DCT
1:18-cv-00937
RetailMeNot Inc v. Honey Science LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RetailMeNot, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Honey Science Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00937, D. Del., 06/25/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and browser extensions for finding and applying online promotional codes infringe four patents related to facilitating, tracking, and applying electronic offers in a web browser environment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for simplifying the use of online coupons for consumers, primarily by overcoming browser security features that traditionally separate content and data from different web domains.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The asserted patents are related, with U.S. Patent No. 9,626,688 stemming from a 2009 priority application, while the other three patents claim priority to a common 2012 application and share a common specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-08-07 | ’688 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-01-01 | Honey Founded |
| 2012-06-28 | ’853, ’335, and ’769 Patents Priority Date |
| 2017-04-18 | ’688 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-05-02 | ’853 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-04-24 | ’335 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-05-08 | ’769 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-06-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,626,688 - "Method and system for facilitating access to a promotional offer"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical difficulties and cumbersome user experience associated with redeeming online promotional offers, which are exacerbated by web browser security features like "sandboxing" (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15). These security features prevent automated interactions between a coupon-providing website and a merchant's website, forcing users to manually copy codes and navigate through potentially complex affiliate tracking links (Compl. ¶15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user's selection of an offer on a content-sharing website triggers a script (associated with a "flash object or other object") that automatically copies the promotional code to the user's clipboard ('688 Patent, Abstract). Simultaneously, the system automatically directs the user's browser through a third-party tracking server to the merchant's website, streamlining both the coupon redemption and the affiliate commission tracking process (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17; ’688 Patent, col. 7:40-8:3).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to increase offer redemption rates and affiliate commissions by automating a multi-step manual process, thereby reducing user effort and navigational errors (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 65).
- Key elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system with a content-sharing website server that receives requests for and sends web content items to a client device.
- The client device executes instructions to display a web page with a content item.
- The content item comprises a display portion with a coupon code overlaid with a "flash object or other object" having an associated script to copy characters to the clipboard.
- Upon a user selecting the object, the system automatically copies the coupon code from a secure sandbox to the clipboard.
- The system then sends a second request to the content-sharing server, which responds with a URL for a third-party tracking server.
- The client device is directed to the third-party server, which in turn directs the client to the merchant ("content author") website.
- The coupon code remains in the clipboard for the user to paste into a field on the merchant website.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,639,853 - "Devices, methods, and computer-readable media for redemption header for merchant offers"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "same-origin policy" in modern web browsers as a technical barrier (Compl. ¶24). This security feature prevents a script from a first domain (e.g., an offer-discovery site) from accessing or modifying a webpage from a second domain (e.g., a merchant's checkout page), meaning users might forget they have a relevant coupon when it is time to make a purchase (Compl. ¶24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses client-side browser storage (e.g., cookies) to overcome this limitation. After a user selects an offer on an "offers webpage," an "offer identifier" is stored in the browser's local memory ('853 Patent, col. 16:5-11). When the browser later navigates to the associated merchant's webpage, client-side script determines that the identifier is present in local storage and, in response, injects a "redemption bar" into the merchant's page to display the offer information directly at the point of purchase (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26; ’853 Patent, col. 16:12-21).
- Technical Importance: This approach makes promotional offers visible on a third-party merchant's site without violating the browser's core security model, aiming to dramatically increase offer-redemption rates (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 72).
- Key elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing an offers webpage from a first website domain with multiple electronic coupons.
- Receiving a selection of an offer.
- Directing the browser to a merchant webpage at a second, different website domain.
- Storing an "offer identifier" in a browser-accessible storage item before directing the browser to the merchant webpage.
- After directing the browser to the merchant webpage, determining that the offer identifier is stored in the storage item.
- Upon that determination, inserting a "redemption bar" into a webpage element of the merchant webpage, which displays on that page.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,953,335 - "Devices, methods, and computer-readable media for redemption header for merchant offers"
Technology Synopsis
This patent, which shares a specification with the ’853 patent, addresses the same technical problem of cross-domain content coordination limited by browser security policies (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25). The claimed solution involves using client-side browser-accessible storage to communicate a user's selection of a content item from a first domain to a second domain, and then causing the browser to display information related to that content item concurrently with the second domain's webpage, for example by "inserting browser-executable code of a redemption bar" (Compl. ¶28).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 79).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Honey's servers send a webpage to a user's browser, which, via the Honey extension, displays content items (offers), allows a user to select one, navigates to a second webpage, and communicates the selection across domains via client-side storage to insert a redemption bar (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53).
U.S. Patent No. 9,965,769 - "Devices, methods, and computer-readable media for redemption header for merchant offers"
Technology Synopsis
This patent, also in the same family as the ’853 patent, specifically recites a solution for cross-domain content coordination in a browser that implements a security policy prohibiting such access (Compl. ¶29). The invention explicitly claims an "added program installed in the web browser" (e.g., an extension) that is "configured to bypass the security policy" and store content items in client-side storage. This "added program" then accesses the storage to communicate the content across domains and insert a "redemption bar" into a merchant webpage (Compl. ¶29).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 86).
Accused Features
The complaint identifies the Honey browser extension as the claimed "added program" that is installed in the browser, stores information in client-side memory, and is configured to bypass browser security policies to coordinate content across domains (Compl. ¶56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the Honey website (www.joinhoney.com), the Honey browser extensions for various browsers including Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, and related software and services (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
The Honey products are designed to "automatically finds and applies coupon codes at checkout" for online retailers (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges the browser extension displays coupon and reward offers on third-party websites, activates them, and copies the associated codes (Compl. ¶39). The screenshot at paragraph 49 depicts the Honey extension inserting a notification banner at the top of a merchant's webpage. (Compl. ¶49). The complaint characterizes Honey as a direct competitor to RetailMeNot that earns commissions from merchants when its members use the service (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’688 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying a web-page...having a content item comprising: a display portion overlaid with a coupon code and a flash object or other object having associated therewith script or code permitted by the browser application to copy characters to a clipboard memory... | Honey's website displays content that includes a coupon code and an associated button with a script that copies the code to the user's clipboard. | ¶40, ¶41 | col. 9:19-25 |
| after receiving the selection of the flash object or other object by the user, automatically performing steps comprising: copying the coupon code from within a secure sandbox...to the clipboard memory... | The Honey system copies the coupon code from a browser sandbox to the client's clipboard memory upon user selection. | ¶42 | col. 9:32-38 |
| sending a second serve request from the client computing device to the content-sharing website server... | The Honey system sends a serve request to its own server ("joinhoney.com") that includes an identifier of the selected content item. | ¶43 | col. 9:39-43 |
| sending to the client computing device a uniform resource locator (URL) of a third-party server that tracks content distribution... | Honey's system sends instructions that redirect the user via an affiliate network link containing a unique identification number. The complaint provides an HTTP request showing a redirect to www.anrdoezrs.net, an affiliate server. |
¶44 | col. 10:2-6 |
| sending a third serve request to the third party server...such that the third party server receives information sufficient to cause the third serve request to be associated with the content-sharing website... | The Honey system sends a request to the third-party affiliate server with information identifying Honey as the source of the referral. | ¶44 | col. 10:10-17 |
| displaying the content author website...the coupon code remains in clipboard memory...operative to paste the coupon code from the clipboard...into the field... | The Honey system directs the user to a merchant website where the copied code can be pasted into a coupon field. | ¶45 | col. 10:24-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "flash object or other object." The defendant may argue that this term is limited to Adobe Flash technology, which was prevalent at the time of the invention but is now largely obsolete, and does not read on the modern JavaScript-based elements allegedly used in Honey's products.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific, multi-step sequence of automated server requests and redirections involving the content-sharing server and a third-party tracking server. The analysis will likely focus on whether the evidence, such as the provided HTTP request logs (Compl. ¶44), demonstrates that the accused Honey system performs this exact sequence in the claimed order.
’853 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing in a browser...an offers webpage from an offers engine at a first website domain... | The Honey extension provides an offers webpage with electronic coupons for various merchants. | ¶48 | col. 1:57-63 |
| receiving a selection of one of the plurality of offers... | The Honey extension allows a user to select individual coupons. | ¶49 | col. 2:1-3 |
| directing the browser to a merchant webpage of the selected merchant at a second website domain... | After selection, the extension directs the user's browser to merchant websites. | ¶49 | col. 16:5-7 |
| determining, after directing the browser...that an offer identifier...is stored in a storage item accessible by the browser... | After directing the browser to a merchant website, the Honey extension determines whether offer identifiers for selected offers are stored in browser-accessible memory. | ¶49 | col. 16:7-11 |
| inserting...a redemption bar in a webpage element of the merchant webpage upon determining that the offer identifier is stored...the redemption bar being displayed on the merchant webpage. | Upon determining the offer identifier is stored, the Honey extension inserts a redemption bar into the merchant webpage. The complaint includes a screenshot showing an inserted banner on a merchant's site. | ¶49 | col. 16:12-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether the accused product's notification banner, depicted in the screenshot at paragraph 49, constitutes a "redemption bar" that is inserted "in a webpage element" as required by the claim. The technical method of display (e.g., DOM injection vs. a browser-level overlay) will be critical to this analysis.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific sequence: an offer identifier is stored before navigation to the merchant site, and the "determining" step occurs after navigation and before insertion of the bar. The complaint alleges this sequence (Compl. ¶49), but the evidentiary question will be whether the accused system can be shown to perform this precise logic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "flash object or other object" (’688 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused product allegedly uses modern web technologies (e.g., JavaScript), not the Adobe Flash technology that was common when the patent was filed. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to cover only Flash or technologically similar plugins, the infringement case may be weakened.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "or other object" suggests the claim is not limited to Flash. The functional description in the claim requires only that the object be selectable by a user and have "associated therewith script or code permitted by the browser application to copy characters to a clipboard." (’688 Patent, col. 9:22-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently and specifically refers to a "flash object," an "empty flash movie," and "ActionScript" (the scripting language for Flash) when describing the preferred embodiment ('688 Patent, col. 6:33-60). A party could argue these repeated, specific disclosures limit the scope of the broader term "other object" to technologies that are structurally or functionally equivalent to Flash plugins.
The Term: "redemption bar" (’853 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The act of "inserting... a redemption bar" is the central inventive step alleged to be infringed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual appearance and technical implementation of the accused feature (a banner shown in Compl. ¶49) may differ from the patent's embodiments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "redemption header" interchangeably with "redemption bar" and describes its function as displaying offer information on the merchant's webpage ('853 Patent, Abstract). This functional description could support a broad interpretation that covers any element injected onto the page to serve that purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent consistently depict a distinct, horizontal bar integrated into the top portion of the webpage (e.g., ’853 Patent, Fig. 4E). A party could argue that this consistent depiction defines the structural characteristics of a "bar," potentially excluding other forms of notifications like pop-ups or overlays that do not share this structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Honey making its website and browser extensions available to users and actively encouraging their use to obtain benefits like coupon codes and discounts, which allegedly causes users to perform the claimed infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 50, 54, 57).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Honey's infringement is willful and deliberate, based on continued infringement "after having knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶59). The infringement counts specify this knowledge exists "at least as of the filing of this Complaint," suggesting a primary basis in post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 73, 80, 87).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the ’688 patent will be one of technological translation: can claim language rooted in the web technologies of the late 2000s (e.g., "flash object") be construed to cover the functionally analogous but technically distinct JavaScript-based methods used in modern web applications?
- A key question for the ’853, ’335, and ’769 patents will be one of definitional scope and technical implementation: does the accused Honey extension's notification banner qualify as a "redemption bar" that is "inserted in a webpage element" of the merchant site as the claims require, or does it operate as a browser-level overlay that does not modify the webpage's underlying structure in the claimed manner?
- A central evidentiary question across all asserted claims will be one of procedural fidelity: can the plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-step logical sequences recited in the claims (such as the precise order of server requests, data storage, and content insertion) without deviation?