Guild Forest LLC v. Myspace LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guild Forest LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Myspace LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01479, D. Del., 09/25/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media platform and its associated targeted advertising systems infringe a patent related to creating and updating dynamic user profiles by monitoring user interactions and scanning device data.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns automated user profiling based on behavior, a foundational concept for the modern digital advertising market which relies on personalizing content and ads.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,046,697 - "System and Method for Customizing an Interface Related to Accessing, Manipulating and Viewing Internet and Non-internet Related Information"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,697, "System and Method for Customizing an Interface Related to Accessing, Manipulating and Viewing Internet and Non-internet Related Information," issued October 25, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a digital environment where information is vast, disorganized, and difficult for users to manage. It identifies drawbacks in then-current browser systems, including their inability to integrate traditional web-based information with newer "push" and "netcast" content, or to present it in a user-friendly, personalized manner (’697 Patent, col. 2:7-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automatically creates and continuously updates a user profile based on a user's "Web and non-Web related activities" (’697 Patent, col. 2:45-48). This profile is built by monitoring user interactions and by "data mining" the local memory of the user's device to infer interests (’697 Patent, Fig. 7). The system then uses this profile to identify and retrieve new, relevant content for the user, effectively personalizing their information-gathering experience.
• Technical Importance: The claimed method describes an early approach to implicit, behavior-based profiling that goes beyond relying on direct user input, foreshadowing techniques that would become central to personalized content delivery and targeted advertising. (’697 Patent, col. 9:42-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • creating a user profile database for storing user profile parameters;
  • monitoring a user's interactions from a user computer with remote Web and non-Web related sources of content;
  • scanning local memory of the user computer to examine local applications;
  • scanning local memory of the user computer to examine local application data information content;
  • determining interests of the user based on said steps of scanning, the interests comprising at least one interest that is not selected from a predefined list of potential interests;
  • automatically deriving user profile parameters based on said step of monitoring and said steps of scanning; and
  • updating the user profile database based on the user's use of the computer system.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 8, and 9.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's social media platform, Myspace.com, and its associated advertising platforms and technologies, referred to as the "Product" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Product creates user profiles for interest-based advertising (Compl. ¶15). This is accomplished by collecting user-provided information at registration (e.g., name, age), monitoring on-site activity (e.g., likes, follows, browsed interests), and collecting data from the user's device and third-party partners (Compl. ¶15, 17). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user profile page, which displays a user's general information, listed "Influences," and a blog section describing personal interests (Compl. p. 5). These collected profile parameters are allegedly used in a "hypertargeting technology" to allow advertisers to serve customized ads to specific user segments (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes a screenshot of an advertising tool interface that allows an advertiser to target users by gender, age, location, and interest categories like "Motorcycle" (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’697 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A principal question is whether the Product’s data collection methods constitute "scanning local memory... to examine local applications" and their "data information content" as required by the claims. The complaint alleges this occurs (Compl. ¶18-19), but the patent’s specification provides an example of reading files from a specific third-party program like Quicken (’697 Patent, col. 9:1-10). The court may need to determine if the Product's collection of data like GPS coordinates through standard operating system APIs is technically equivalent to the more direct file-level "scan" described in the patent.
• Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the phrase "not selected from a predefined list of potential interests" is met by the accused system. The complaint alleges that determining an interest based on a user's GPS-derived location satisfies this element (Compl. ¶20). A question for the court is whether an interest inferred from location data, which may then be mapped to a predefined advertising category (e.g., "local restaurants"), is truly "not selected from a predefined list" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "scanning local memory of the user computer to examine local applications"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of multiple claim limitations depends on its scope. The dispute may turn on whether standard data collection by a mobile or web application (e.g., accessing device ID or location via system permissions) qualifies as "scanning local memory" to "examine" other, separate "local applications."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be read broadly to cover any automated information gathering from the user's device that reveals the presence or data of other applications, consistent with the patent's overall objective of building a comprehensive profile from all available sources (’697 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires a more direct inspection of application files or memory, as the specification explicitly describes a process where the "Guide will scan, extract and compile data and other information contained in the [Quicken] application" (’697 Patent, col. 9:5-9). This suggests a meaning more intrusive than merely receiving data through a standard API.

The Term: "non-Web related sources of content"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines what type of user activity, beyond browsing public websites, can be "monitored" under the claims. The complaint alleges this covers device data like ISP, time zone, and signal strength (Compl. ¶17).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue this term covers any data source not on the public Internet, including local device data and information from private networks, aligning with the patent's goal of creating a profile from a wide range of user activities (’697 Patent, col. 11:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may contend that in the context of the patent as a whole, this term refers more specifically to the "non-Internet broadcast content" like television, cable, and radio that is discussed as a key type of information to be integrated by the system (’697 Patent, col. 11:35-39).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a separate count for indirect infringement and does not plead specific facts concerning knowledge or intent required to support such a claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the claim term "scanning local memory... to examine local applications," which the patent illustrates by reading files from a separate software program like Quicken, be construed to cover the accused platform's alleged practice of collecting device-level data such as GPS coordinates via standard operating system services? The resolution will likely depend on whether these two methods are found to be technically equivalent under the patent's claims.
• A key evidentiary question will be what proof the Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused Myspace platform performs the specific "scanning" actions alleged in the complaint. While the complaint asserts that the Product scans local applications and their data, the provided exhibits primarily document more conventional data collection practices (user-provided information, browsing history, and API-based device data), raising the question of whether there is a factual mismatch between the allegations and the available evidence.