DCT
1:17-cv-01257
Flash3d LLC v. Facebook Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flash3D LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01257, D. Del., 09/01/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook website infringes three patents related to web browsing methods that contemporaneously display multiple web pages within a single user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in web navigation by providing an interface that can display past, current, and potential future web pages simultaneously in different panels within a single browser window.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit, particularly the '855 patent, were cited during the prosecution of numerous patent applications owned by major technology companies, including Defendant Facebook. This history is cited to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-04 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,313,855; 7,546,538; 7,624,348 |
| 2001-11-06 | U.S. Patent No. 6,313,855 Issued |
| 2009-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,546,538 Issued |
| 2009-11-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,624,348 Issued |
| 2015-07-23 | Alleged date of Facebook’s knowledge of the '855 patent |
| 2017-09-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,546,538 - "System and Method for Web Browsing," Issued June 9, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of conventional web browsers typically allowing only one web page to be displayed at a time, forcing users to manually open, resize, and switch between multiple browser instances to view pages contemporaneously (Compl. ¶7; ’538 Patent, col. 1:53-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for displaying multiple web pages together in a single window, organized into separate "panels" (Compl. ¶6; ’538 Patent, col. 5:49-52). A central concept is the simultaneous display of a "current web page" in one panel and another related web page (e.g., a "future" page accessible via a hyperlink) in a second panel, with the entire system potentially implemented as a navigable, three-dimensional "browsing room" (’538 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve web navigation by providing a user with immediate visual context for both browsing history and potential future navigation paths, streamlining the user experience (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶9).
- Claim 18 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- rendering, in a first panel, a current web page from current web page data using a first instance of a web browsing engine;
- receiving a reference to a first web page;
- in response to receiving the reference, requesting first web page data using the reference;
- receiving the first web page data;
- rendering the first web page in a second panel using a second instance of the web browsing engine;
- wherein the first panel and the second panel are contemporaneously viewable by a user.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims by stating infringement of "at least claim 18" (Compl. ¶9).
U.S. Patent No. 7,624,348 - "System and Method for Web Browsing," Issued November 24, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problem as its related patents: the inefficiency of conventional browsers that can only render a single web page at any given time (Compl. ¶19; ’348 Patent, col. 1:45-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the browser system automatically acts on a reference (e.g., a hyperlink) found within the data of a first web page to request and render a second web page in a separate panel (Compl. ¶18; ’348 Patent, col. 4:19-29). This allows a user to see both the original page and the linked-to page at the same time without further user action ('348 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: By automatically fetching and displaying content from hyperlinks, the invention aimed to give users a "preview" of linked content, reducing the uncertainty and time associated with clicking on unknown links (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15 (Compl. ¶21).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- requesting and receiving first web page data that includes a reference to second web page data;
- locating the reference within the first web page data;
- automatically requesting and receiving the second web page data using that reference;
- rendering a first web page in a first panel using a first instance of a web browsing engine;
- rendering a second web page in a second panel using a second instance of a web browsing engine.
- Claim 15 is a method claim with similar elements, focusing on rendering the first page, then locating the reference and automatically requesting and rendering the second page.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 6,313,855 - "System and Method for Web Browsing," Issued November 6, 2001
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,313,855, "System and Method for Web Browsing," Issued November 6, 2001 (Compl. ¶31).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, the earliest in the asserted family, addresses the limitation of single-page web browsing by proposing a system to contemporaneously display multiple pages (Compl. ¶34; ’855 Patent, col. 1:38-46). The solution involves rendering "past," "current," and "future" web pages in distinct panels within a single window, which can be presented as "walls" in a three-dimensional "browsing room" to aid user navigation ('855 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶33).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 19 (a graphic user interface) and 25 (a method for enabling a computer) are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Facebook user interface, alleging the news feed acts as a "first panel" and the sidebar Ticker acts as a "second panel" displaying a "second web page" (Compl. ¶37, 39). The infringement theory is that Facebook makes, uses, or sells this graphic user interface (Claim 19) and transmits the necessary computer-readable code to users' browsers to implement the claimed method (Claim 25) (Compl. ¶36, 42-43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's website, www.facebook.com (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on the functionality of the Facebook homepage user interface. It alleges that the interface is divided into sections, or "panels," with the main news feed constituting a "first panel" displaying a "current web page" (Compl. ¶10, 25). The complaint identifies a sidebar element, the "Ticker," as a "second panel" that displays content from a "second web page" (Compl. ¶12, 14, 26). The complaint alleges that these panels are created from independent HTML components, referred to as "pagelets," and that the Ticker is rendered based on "href" links found in the HTML code of the main homepage (Compl. ¶11, 13, 23). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'7,546,538 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| rendering, in a first panel, a current web page from current web page data using a first instance of a web browsing engine | A user accesses their Facebook homepage, and the news feed is rendered in a main user interface area ("first panel"). | ¶10 | col. 2:15-24 |
| receiving a reference to a first web page | The HTML code for the homepage contains a link (e.g., an "href") pointing to another user's activity. | ¶11 | col. 4:62-65 |
| in response to said receiving said reference, requesting first web page data using said reference, and receiving said first web page data | Based on the link in the homepage's HTML, the browser automatically requests and receives data for a second web page, such as the content for the "Ticker." | ¶12 | col. 6:26-34 |
| rendering said first web page in a second panel using a second instance of said web browsing engine | Facebook's "pagelets," such as the Ticker, are rendered in a sidebar ("second panel") using what is alleged to be a separate "second instance" of the web browser. | ¶13 | col. 2:15-24 |
| wherein said first panel and said second panel are contemporaneously viewable by a user | The Facebook homepage and the Ticker are displayed on the same screen at the same time. | ¶14 | col. 5:49-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the scope of "web page" and "instance of a web browsing engine." Does a sidebar component like the Ticker, which displays snippets of data, constitute a separate "web page" as contemplated by the patent? Further, does a modern browser's rendering of different HTML components (e.g., "pagelets" or iframes) on a single tab constitute the use of separate "instances" of a browsing engine?
- Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the Ticker is rendered by a "second instance" of a browsing engine? The infringement theory appears to map the patent's language onto a modern, dynamic web architecture, raising the question of whether there is a mismatch between how the accused product technically operates and the specific steps required by the claims.
'7,624,348 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| in response to a user action, requesting first web page data... and receiving said first web page data including a reference to second web page data | A user navigates to Facebook's URL, and the Facebook server sends HTML code for the homepage, which contains links ("references") to other user activities. | ¶22-23 | col. 11:41-50 |
| locating said reference... in said first web page data, and automatically requesting said second web page data using said reference | The browser parses the homepage's HTML to locate a link and then automatically uses it to request associated content, such as for the Ticker sidebar. | ¶24 | col. 12:21-25 |
| rendering a first web page in a first panel... using a first instance of a web browsing engine | The main content of the Facebook homepage, such as the news feed, is rendered in a "first panel." | ¶25 | col. 12:3-8 |
| rendering a second web page in a second panel... using a second instance of the web browsing engine | The Ticker is rendered in a sidebar ("second panel"), which the complaint alleges is done by a "second instance" of the browsing engine. | ¶26 | col. 12:9-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As with the ’538 patent, the dispute may focus on whether a dynamic component like the Ticker qualifies as a "second web page" or if it is merely part of the "first web page." The interpretation of these foundational terms will be critical.
- Technical Questions: Does the Facebook platform actually "locate" a reference in the initial HTML payload and then "automatically request" the Ticker content as a distinct step? Or is the Ticker data loaded via asynchronous JavaScript calls or pushed from the server in a manner that does not map to the sequential process outlined in the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "web page"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory rests on the premise that the Facebook interface displays at least two distinct "web pages" (e.g., the news feed and the Ticker). The definition of this term is therefore fundamental to the dispute, as Defendant may argue its interface is a single, dynamic web page with multiple components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "web page data" can be in various forms, including "HTML, DHTML, XML, etc." or scripting languages, and may include various files ('855 Patent, col. 4:62-66). This could support a reading where any distinct, renderable unit of data (like an HTML document for a "pagelet") constitutes a "web page."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section contrasts the invention with conventional browsing of discrete pages, suggesting a "web page" is a complete, navigable document ('855 Patent, col. 1:47-61). The patent figures depict distinct, self-contained rectangular panels for each "web page" ('855 Patent, Fig. 2), which may support an interpretation that requires more than just a data feed in a sidebar.
The Term: "instance of a web browsing engine"
- Context and Importance: The asserted claims in the '538 and '348 patents require a "first instance" to render the first panel and a "second instance" to render the second. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation that "pagelets" are rendered in separate "instances" is a specific technical assertion that will be heavily scrutinized (Compl. ¶13, 26).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification mentions a preferred embodiment where each of the "walls" in a 3D browsing room includes "one or more instances of active conventional web browsers" ('855 Patent, col. 8:15-18). This language could be argued to support a logical, rather than strictly process-based, separation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined. A party could argue that in the context of early 2000s technology, an "instance" would be commonly understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean a separate operating system process (e.g., a new browser window), not merely a component like an iframe or a
<div>rendered by the same process within a single tab.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement of the '855 patent (Compl. ¶49). The allegations state that Defendant provides the Accused Instrumentality and "encourages customers to use" it for the infringing method (Compl. ¶51), and provides it knowing it is a material part of the invention and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the '855 patent (Compl. Count IV). The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint specifically alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the '855 patent "since at least July 23, 2015," because the patent's underlying application was cited during the prosecution of multiple patents owned by Facebook (Compl. ¶50, 54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "web page," which is rooted in the patents’ context of discrete, navigable documents, be construed to cover distinct functional components like a news feed and a sidebar ticker that are integrated into a single, dynamic social media interface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Facebook interface actually use separate "instances of a web browsing engine" to render its various components as required by the claims, or is this an attempt to map patent language onto a fundamentally different modern web architecture where a single engine renders all elements within a browser tab?
- Finally, if infringement of the '855 patent is established, a critical question will be willfulness: does the evidence of the patent being cited during the prosecution of Facebook’s own patent applications prove pre-suit knowledge sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement?