triggering conditions are perceived.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies a specific feature of the website: a method that "includes sending reminder emails to online shoppers who place items in their online shopping carts and then delay purchasing items in their online shopping carts or who abandon their shopping carts" (Compl. ¶11).
  • The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of this feature, such as the specific logic or time delays that trigger the emails. It also does not contain allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint provides a high-level infringement theory without mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following chart summarizes the likely correspondence based on the allegations.

'054 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
selecting a type of machine event to be triggered; The system is configured to perform the event of sending a reminder email. ¶11 col. 30:16-17
selecting triggering properties of said system necessary for triggering said selected machine event; The system is configured with properties, such as a time-delay threshold, that must be met to trigger the reminder email. ¶11 col. 30:21-23
selecting triggering conditions of an identified user necessary for triggering said selected machine event; The system is configured with user-related conditions, such as a user having placed items in a cart and subsequently delayed or abandoned the purchase. ¶11 col. 30:24-26
perceiving said triggering conditions; The website's system perceives that a user has left items in a shopping cart without completing the purchase. ¶11 col. 30:27-28
determining whether said triggering properties are met; The system determines that the predefined time-delay for an abandoned cart has been met. ¶11 col. 30:29-30
triggering said selected machine event when the triggering properties are met and the triggering conditions are perceived. When the system perceives the user's cart abandonment and determines the time-delay property is met, it triggers the sending of the reminder email. ¶11 col. 30:31-35
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the patent's detailed "ubiquitous computing" environment, which repeatedly describes interactions based on physical user location, mobile devices ("Tabs," "Pads"), and proximity sensors ('054 Patent, col. 2:13-32), can be interpreted to cover a conventional web server architecture. The complaint does not allege that the accused website uses the complex agent-and-service architecture described in the patent's specification.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a system that sends reminder emails after a delay. This raises the question of whether a simple, hard-coded time-delay logic in an e-commerce platform constitutes "selecting triggering properties" and "perceiving... conditions" in the dynamic, policy-driven manner required by the claims, which are described in the context of a system that actively monitors and synthesizes rich contextual data ('054 Patent, col. 9:4-10; col. 22:46-54).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "triggering properties of said system"

  • Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is critical to determining if the patent covers standard e-commerce features. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to the complex, real-world contextual factors described in the specification or if it can be read more broadly to include any server-side state, like a timer.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is abstract and does not explicitly limit "properties" to physical or environmental ones, which could support an argument that any system parameter, such as an elapsed time, qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the system in a "ubiquitous computing" context, where properties relate to the user's physical environment, location, and interaction with a network of devices ('054 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-17). This context may support a narrower construction limited to such real-world, dynamic factors.

  • The Term: "triggering conditions of an identified user"

  • Context and Importance: This term's definition will determine whether a user's online state (e.g., items in a cart stored in a database) falls within the claim's scope. The dispute may center on whether the "conditions" must relate to the user's physical context, as heavily detailed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A user's online shopping cart status could be argued to be a "condition" of that user in a general sense.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of user conditions tied to physical presence and activity, such as being "sighted at location X" or being "in a meeting" ('054 Patent, col. 12:30-34; col. 24:25-30). This could support a narrower definition requiring a user's real-world state or location, not just their digital footprint on a server.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement. The sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," but the complaint body does not plead facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent, that would typically support such a claim (Compl. p. 4, ¶C).

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

  1. Patent Validity: The central, threshold issue is the legal status of the lawsuit following the USPTO's cancellation of all claims of the '054 patent in a post-filing reexamination. A court would need to determine whether any viable cause of action remains.
  2. Claim Scope and Technical Mismatch: Should the case proceed, a key question is one of definitional scope: can the claim terms, which are defined and exemplified throughout the specification within a "ubiquitous computing" environment based on physical location and multi-device interaction, be construed to cover the functions of a conventional e-commerce website? The infringement theory appears to depend on extending the patent's highly contextual framework to a fundamentally different technical environment.