Digi Portal LLC v. Twitter Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Twitter, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00808, D. Del., 05/29/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s method for generating a user's Twitter home page and Timeline infringes a patent related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses server-side methods for efficiently generating personalized web content for many simultaneous users, a foundational challenge in the growth of the large-scale, personalized internet.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was originally assigned to Yahoo! Inc. and claims priority back to a 1997 application. The complaint notes that the invention was presented during prosecution as an "unconventional" improvement over the prior art and that the patent family has been cited during the prosecution of over 700 patents owned by major technology companies.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 8, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior methods for generating customized web pages were inefficient and did not scale well ('854 Patent, col. 1:42-43). Methods that dynamically polled multiple data sources for each user request created significant delays, while methods that pre-streamed custom information to a user's local device clogged networks and resulted in outdated content ('854 Patent, col. 1:47-58, 1:62-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first generates a "user template" from a global template and a specific user's saved preferences ("user configuration record") ('854 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:58-62). This user-specific template, containing placeholders for live data, is then stored. The storage location (e.g., a high-speed cache or a slower database) is determined based on how frequently the user accesses their page ('854 Patent, col. 6:49-59). To fulfill a user's request, a page generator retrieves the stored user template and populates it with fresh data (e.g., stock quotes, news headlines) to quickly assemble and serve the final customized web page ('854 Patent, col. 4:1-11).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to provide highly scalable, personalized web experiences by minimizing redundant processing and network requests, a critical step in enabling services like personalized news portals to serve millions of users efficiently (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page;
  • Receiving a user-unique "template program" that is based on user-supplied configuration information (which includes demographic information);
  • The template program is received from one of at least two locations, where the location is determined by the frequency of the user's requests;
  • Receiving an advertisement selected based on the user's demographic information;
  • Executing the template program with the advertisement to generate the customized page; and
  • Providing the customized page to the user.
• The complaint's prayer for relief suggests the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl. p. 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the method implemented by Twitter for generating a user's home page and Timeline (Compl. ¶27).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that when a user requests their Twitter page, the system generates a customized Timeline based on "user configuration information" that the user supplies, such as their interests, location, and the accounts they follow (Compl. ¶29). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user prompt asking, "What are you interested in?" to gather this information (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges this configuration data includes demographic information like location and age, which is then used to select targeted advertisements (Compl. ¶¶30, 33). The system is alleged to retrieve user data from either a main server or a cache server, depending on the user's recent activity, and then provides the final, customized page with integrated advertisements to the user (Compl. ¶¶32, 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'854 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question is whether Twitter’s modern content generation process constitutes a "template program" as that term is used in the patent. The patent's specification describes this element as a specific type of HTML file with placeholders ('854 Patent, Fig. 3), raising the question of whether Twitter's more dynamic data-assembly method falls within the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the choice of storage location (cache vs. main server) is specifically "determined from the frequency of the user request," as required by the claim? The complaint cites general descriptions of Twitter's caching architecture, but the link between individual user access frequency and the specific storage location decision may be a point of dispute (Compl. ¶32).
• Scope Questions: The claim requires the "user configuration information" to include "user demographic information." It is an open question whether the user-selected interests and followed accounts alleged in the complaint satisfy this limitation, which the patent specification exemplifies with data such as sex, age, and zip code ('854 Patent, col. 5:42-45).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "template program"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental. The infringement case rests on whether Twitter's system for assembling a user's Timeline can be characterized as receiving and executing a "template program." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the claim, rooted in late-1990s web architecture, can read on modern, service-oriented content delivery systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a specific format like HTML. One could argue it broadly covers any set of user-specific instructions and data structures used as a basis for generating a final page ('854 Patent, col. 7:33-38).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only detailed embodiment describes the "template program" as an HTML document with specific placeholder tags that is generated from a "global front page template" ('854 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 5:16-19). This specific disclosure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such a structure.

• The Term: "location determined from the frequency of the user request"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires a causal link between how often a user requests a page and where their "template program" is stored. Proving this specific decision logic, beyond just the existence of a general caching system, is critical for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification distinguishes between storage for "infrequent users" (user configuration database) and "frequent users" (cache), suggesting a general, frequency-based policy is what was contemplated ('854 Patent, col. 6:51-59).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the location to be "determined from" the frequency. This phrasing could be argued to require a more active, analytical determination of frequency, rather than the passive result of a standard Least Recently Used (LRU) or similar generic caching algorithm that does not explicitly model a user's access frequency.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the term "template program," which the patent describes as a pre-generated file with placeholders, be construed to cover the dynamic, on-demand content assembly process allegedly used by Twitter's modern Timeline generation system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of causality: does the complaint’s evidence, which relies on general descriptions of Twitter’s caching architecture, sufficiently demonstrate that the storage location for user data is specifically "determined from the frequency of the user request," as mandated by the claim, or does it merely show a generic caching mechanism?
• A final question will be one of definitional sufficiency: does the "user configuration information" in the Twitter system (e.g., topics of interest) meet the claim's specific requirement of including "user demographic information," and is there sufficient evidence that advertisements are selected according to this specific data type as claimed?