Guild Forest LLC v. Pinterest Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guild Forest LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Pinterest, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01480, D. Del., 09/25/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media platform and related advertising systems infringe a patent related to creating and using dynamic user profiles based on monitoring user activity and scanning local device data.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of online user profiling and behavioral advertising, a core technology for monetizing internet services that relies on collecting and analyzing user data to deliver targeted ads.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

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, issued October 25, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a computing environment where users are overwhelmed by the vast and disorganized information on the Internet. It notes that conventional web browsers are "ill-equipped" to integrate traditional web content with newer "push" and "netcast" information, and cannot control privately networked devices (’697 Patent, col. 1:47-2:29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive software "guide" that automatically creates and updates a user profile by monitoring the user's online activities and, notably, by performing "data mining & analysis" on the user's local computer memory (’697 Patent, Fig. 7). This intelligent profile is then used to automatically identify, retrieve, and organize relevant content from both Internet and non-Internet sources (e.g., television or radio broadcasts) into a customized, user-friendly interface, and to alert the user to new content matching their dynamically-derived interests (’697 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:46-55).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to move beyond simple, user-driven web searches toward a proactive, automated system that could infer user interests from a wide range of data sources, including data residing on the user's own device, to curate a personalized media experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 8, as well as dependent claims 2 and 9 (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method of creating a user profile, with the key steps being:
  • creating a user profile database for storing user profile parameters;
  • monitoring a user's interactions 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 user interests based on these scanning steps, where at least one interest is not from a predefined list;
  • automatically deriving user profile parameters based on the monitoring and scanning; and
  • updating the user profile database.
• Independent Claim 8 recites that for a plurality of users, a plurality of sets of user profile parameters are derived, with each set based on the activity of that specific user.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's social media platform, including Pinterest.com and its associated mobile applications, and the methods for creating user profiles for internet-based advertising ("the Product") (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Product operates by collecting user information to create profiles for targeted advertising (Compl. ¶15). This data collection occurs through several alleged mechanisms: information users voluntarily provide (e.g., name, email, photos), monitoring user activity on the Pinterest platform (e.g., likes, follows, browsed interests), and scanning local applications and data on the user's device (e.g., phonebook, GPS data) (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). The complaint provides a screenshot from Pinterest's privacy policy, which states it customizes ad content by "identifying your interests based on your onsite and offsite activities" (Compl. p. 8). The Product then allegedly uses these derived interests to deliver targeted advertisements to users (Compl. ¶¶15, 22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'697 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether accessing user data via modern, permission-based mobile operating system APIs, as depicted in a screenshot of app permissions (Compl. p. 20), constitutes "scanning local memory" in the manner described by the patent. The patent specification discusses scanning applications like Quicken on a computer's hard drive (’697 Patent, col. 9:1-10), which may suggest a different technical mechanism than requesting access to sandboxed data on a mobile device.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Pinterest monitors "non-Web related sources of content" by gathering device data like "mobile/network operator, ISP, time zone, signal strength" (Compl. ¶17). It raises the question of whether this type of device metadata falls within the patent's definition of "non-Web related... content," which the specification exemplifies with television, cable, and radio broadcasts (’697 Patent, col. 12:7-9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "scanning local memory of the user computer"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent's novelty appears to partly rely on its method of building a user profile from data on the user's own device, not just from web interactions. The complaint's theory hinges on equating the Pinterest app's requests for permissions (e.g., to access Contacts, Location, Photos) with the claimed "scanning." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality (accessing data via a mobile OS API) may be technically distinct from the "data mining" of a local hard drive contemplated in the patent's specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim itself does not specify the mechanism of "scanning," which a plaintiff might argue should be interpreted broadly to cover any systematic examination of local memory for information, including through OS-mediated APIs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of the system scanning a computer's hard drive to "determine what programs and applications are contained in memory," and then extracting information from applications like Quicken finance software to infer user interests (’697 Patent, col. 9:1-17). A defendant could argue this context limits "scanning" to a more intrusive, file-system-level analysis rather than permissioned data access.

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

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is important for distinguishing the invention from systems that only monitor web-based activity. The complaint alleges that device metadata like ISP and signal strength meet this limitation (Compl. ¶17). The viability of this infringement theory depends on whether such metadata qualifies as "sources of content."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is not explicitly limited. A plaintiff may argue that any data source that is not transmitted via the World Wide Web protocol could be considered "non-Web related."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly exemplifies "non-Internet broadcast content" as "television, cable, satellite, or radio broadcast content" (’697 Patent, col. 12:7-9). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to media programming, not device or network metadata.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a count for indirect (induced or contributory) infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the ’697 Patent.

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," which the patent illustrates by analyzing financial software on a hard drive, be construed to cover a mobile app accessing sandboxed data (e.g., contacts, GPS) through a modern, permission-based operating system API?
• A second key issue will be one of contextual application: Does the accused Pinterest system—a social media platform for user-generated content curation and advertising—perform the functions of the claimed invention, which is described as a comprehensive "guide" for organizing and presenting professionally-produced Internet and non-Internet broadcast content (e.g., netcasts, TV shows) to a user?
• An evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Does device metadata, such as ISP or time zone information, constitute "non-Web related sources of content" as that term is used and described in the patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the alleged functionality and the patent's focus on broadcast media?