DCT
1:17-cv-01190
Pherah LLC v. Weebly Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pherah LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Weebly, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01190, D. Del., 08/23/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website building software and associated e-commerce tools infringe a reissued patent related to systems for managing and organizing product sales information.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves database systems for managing complex, interrelated product information, such as specifications, pricing, and marketing data, in a structured, hierarchical manner.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE44,652, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,547. The process of reissuing a patent can introduce claim amendments and arguments that may be relevant to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-09-10 | Priority Date for RE44,652 Patent |
| 2002-08-20 | Issue Date for Original U.S. Patent No. 6,438,547 |
| 2013-12-17 | Issue Date for Reissued RE44,652 Patent |
| 2017-08-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,652 - "Computer-Readable Data Product For Managing Sales Information"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges faced by corporations where product information is generated and used by many different departments. This decentralization can lead to redundant data, inconsistencies when information is updated, and difficulty managing the complex relationships between different data items (e.g., pricing, technical specifications, marketing content). (’652 Patent, col. 2:23-42, 63-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer system for managing this "product knowledge" through a flexible, user-defined structure. It uses a "data model" that defines relationships between different "data categories." Users can then input specific "data instances" (e.g., a specific product's price) and define relationships between them, creating a hierarchical knowledge base. This organized information is then presented to the user through a graphical user interface (GUI) that reflects the defined hierarchy, such as the tree-like structure shown in Figure 18. (’652 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:36-51).
- Technical Importance: The invention sought to provide a more powerful and user-friendly tool for managing a centralized "data warehouse" by allowing users to define and navigate complex data relationships, overcoming the rigidity of prior database management tools. (’652 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 24.
- The essential elements of independent claim 24 include:
- A non-transitory computer program product implementing a method for managing product knowledge.
- Defining a data model that establishes relationships between a plurality of data categories.
- Receiving particular data items corresponding to the data categories.
- Receiving user-defined relationship information that relates the particular data items to each other.
- Presenting the product knowledge to a user in a GUI view that defines a hierarchy of the data items from a designated starting point.
- The data model is constructed from "data instance items" interconnected by the "user-defined relationship information."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "The Weebly software," a service for building websites, as described at https://www.weebly.com. (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on the e-commerce functionalities of the Weebly software. It alleges the software allows users to manage product information for online stores by:
- Defining a data model for categories like "Product, Coupon, Order, etc." (Compl. ¶10).
- Receiving specific data items from the user, such as "Product name, SKU, Category, Product description." (Compl. ¶11).
- Allowing users to define relationships between data items, such as relating an "Inventory" data item to a "Quantity" data item. (Compl. ¶12).
- Presenting this information back to the user in a dashboard that allegedly constitutes a "hierarchal structure." (Compl. ¶13).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE44,652 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| defining a data model for a plurality of data categories, the data model establishing relationships between data categories | The Weebly software allows a user to define a data model for categories (e.g., Product, Coupon, Order) and establish relationships between them. | ¶10 | col. 18:9-11 |
| receiving in the computer system a plurality of particular data items corresponding to the plurality of data categories | The software receives particular data items (e.g., Product name, SKU, Category) corresponding to the defined categories from the user. | ¶11 | col. 18:12-15 |
| receiving user-defined relationship information for the plurality of particular data items, the relationship information relating each of the plurality of particular data items to another... | The software allows users to define relationship information between data items (e.g., relating Inventory to Quantity). | ¶12 | col. 18:16-20 |
| presenting the product knowledge... in a selected graphical user interface view defining a hierarchy of the data items from a designated starting point within the hierarchy | The Weebly system presents product information in a "hierarchal structure whereas categories contain certain items and those item contain item data, and so on." | ¶13 | col. 18:21-27 |
| wherein the data model is constructed from a plurality of data instance items interconnected using the user-defined relationship items... each data instance item being an input that corresponds to one or more of the data categories | The system presents a data model (e.g., Inventory table) constructed from data instance items (e.g., SKU, Price) that are inputs corresponding to data categories. | ¶14 | col. 18:28-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent’s examples depict a complex enterprise system for managing data like automotive components (e.g., ’652 Patent, Fig. 18). A central question may be whether the term "data model" as used in the patent can be read on the arguably simpler product data organization features of a consumer-facing website builder like Weebly.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are framed in general terms. A key technical question will be whether the Weebly software’s functionality meets the specific claim limitations. For example, does the Weebly dashboard present a navigable "hierarchy... from a designated starting point" in the manner described and claimed by the patent, or is it a more conventional database display that may not map to the claim language?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "data model"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the asserted claim. The outcome of the case may depend on whether its definition is broad enough to cover the accused product's architecture or is limited to the specific object-oriented environment detailed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term functionally as something that "establish[es] relationships between data categories." (’652 Patent, col. 18:10-11). Plaintiff may argue this general language covers any system that organizes data into related categories, such as the "Product" and "Order" categories alleged to exist in the Weebly software. (Compl. ¶10).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention in the context of an "object-oriented programming (OOP) environment" where relationships are represented by "pointers." (’652 Patent, col. 5:36-42). The detailed figures, such as Fig. 18, illustrate a specific, multi-level object hierarchy. Defendant may argue these descriptions limit the term "data model" to this more complex, pointer-based implementation.
The Term: "hierarchy of the data items"
- Context and Importance: The "presenting" step requires displaying a specific type of "hierarchy." Whether the accused Weebly interface presents such a hierarchy is a critical infringement question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this is met by a general structure where "categories contain certain items and those item contain item data." (Compl. ¶13). This could be argued to describe any nested data structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes presenting information in a "tree-like structure" (e.g., GUI 400 in Fig. 4) that allows a user to navigate between levels using expansion and collapse buttons. (’652 Patent, col. 7:26-34). A court may be asked to decide if the term requires this specific type of navigable, tree-view interface, as opposed to a simple list or table of categorized products.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "data model", which is described in the patent specification within the context of complex, object-oriented enterprise systems, be construed to cover the product and order management architecture of a consumer-grade e-commerce platform?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: Does the Weebly software’s user interface actually present a navigable "hierarchy of the data items" as required by Claim 24, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the technical operation of the accused interface and the specific hierarchical presentation detailed in the patent?
An underlying legal question will concern the impact of the patent's reissue history: To what extent did the prosecution of the reissue application, which resulted in the asserted Claim 24, narrow the scope of the claims and potentially create arguments of prosecution history estoppel that could limit Plaintiff's infringement theories?