DCT

1:19-cv-00600

Aido Mobility LLC v. Macy's Retail Holdings Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00600, D. Del., 03/29/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Macy's mobile application infringes four patents related to methods for delivering location-based push notifications and enabling geographical web browsing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a mobile device's geographic location to automatically trigger and deliver relevant digital content, a foundational concept in modern mobile commerce and marketing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit claim priority to a patent application filed in 1998 and have collectively received over 550 forward citations, which Plaintiff posits as an indicator of their value and importance.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139 Issued
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 Issued
2007-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 Issued
2007-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 Issued
2019-03-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139, titled “Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems,” issued January 3, 2006.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment where mobile data access is not automatically tailored to a user's precise physical location (Compl. ¶17; ’139 Patent, col. 2:58-3:5). Existing systems that rely on the location of a telecommunications cell are described as providing only "coarse" position information, limiting their utility for delivering relevant, localized content (Compl. ¶17; ’139 Patent, col. 3:21-27).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile device's physical navigation through geographical coordinates controls its navigation of a network application, such as the World Wide Web (’139 Patent, Abstract). A network server uses the device's location and user-defined preferences to filter information and "selectively generates an unsolicited push message" to notify the user of relevant content upon entering a specific geographical area (’139 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-46).
    • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to automate the discovery of location-relevant information for mobile users, shifting from manual, user-initiated browsing to a proactive, system-initiated push model (Compl. ¶¶7, 18-19).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 90 (Compl. ¶28).
    • The essential elements of claim 90 include:
      • Receiving a user interest indication.
      • Receiving a location indication for a mobile unit via a packet switched data network.
      • Identifying a particular advertisement that comports with the user interest and is associated with the location.
      • Causing information about the advertisement to be transmitted via one or more "unsolicited pushed messages" to the mobile unit through a wireless packet access station.
      • Performing these steps without needing to continuously maintain an active client-server session.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395, titled “Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems,” issued June 6, 2006.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical shortcomings identified in the ’139 Patent, namely the lack of systems that use a mobile user's specific location to automatically control a network application like a web browser (Compl. ¶17; ’395 Patent, col. 2:58-3:5).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "geographical web browser" on a mobile unit that automatically accesses web pages based on the user's physical movement (’395 Patent, Abstract). The system can determine location either by interacting with a local "broadcast domain entity" (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot) or by receiving a location indication from the device itself (e.g., GPS), and then perform a search to identify and push relevant content to the user (’395 Patent, col. 23:5-24:37, 25:27-26:56).
    • Technical Importance: The technology sought to create a more seamless link between the physical world and digital information, enabling automated, context-aware content delivery based on a user's real-world location (Compl. ¶¶18, 22).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 22, as well as dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶37).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • Receiving a user interest indication.
      • Associating a user's location with a geographical location based on a wireless interaction between the mobile unit and a "particular broadcast domain entity."
      • Causing a search to be performed to identify content related to the user interest and a point of presence in the vicinity of that broadcast domain entity.
      • Causing information about the resulting content to be transmitted via "unsolicited pushed messages."
    • Independent claim 22 is similar but differs in how location is determined, requiring the receipt of a "location indication that was wirelessly coupled by the particular mobile unit" (e.g., GPS data sent from the device) rather than inferring location from the network interaction.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, titled “Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems,” issued May 1, 2007.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where a mobile unit receives unsolicited push messages within a "local hotspot area" (’811 Patent, Abstract). A packet filter on the device processes these messages based on user preferences, and the system can either notify the user that information is available for download or deliver the content directly (’811 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 5, and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶46).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the general functionalities of the Macy's App, referred to as the "Accused Practices," infringe this patent (Compl. ¶46).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844, titled “Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems,” issued November 6, 2007.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a "geographical web browser" that allows a user to navigate a network by physically navigating in geographical coordinates (’844 Patent, Abstract). For example, a user interested in real estate can set their browser accordingly and automatically receive web pages for properties as they drive into a new area, enabling improved advertising and navigation services (’844 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶55).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Accused Practices" of the Macy's App infringe this patent (Compl. ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Macy's App" mobile application (Compl. ¶28).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as the Macy's App and its associated functionalities, which it terms the "Accused Practices" (Compl. ¶28). It alleges these practices include providing push notifications and other services in response to specific conditions, such as a user's location (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the app's specific architecture or operational methods, instead focusing on the allegation that its functionalities practice the steps of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶28, 37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that claim charts detailing the infringement allegations for each patent are attached as Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶¶29, 38, 47, 56). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes the patents-in-suit by "operating, maintaining, and/or providing services to support the functionalities of the Macy's App" (Compl. ¶28). The overarching infringement theory is that the Macy's App practices the claimed methods for location-based content delivery. This theory suggests that the app receives or infers a user's interests and location, uses that information to identify relevant content (such as a promotion at a nearby store), and then causes a push notification containing that information to be sent to the user's device. The allegations for the ’395 Patent further specify two modes of location determination: one based on network interaction (Claim 1) and another based on a location indication from the mobile device itself (Claim 22) (Compl. ¶37).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the architecture of a modern smartphone application and its interaction with cloud-based services and operating system-level notification platforms falls within the scope of the claims, which were drafted based on technology conceived in 1998. The interpretation of claim terms in the context of this technological evolution may be a point of dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the mechanism by which the accused app performs the "causing a search to be performed" or "identifying a particular advertisement" steps. A potential issue is whether the accused system performs a real-time, location-and-interest-based search as required by the claims, or whether it uses a different technical method, such as triggering pre-selected content based on a geofence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "unsolicited pushed messages" (appearing in, e.g., ’139 Patent, cl. 90; ’395 Patent, cl. 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the output of the claimed methods. Its construction is important because the accused push notifications are sent to users who have installed the Macy's App and presumably opted in to receiving such messages. The dispute will likely focus on whether a notification that a user has consented to receive at some level can be considered "unsolicited."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract suggests the term refers to messages generated automatically by the system based on location and preferences, without a specific, contemporaneous user request. It states the system "selectively generates an unsolicited push message at a later time to notify the user of relevant results when the user enters a geographical area" (’139 Patent, Abstract). This could support a reading where "unsolicited" means not directly prompted by a user action at the moment of delivery.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a user setting preferences to filter information could be used to argue that the user has, in fact, solicited the general class of information being pushed (’139 Patent, Abstract). A party could argue the term implies a complete lack of prior user consent.

  • The Term: "associating the location of the particular user with a geographical location associated with the particular broadcast domain entity" (appearing in, e.g., ’395 Patent, cl. 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific method of location determination required by claim 1 of the ’395 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused app uses this network-based location inference method, as distinct from using device-generated GPS data (which is covered by claim 22).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various broadcast domains, including "telecommunications cell[s]" and "picocell[s]" (’139 Patent, col. 2:36-51). This could support an interpretation that covers any location determination based on network infrastructure, such as cell tower triangulation or Wi-Fi network identification.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's focus on small, local broadcast domains like picocells "mounted on telephone poles" could support an argument that the term is limited to these specific, short-range network entities and does not read on the broader, macro-cellular or Wi-Fi location services used by modern mobile applications (’139 Patent, col. 2:44-48).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that to the extent any claimed steps are performed by a third party, they are done "pursuant to a contractual obligation to Defendant and/or the direction and control of Defendant" (Compl. ¶¶28, 37, 46, 55). This raises the possibility of a divided infringement issue but does not plead specific facts to support induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint contains no allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "unsolicited pushed messages," which originates in the context of 1998-era technology, be construed to cover modern mobile app notifications for which users provide consent by installing an application and enabling notifications?
  • A second issue will be one of claim construction and technical operation: Does the accused app's method for determining a user's location meet the specific limitation of "associating the location...with a geographical location associated with the particular broadcast domain entity" (as required by claim 1 of the ’395 patent), or does it rely exclusively on device-generated coordinates (as contemplated by other claims)?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of divided infringement: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant directs or controls all steps of the claimed methods, particularly those that may be performed by the user's device, the underlying mobile operating system (e.g., Apple Push Notification Service), or the end-user?