DCT
1:18-cv-00178
Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Spider Search Analytics LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00178, D. Del., 01/30/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of web crawler technology, specifically the Adobe Analytics platform, infringes a patent related to methods for building a web crawler using "crystallization points" and "breadth-first recursive crawling."
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated methods for discovering and indexing web pages, particularly content on the "deep web" that is not easily accessible to traditional search engines.
- 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 |
|---|---|
| 2004-06-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,454,430 |
| 2008-11-18 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,454,430 |
| 2018-01-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,454,430 - "System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,454,430, "System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents," issued November 18, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of conventional keyword-based search engines, which struggle to answer aggregated questions (e.g., "How many companies hired a chief privacy officer in the last two years?") and have difficulty indexing dynamically generated content from the "Deep Web" (’430 Patent, col. 2:1-12; col. 4:55-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system for crawling the web to extract facts and build a structured knowledge repository. A core component of this system is a method for web crawling that begins with a defined set of starting URLs, termed "crystallization points," and then systematically explores links from those points using techniques such as "breadth-first recursive crawling" to discover relevant pages ('430 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4; col. 12:36-41).
- Technical Importance: The described technology represents an approach to move beyond simple document indexing toward a more sophisticated, fact-based understanding of information on the internet, enabling more powerful data analysis and business intelligence applications ('430 Patent, col. 23:36-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶24).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A method for crawling the internet to locate pages relevant to an application and thus building a Web Crawler
- starting from a base set of application-dependent web pages or crystallization points
- applying breadth-first recursive crawling
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its allegation of infringement of "at least claim 1" suggests this possibility ('Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant's use of the "Adobe Analytics" web crawler ('Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant uses Adobe Analytics as a method for crawling the internet to build a web crawler ('Compl. ¶18). This method is alleged to be capable of crawling websites from the "deep web" and those using AJAX for dynamic pages ('Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a screenshot from an Adobe Customer Story detailing Lenovo's use of the Adobe Marketing Cloud, which includes the accused "Adobe Analytics" product, to "maximize effectiveness of its digital marketing strategy" ('Compl. p. 5). The specific accused functionality includes starting from "a base set of application-dependent web pages or crystallization points" and applying "breadth-first recursive crawling" ('Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’430 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for crawling the internet to locate pages relevant to an application and thus building a Web Crawler | Defendant is alleged to use the Adobe Analytics web crawler for the purpose of locating relevant pages and building a web crawler as part of its digital marketing strategy ('Compl. p. 5). | ¶18 | col. 1:16-21 |
| starting from a base set of application-dependent web pages or crystallization points; and | Defendant is alleged to start its crawling process from a base set of web pages, which the complaint equates to "crystallization points." This is supported by a citation to an Adobe help document describing "URL entry points" for its web crawler. | ¶19, fn. 2 | col. 12:36-39 |
| applying breadth-first recursive crawling. | Defendant is alleged to apply "breadth-first recursive crawling." This is supported by a citation to an Adobe help document related to "changing the order that pre-search rules run," which Plaintiff implicitly characterizes as performing the claimed crawling method. | ¶19, fn. 3 | col. 13:30-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be whether the term "crystallization points," as defined and used in the patent, can be construed to read on the "URL entry points" feature of the accused Adobe Analytics product. The defense may argue that "crystallization points" implies a more specific, curated set of starting URLs for a focused application than the general-purpose entry points of a commercial analytics tool.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is whether the functionality described in the Adobe help document cited by Plaintiff—concerning the order of "pre-search rules"—actually constitutes "breadth-first recursive crawling" as required by the claim and described in the patent specification. The complaint does not provide technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused product explores all links from a page before moving to the next level, as is characteristic of a breadth-first search.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "crystallization points"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be a neologism created by the patentee and is central to the asserted independent claim. The infringement case hinges on whether the "URL entry points" of the accused Adobe Analytics product fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether the accused product's basic operation can meet a core limitation of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification introduces the term by stating "a set of initial URL's ('crystallization points' or CPs)" are defined ('430 Patent, col. 12:36-37). This could support an interpretation where any pre-defined starting URL for a web crawler is a "crystallization point."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as "the Urls of Fortune 10,000 companies' web sites and 1000 business publications' websites," suggesting that CPs are starting points for a crawl focused on a particular application domain, like business intelligence ('430 Patent, col. 13:9-13). This could support a narrower construction requiring more than just a generic starting URL.
The Term: "breadth-first recursive crawling"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the specific manner of web crawling required by the claim. The plaintiff's allegation relies on equating this term with a feature for ordering "pre-search rules" in the accused product. The technical accuracy of this comparison will be a critical point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "breadth-first" has a well-understood meaning in computer science, and a party could argue for this plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides its own definition, stating "the crawl is done breadth first, meaning that all links from a particular page are first explored then each one of them is used as a starting point for the next step" ('430 Patent, col. 13:30-34). A party could argue that the accused product's rule-based system does not perform this specific, exhaustive exploration of all links at each level.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts are for direct infringement ('Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24). While it makes a passing reference to Defendant's "customers" using the products, it does not plead specific facts required to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement ('Compl. ¶6).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" ('Compl. ¶23). This allegation appears to be a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge or willfulness are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent-specific term "crystallization points", which the patent illustrates with curated lists for business intelligence, be construed to cover the generic "URL entry points" feature of a commercial web analytics product?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused Adobe Analytics functionality for ordering "pre-search rules," as referenced in the complaint's limited evidence, actually perform the specific "breadth-first recursive crawling" method required by claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- A third question concerns pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's reliance on high-level marketing documents and help files rather than detailed technical analysis, the case may face early challenges regarding whether the infringement allegations are plausible enough to proceed to discovery.