DCT
1:17-cv-01320
Lexos Media IP LLC v. TJX Companies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lexos Media IP, LLC (Plano, Texas)
- Defendant: The TJX Companies, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01320, D. Del., 12/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in the district where a portion of the alleged infringements occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to methods and systems for modifying a computer cursor image based on website content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamically altering a user's cursor icon for advertising or user interface enhancement, a technique for increasing user engagement in online environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff’s agent sent a letter notifying Defendant of the patents-in-suit on June 27, 2017. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. For U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102, asserted claim 73 was cancelled while asserted claim 72 was found patentable. For U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449, asserted claims 1 and 53 were both found patentable. The complaint’s assertion of a since-cancelled claim raises a procedural question.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-25 | Priority Date for '102 and '449 Patents |
| 1999-11-30 | U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 Issued |
| 2000-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 Issued |
| 2017-06-27 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2017-12-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 - "Server System and Method for Modifying a Cursor Image", Issued Nov. 30, 1999
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional online advertising, such as banner and frame ads, as being passive and easily ignored by users, while more aggressive methods like self-appearing windows generate user resentment (’102 Patent, col. 1:11-2:32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using the computer cursor—an element of constant user focus—as a medium for advertising or enhanced interaction. A server transmits content (e.g., a webpage) containing "cursor display instructions" to a user's terminal. These instructions cause a "cursor display code" on the user's machine to modify the standard cursor icon into a "specific image" that relates to the displayed content, such as a brand logo (’102 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-40). The architecture is illustrated in the client-server diagram of Figure 2 (’102 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The technology offered a novel approach to online branding that was more dynamic than static banners but less intrusive than pop-up advertisements by integrating the branded message directly into the user’s primary point of interaction (’102 Patent, col. 4:51-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claims 72 and 73, and dependent claim 71 (Compl. ¶17). As noted, claim 73 was subsequently cancelled in an IPR proceeding.
- Essential elements of independent claim 72 include:
- receiving a request at a server for specified content information.
- providing the content, which includes a cursor display instruction and an indication of cursor image data.
- transforming an initial cursor image into a specific image in response to the instruction, where the transformation is responsive to the cursor’s movement over the displayed content.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 - "Server System and Method for Modifying a Cursor Image", Issued Sep. 12, 2000
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’102 patent, the ’449 patent addresses the same problem of ineffective or annoying online advertising (’449 Patent, col. 1:10-2:35).
- The Patented Solution: The ’449 patent describes the same solution: a server-driven system for modifying a user's cursor image to correspond with online content, thereby creating a more engaging and less obtrusive interactive experience (’449 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:14-39). The technical disclosure is substantially the same as that of the ’102 Patent.
- Technical Importance: This patent continues the same technical contribution as its parent, solidifying the concept of leveraging the cursor for dynamic, content-aware user interaction (’449 Patent, col. 4:54-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 53 (Compl. ¶21). Both claims survived a subsequent IPR challenge.
- Essential elements of independent claim 53 include:
- receiving a request at a server for specified content.
- providing the content, including a cursor display instruction and an indication of cursor image data.
- transforming an initial cursor image into a specific image responsive to the instruction, where the specific image has a shape relating to the displayed information and the transformation is responsive to cursor movement over that information.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the systems and methods used by Defendant's website, "tjmaxx.tjx.com", and its associated servers and code (Compl. ¶18, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The infringement allegations focus on the product image zoom feature on Defendant's e-commerce website. When a user navigates to a product page and hovers their pointing device over the main product image, a rectangular "zoom box" appears and moves in correspondence with the pointing device (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). A magnified portion of the image corresponding to the location of the zoom box is simultaneously displayed in an adjacent window (Compl. ¶18). The complaint provides an annotated screenshot illustrating this functionality, identifying the zoom box and magnified view as the "Specific Image / Modified Cursor Image" (Compl. p. 7). This type of zoom functionality is a common feature in online retail, intended to allow customers to inspect product details more closely and improve the shopping experience.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’102 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 72) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for modifying an initial cursor image... comprising: receiving a request at said at least one server to provide specified content information to said user terminal; | A user's web browser requests a product page from Defendant's server. | ¶18 | col. 10:25-29 |
| providing said specified content information to said user terminal in response to said request, said specified content information including at least one cursor display instruction and at least one indication of cursor image data corresponding to a specific image; | Defendant's server transmits the product page HTML, which includes instructions and image data for the zoom functionality. The complaint identifies this as including "cursor display instruction" and "cursor image data" for the magnified view. | ¶18 | col. 9:1-19 |
| and transforming said initial cursor image displayed on said display of said user terminal into the shape and appearance of said specific image in response to said cursor display instruction... responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The complaint alleges that the user's initial cursor is "transformed" into the "box that reveals the true color of a zoom-able image." This box moves over the product image as the user moves their mouse, and an exploded view appears to the side. A screenshot shows this interactive zoom feature in operation (Compl. p. 8). | ¶18 | col. 14:36-44; 17:5-14 |
’449 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 53) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for modifying an initial cursor image... comprising: receiving a request at said at least one server to provide specified content information to said user terminal; | A user's browser sends a request to Defendant's web server for a product page (Compl. p. 13). | ¶22 | col. 10:25-29 |
| providing said specified content information... including at least one cursor display instruction and at least one indication of cursor image data...; | Defendant's server responds by transmitting the content for the product page, which the complaint alleges includes "cursor display instruction" and "cursor image data" for implementing the zoom-able image feature (Compl. p. 14). | ¶22 | col. 9:1-19 |
| and transforming said initial cursor image... into the shape and appearance of said specific image... responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information... and wherein said specific image has a shape and appearance relating to said information to be displayed. | The complaint alleges the initial cursor is transformed into the zoom box, which moves with the user's input device over the product image. The complaint asserts that the "specific image" (the zoom box and magnified view) has an appearance "relating... to said information to be displayed" (the underlying product). An annotated screenshot identifies the "Corresponding information" being displayed alongside the "Specific Image" (Compl. p. 16). | ¶22 | col. 14:36-44; 17:5-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "cursor image," as understood in the patents, can be construed to read on the accused "zoom box." The patents' primary embodiments describe replacing the standard system pointer (e.g., an arrow) with a new image (e.g., a "Fizzy Cola" bottle) (’102 Patent, col. 17:6-14). The accused functionality, however, appears to display the zoom box in addition to the user's standard cursor, which remains visible inside the box, raising a question about whether the accused feature is a modification of the cursor or a separate graphical element associated with it.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of what evidence supports the allegation that the accused website's standard JavaScript and HTML code for the zoom feature performs the function of the claimed "cursor display code." The patents describe this code as a distinct component (e.g., an ActiveX control or plug-in) that interacts with the operating system's API to modify the system-level cursor display (’102 Patent, col. 8:46-59), which may present a functional distinction from browser-level scripting.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cursor image"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case rests on the construction of this term. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused zoom box, which appears as an overlay while the original pointer remains, qualifies as a modified "cursor image." Practitioners may focus on this term because the factual difference between replacing a pointer and adding an overlay is a primary point of potential non-infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the invention is not limited to the standard pointer, stating "there should be no limitation to the size of the cursor" and that the invention can be enhanced by "sprites, which can appear and disappear as desired... outside the limited cursor 'space'" (’102 Patent, col. 17:25-31). This language could support an argument that the zoom box is a type of "sprite" or associated graphical element that falls within the scope of a modified "cursor image."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s most prominent examples describe a direct replacement of the standard pointer, such as changing an arrow to a "Fizzy Cola" bottle or a baseball bat (’102 Patent, col. 17:6-14, 17:32-35). The figures likewise depict a wholesale change of the cursor icon (e.g., cursor 44a in Fig. 8 is a bottle, not an arrow with a bottle). This could support a narrower construction where "cursor image" refers exclusively to the primary pointing icon itself.
The Term: "transforming said initial cursor image"
- Context and Importance: This term is inextricably linked to "cursor image." Its definition will determine whether "transforming" requires a replacement of the original cursor or if it can encompass the addition of a new, associated graphical element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to "modify" or "change" the cursor's appearance (’102 Patent, col. 3:5-13). An argument could be made that adding a functionally linked overlay that moves with the pointer fundamentally "modifies" or "transforms" the user's cursor-based interaction with the screen.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "transforming said initial cursor image... into the shape and appearance of said specific image" suggests a metamorphosis of the original object into a new one, rather than the accompaniment of the original object by a new one. This phrasing may support a construction requiring replacement.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint's formal counts are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶17, ¶21). It does not contain separate counts for indirect or induced infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of June 27, 2017, due to a letter sent to its General Counsel, and that Defendant did not respond (Compl. ¶3). This allegation forms the basis for a potential willfulness claim. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with an intent to pursue enhanced damages or attorney's fees (Compl. p. 18, ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cursor image," rooted in patent examples that show a wholesale replacement of the system pointer, be construed to cover the accused "zoom box," a graphical overlay that appears in addition to the user's still-visible pointer?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the standard JavaScript that creates the accused zoom feature function as the "cursor display code" claimed in the patents, which the specification describes as a specific component (like an ActiveX control) that interacts with the operating system API to modify the system-level cursor?
- An initial procedural question for the court will be how to address the complaint's continued assertion of Claim 73 of the '102 patent, which was cancelled in an IPR proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed.