TMI Solutions LLC v. Gap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TMI Solutions LLC (a Michigan limited liability company)
  • Defendant: The Gap, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Nelson Bumgardner PC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00966, D. Del., 07/17/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes two patents related to methods for identifying and providing services to a user station over multiple communication sessions using a client-side identifier.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue describes a client-server architecture for maintaining state and user information across separate, user-initiated network sessions, a foundational concept for modern e-commerce and web applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1994-05-31	Priority Date (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,484,077 and 9,484,078)
2016-11-01	Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 9,484,077)
2016-11-01	Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 9,484,078)
2017-07-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,484,077 - "Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station over a Communications Network"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and expense of distributing electronic products and their updates to a mass market of consumers with diverse computer systems. It notes that existing online services of the era (e.g., CompuServe) were complex, monolithic, and ill-suited for simple, low-cost updates, while mass distribution of software on physical media was slow and expensive. (’971 Patent, col. 1:35-2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a remote computer system to recognize a user's computer ("user station") across separate communication sessions. During a first session with a new user, the remote system receives "first user identification information," stores related "third information" (e.g., a user profile) on the server, and sends back different "second information" (e.g., a unique ID) to be automatically stored on the user's computer. In subsequent sessions, the user's computer automatically sends this "second information" back, allowing the remote system to retrieve the stored "third information" and use it to facilitate the interaction. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:21-46).
• Technical Importance: This client-side state management technique allows for persistent user identification without requiring the user to log in for every session, enabling more seamless and personalized online experiences. (’971 Patent, col. 5:21-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 6, which depends from independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving first user identification information at a remote computer system from a user station during a first session.
  • Sending second, different information (a function of the first) from the remote system to the user station to be stored automatically.
  • Storing third information (based on the first) at a location remote from the user station.
  • Receiving the second information back from the user station automatically during a subsequent session.
  • Retrieving the stored third information using the received second information.
  • Using the retrieved third information for interaction during the subsequent session.
• Claim 6 further requires that the "third information" includes "user demographics."

U.S. Patent No. 9,484,078 - "Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station over a Communications Network"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’078 Patent shares its specification with the ’077 Patent and thus addresses the same technical problems related to the efficient distribution of electronic information and updates. (’078 Patent, col. 1:35-2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively the same as that described in the ’077 Patent, focusing on a method for automated user identification across multiple network sessions. The claims of the ’078 Patent are directed more specifically to the remote system's actions during a subsequent communication session. (’078 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: As with the ’077 Patent, this technology provides a foundation for persistent, personalized user experiences on a network. (’078 Patent, col. 5:21-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claims 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶19).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving, at a remote computer system, "second information" that is different from "first information" identifying a user station.
  • The receipt occurs during a second user-initiated session automatically from the user station.
  • The user station "triggers automatically sending the second information."
  • Retrieving previously stored "third information" that is based on the first information.
  • Matching at least a portion of the received second information with the stored third information.
• Claim 2 specifies that the "second information" is used by the remote system as a "station identifier" and as a "surrogate for a user identifier."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant The Gap, Inc.'s website (Compl. ¶¶11, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is Defendant's website and its "use of cookies in conjunction with its website." (Compl. ¶¶11, 19). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the website's operation or its market context beyond identifying the Defendant as a major retailer. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits 2 and 4 but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶¶11, 19). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff’s central theory is that the Defendant’s website, through its use of HTTP cookies, performs the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges that this use of cookies practices the claimed steps of sending a unique identifier to a user's computer during a first visit, storing user-related information on a remote server, and then automatically receiving the identifier back during a subsequent visit to retrieve the stored information and personalize the session (Compl. ¶¶11, 19). For the ’077 Patent, the infringement allegation specifically implicates the storage of "user demographics" as part of the remotely stored information (Compl. ¶11; ’077 Patent, Claim 6). For the ’078 Patent, the allegations focus on the website's actions upon receiving the cookie back from a returning user (Compl. ¶19).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim terms, originating from a 1994 priority date, should be interpreted to cover the standardized and ubiquitous use of HTTP cookies on the modern internet. For example, does a standard browser's handling of cookies satisfy the limitation that the "user station triggers automatically sending the second information" (’078 Patent, Claim 1), or does the claim require a more specialized software component?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what constitutes the "first user identification information" or the "third information" in the context of the accused website. A key factual dispute will likely be whether the data stored by Defendant's servers and associated with a user's cookie meets the specific claim requirement of including "user demographics" as required by asserted claim 6 of the ’077 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "to be stored automatically at the user station" (’077 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The definition of "automatically" is critical. Defendant may argue that modern browser cookie handling, which often involves user consent via browser settings, is not "automatic" from the perspective of the patent's disclosure. The dispute may center on whether the automatic nature refers to the user's lack of action during the session itself, or a more fundamental lack of control over the storage process.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the second information is "stored automatically at the user station," suggesting the process requires no active intervention from the user during the communication session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of specific embodiments from the 1994-era context might describe a bespoke software component that performs the storage, potentially allowing an argument that it does not read on a general-purpose web browser's standardized cookie mechanism.

• The Term: "the user station triggers automatically sending the second information" (’078 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term places the action of "triggering" on the "user station." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that in a standard web interaction, the browser's inclusion of a cookie in an HTTP request is a passive, protocol-driven function, not an active "trigger" initiated by the user station itself. The question is whether the automated processes of a web browser fall within the scope of this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the mechanism of the trigger, which may support a construction that covers any automated process on the user's device that results in the information being sent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may disclose an "information transport component" or module that actively initiates the communication, which could be used to argue that the claim requires more than a standard browser's passive compliance with the HTTP protocol. (’077 Patent, Fig. 1, item 14).

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s answers to two central questions:

• A core issue will be one of temporal scope and construction: Can the claims of patents with a 1994 priority date, written before the widespread commercialization of the internet, be construed to cover the standardized and now-ubiquitous protocol of HTTP cookie-based session management employed by modern websites?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual mapping: What specific evidence does Plaintiff possess to demonstrate that the data Defendant stores in connection with website cookies constitutes "user demographics," as explicitly required by the asserted claim 6 of the ’077 patent? The complaint’s lack of detail on this point suggests it will be a significant focus of discovery and proof.