DCT
1:17-cv-00978
Product Association Tech LLC v. Shopstyle Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Product Association Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: ShopStyle, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00978, E.D. Tex., 04/05/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is "deemed to reside in this district" and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce aggregation and affiliate marketing platform infringes a patent related to methods for using product codes to retrieve and display product information over the Internet.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for linking standardized product identifiers to specific online sources of product information, a foundational concept for early e-commerce, product aggregation, and affiliate marketing systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-27 | '738 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-11-28 | '738 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-02-23 | Date of Accused Activity Evidence |
| 2017-04-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,154,738 - "Methods and Apparatus for Disseminating Product Information via the Internet Using Universal Product Codes"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In the early commercial Internet, detailed information about a specific product was often difficult to locate, particularly when the uniform resource locator (URL) of the manufacturer's website was not known to the consumer or reseller (Compl. ¶10; ’738 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system that uses "universal product codes" (such as UPCs) as keys to access product information. A user's web browser transmits a request containing a product code to a "cross-referencing resource." This resource, which is a database, looks up the code to find the corresponding Internet address for the product's information source (e.g., a manufacturer's server) and sends a redirection message back to the browser, which then automatically retrieves the information from the new address (’738 Patent, col. 2:5-25; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed a standardized architecture for bridging the gap between physical-world product identifiers and fragmented online information sources, predating the sophisticated capabilities of modern search engines and affiliate networks (’738 Patent, col. 1:33-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’738 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent method Claim 1 include:
- Establishing a cross-referencing resource with a database that maps universal product codes to Internet addresses.
- Transmitting a web page with a hyperlink that includes a specific universal product code for a selected product.
- Using a web browser to display the page and, upon activation of the hyperlink, transmit a first request message containing the product code to the cross-referencing resource.
- Processing the first request at the resource to identify the corresponding Internet address and return a "redirection message" containing that address to the browser.
- The browser automatically responding to the redirection message by sending a second request to the new Internet address.
- A web server at the new address responding by returning product information, which the browser then displays to the user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, though this is common practice in later stages of litigation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "ShopStyle shopping portal, www.shopstyle.com and any similar products and services" offered by the Defendant (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as an online e-commerce platform that aggregates and disseminates product information from various third-party retailers (Compl. ¶15). A screenshot on page 5 of the complaint shows a search results page displaying products from different brands and stores, such as an "Adidas Superstar Foundation Sneaker" (Compl. p. 5). When a user selects a product, the system allegedly uses a product code to look up a destination URL on a third-party retailer's website and directs the user's browser to that site to view detailed information and complete a purchase (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 20-22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'738 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| establishing a cross-referencing resource connected to the Internet which includes a database containing a plurality of cross-references... [mapping] universal product code values and...Internet address[es] |
Defendant's use of a "database associated with the ShopStyle platform" that contains cross-references between a product code (e.g., SKU) and an associated Internet address for a destination site. | ¶16 | col. 2:18-25 |
| transmitting via the Internet a Web page containing at least one hyperlink including a reference to separately stored information, said reference including a particular universal product code value |
The ShopStyle platform provides a web page displaying products, where each product listing is a hyperlink that includes a reference to a product code (e.g., an SKU in a URL). | ¶18 | col. 2:13-18 |
| employing a Web browser program to receive said Web page and display said Web page to a user | A user's web browser receives and displays the ShopStyle web page. | ¶19 | col. 2:18-22 |
| ...transmitting a first request message to said cross-referencing resource, said first request message containing at least a portion of said particular universal product code value |
When a user clicks a product hyperlink, the browser transmits a request message to the ShopStyle database that contains the associated product code value to query the database. | ¶19 | col. 2:18-22 |
| processing said first request message...by referring to said database to identify the particular Internet address... and returning a redirection message to said Web browser |
The ShopStyle database processes the request, identifies the corresponding Internet address for the third-party retailer, and returns a "redirection message" to the user's browser. |
¶20 | col. 2:39-43 |
| employing said Web browser to automatically respond to said redirection message by transmitting a second request message to said particular Internet address | The user's browser is automatically redirected to the destination site (e.g., urbanoutfitters.com) by sending a second request to the address from the redirection message. | ¶21 | col. 2:41-43 |
| employing a Web server...to respond to said second request message by returning product information... to said Web browser |
A server at the destination site responds to the second request by providing a web page with product information. A screenshot on page 6 of the complaint illustrates this destination page displaying "Product Information" for the selected sneaker. |
¶22 | col. 2:22-25 |
| employing said Web browser program to automatically display said product information from said Web server to said user | The user's browser automatically displays the product information received from the destination server. | ¶22 | col. 2:41-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises a question of claim scope regarding whether the accused product's use of a retailer-specific "SKU" (e.g., "34764654") falls within the meaning of "universal product code" as defined in the patent (Compl. ¶16; ’738 Patent, col. 4:46-57).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system returns a "redirection message" but does not specify the technical mechanism (Compl. ¶20). A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system's method for directing a user to a third-party site performs the function of "returning a redirection message" as that term is understood in light of the patent's specification, which describes HTTP response messages with location headers (’738 Patent, col. 2:39-43).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "universal product code"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as the accused system is alleged to use a retailer's Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) to perform the claimed function (Compl. ¶16). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a proprietary, retailer-specific identifier can be considered equivalent to the standardized, industry-wide codes exemplified in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term to include UPCs, EANs, and "any other multi-industry or single industry standard product designation system" (’738 Patent, col. 4:55-57). A party may argue that a system that aggregates and standardizes the handling of codes from across the retail industry creates its own "multi-industry...system."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary examples are UPCs and EANs, which are managed by official bodies like the Uniform Code Council and are intended to be globally unique identifiers (’738 Patent, col. 4:50-55). A party may argue that a non-unique SKU from a single retailer is not a "standard product designation system" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
The Term: "redirection message"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism by which the user is transferred from the cross-referencing resource to the final information source. The specific technical implementation of the accused ShopStyle system will be scrutinized to determine if it meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not limited to a specific protocol. A party could argue it encompasses any server-side instruction that causes a browser to automatically fetch content from a new URL, including meta refresh tags or certain scripts.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where a server "returns an HTTP response message which includes a location header field" and a corresponding Perl script that returns a "location: $target" header, both of which describe a standard HTTP 3xx redirect (’738 Patent, col. 2:39-43, col. 18:10-14). A party may argue these examples limit the term's scope to such server-level HTTP redirects.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement. The sole count is for direct infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶13).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a specific count for willful infringement or allege facts supporting pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the court's determination of two central issues:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can a retailer-specific identifier, such as the "SKU" alleged in the complaint, be construed to meet the patent's claim limitation of a "universal product code," which the specification defines in the context of standardized, industry-wide codes like UPCs?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system's method of directing a user to a third-party retailer's website constitute the "returning [of] a redirection message" as required by Claim 1, or does it operate via a different technical mechanism that falls outside the claim's scope as informed by the patent's specific examples of HTTP redirects?