DCT
1:18-cv-00836
Groove Digital Inc v. Kingcom Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Groove Digital, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: King.com, Ltd. (Malta); King.com Inc. (Delaware); King.com (US) LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP; Butzel Long
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00836, D. Del., 06/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants transact business in the district and are subject to personal jurisdiction. Two of the three defendant entities are incorporated in Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile gaming applications infringe a patent related to systems for delivering targeted, non-disruptive content to a user's networked device.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for delivering content, such as advertisements or in-app offers, through application-based notifications, a foundational technology for monetization and user engagement in the mobile software market.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit resulted from an application that was in prosecution for over ten years and overcame a patent-eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent was the subject of two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The IPRs concluded with the cancellation of claims 14-35 and 37, while confirming the patentability of claims 1-13 and 36. This outcome significantly narrows the scope of the asserted claims from the 37 claims originally identified in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-03-18 | '762 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-09-27 | '762 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-06-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2018-10-17 | IPR2019-00050 Filed |
| 2018-11-08 | IPR2019-00193 Filed |
| 2022-01-31 | IPR Certificate Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,762 - "System and Method for the Delivery of Content to a Networked Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,454,762, "System and Method for the Delivery of Content to a Networked Device," issued September 27, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of online advertising in the early 2000s as being dominated by intrusive methods like pop-up windows and unsolicited "SPAM" email. It also notes that existing notification systems, such as AOL's Instant Messenger alerts, were generally tied to a single application's primary function (e.g., a buddy signing on) and not used for delivering ancillary, targeted content. (’971 Patent, col. 1:12-col. 2:51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that delivers content via a small software "applet" that is "passively or invasively delivered directly into the system tray of the user." This applet can display targeted information without interrupting the user's primary task. The system architecture involves databases that store user information and content criteria, and a microprocessor that compares the two to determine whether to deploy the applet. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:35-41).
- Technical Importance: The technology is presented as a "non-invasive, passive system" for creating a "direct to consumer linkage" that avoids the disruptive nature of prior advertising methods. (Compl. ¶14; ’971 Patent, col. 6:12-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-37 of the '762 Patent. Post-IPR, the surviving independent claims are 1 and 36. (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1, a system claim, requires:
- A microprocessor running a software application for delivering and managing an "applet application" that "passively deploys one or more applets."
- The applet application displays content in a "predetermined portion of a user display that is less than an entire display."
- The applet is configured to deploy "independent of or in conjunction with an internet browser window."
- An "internet browser is configured to deploy subsequent to deployment of the one or more applets based on at least one action or inaction of the user."
- At least one applet is configured to "become idle upon deployment of the internet browser."
- The deployment is such that the user can "continue to operate the networked device" in its prior state.
- A first database stores user information, and a second database includes information for comparison.
- The microprocessor compares the information from the two databases to determine whether to transmit the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are mobile electronic games, specifically "Candy Crush Saga, Candy Crush Soda Saga, and Bubble Witch 2 Saga" (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are configured to deliver information such as "upgrades, in-app purchases, or promotional material" to users. (Compl. ¶19).
- This delivery is allegedly accomplished by "passively deploying push notifications that display content by opening a notification window in a predesignated location on the game player's device." (Compl. ¶19).
- The delivery is allegedly triggered when the system's "comparison of information contained in multiple databases meets predetermined criteria." (Compl. ¶19).
- It is further alleged that the delivery of these notifications "does not interrupt the game player's interaction with the device." (Compl. ¶19).
- The complaint notes the games are distributed through major platforms including the king.com website, Apple's App Store, the Google Play store, and Facebook. (Compl. ¶9).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,454,762 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a microprocessor running a software application for delivering an applet application... wherein the applet application passively deploys one or more applets... | The Accused Products are software games that deliver information by "passively deploying push notifications." | ¶19 | col. 3:35-41 |
| wherein the applet application provides for... a display of the content in a predetermined portion of a user display that is less than an entire display... | The push notifications "display content by opening a notification window in a predesignated location on the game player's device." | ¶19 | col. 13:17-21 |
| wherein an internet browser is configured to deploy subsequent to deployment of the one or more applets based on at least one action or inaction of the user... | The Accused Products are "configured to deliver additional content to the game player based on the game player's response (or lack of a response) to the push notification." | ¶19 | col. 13:22-26 |
| wherein at least one of the applets is configured to become idle upon deployment of the internet browser... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 13:26-29 | |
| wherein the deployment... is such that... the user can continue to operate the networked device in a state prior to the deployment... | The "delivery of a push notification does not interrupt the game player's interaction with the device." | ¶19 | col. 6:27-31 |
| a first database... storing a first set of information relating to the user; and a second database... for comparison... wherein the microprocessor compares the first set... to the second set... | Delivery is triggered when a "comparison of information contained in multiple databases meets predetermined criteria for the delivery of a push notification." | ¶19 | col. 13:36-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether a modern "push notification" on a mobile operating system falls within the scope of the term "applet" as described in the patent. The patent's specification frequently describes the "applet" in a 2005-era desktop computing context, deploying from a "system tray" onto a "virtual desktop," which may raise questions about its applicability to a smartphone interface. (’971 Patent, col. 3:1-7, col. 5:17-19).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that tapping a notification leads to "additional content," but it does not specify whether this action constitutes the deployment of an "internet browser" that, in turn, causes the initial notification ("applet") to "become idle", as required by the claim. The plaintiff will need to present evidence demonstrating this specific sequence of operations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "applet"
Context and Importance: The definition of "applet" is central to the dispute. The case's outcome may depend on whether this term, originating in a desktop context, can be construed to cover modern mobile push notifications.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the "applet application" as providing for the "display of information on the networked device," which could be read broadly. (’971 Patent, Abstract). The term itself is a general term of art in software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, describing the "applet" as deploying from a "system tray," being "roughly 1.5×1.5 in. area," and appearing on a "computer virtual desktop." (’971 Patent, col. 3:1-7; col. 5:23-26). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to the desktop environment described.
The Term: "internet browser"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a specific interaction sequence involving the deployment of an "internet browser". Whether the functionality triggered by a user's interaction with a push notification qualifies as deploying an "internet browser" will be a critical point of infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to encompass any software component that renders web-based content, including the in-application web views commonly used in modern mobile apps to display external content without leaving the app.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to a "micro-browser" that launches "onto the virtual desk top." (’971 Patent, col. 3:58-61). A party could argue this points to a distinct, separate window or application, rather than an integrated web view within the primary application.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant "widely publicizing its Accused Products" and providing instructions that encourage infringing use. (Compl. ¶25). It also alleges contributory infringement by providing the necessary software, which is claimed to be a non-staple article of commerce specifically designed for infringement. (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of infringement obtained upon service of the complaint, limiting the claim to post-filing conduct. (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "applet", which is described in the patent's 2005-era specification in the context of a desktop PC's "system tray," be construed to cover the "push notifications" utilized by the accused modern mobile gaming applications?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused functionality, where a user interacts with a push notification, perform the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 1? Specifically, does the evidence show that user interaction deploys an "internet browser" that in turn causes the initial notification to "become idle", or is there a mismatch in the claimed and actual sequence of operations?