Aido Mobility LLC v. Dow Jones & Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aido Mobility LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00601, D. Del., 07/03/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wall Street Journal App and its supporting services infringe three patents related to methods for delivering customized information to mobile devices based on user preferences and location.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for providing context-aware information, such as advertisements or notifications, to mobile units by using push messages and managing network connections efficiently through virtual sessions.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit claim a priority date of November 17, 1998. The complaint notes this date precedes the launch of modern push notification platforms by major technology companies and highlights that the patents have accumulated over 550 forward citations, which may be presented as evidence of the inventions' significance.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 - "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7058395, "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems," issued June 6, 2006.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where mobile users had to manually initiate requests to receive location-specific information (e.g., clicking an icon to see local restaurants). The patent identifies a lack of systems that could automatically control a network application, like a web browser, based on a mobile device’s precise geographical position or by filtering locally broadcast data. (Compl. ¶18; ’395 Patent, col. 2:54-col. 3:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile unit uses a "packet filter" to screen geographically-relevant data received from local broadcasts or determined via GPS. When the data meets a predefined criterion (e.g., the user enters a specific area), the system automatically triggers the download and display of related content, such as web pages, effectively allowing a user to "navigate the Internet by physically navigating in geographical coordinates." (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-44).
  • Technical Importance: The described method represented a step toward automated, context-aware information delivery, moving beyond the paradigm of user-initiated data retrieval for mobile devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 4 and 22 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Claim 4, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • A mobile unit wirelessly receives "pushed information" containing an "application-program identifying field."
    • The mobile unit presents a "selectable indication" to the user.
    • Upon user selection, the mobile unit sends a "client-request packet" to download "further content."
    • The system sends the further content to the mobile unit in response.
    • The initial "communication push message" functions as a notification, allowing the user to "selectively download the further content only if the user is interested."

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 - "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7212811, "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems," issued May 1, 2007.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the inefficiency and cost of maintaining a persistent network connection for mobile applications. A continuous physical connection was often required to maintain a communication session with a server, which was impractical for mobile devices. (’811 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses the use of a "virtual communication session" that maintains an application's state without requiring a constant physical network connection. The session can transition between an "inactive state" and an "active state" only when data needs to be transmitted, such as when sending a push notification to the device. (’811 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:25-42).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled more efficient and flexible communication for mobile devices by conserving network resources while still allowing for server-initiated communications like push notifications. (Compl. ¶26).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 8 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Claim 8, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • Identifying downloadable information that comports with a user preference.
    • Transmitting an "application layer communication" to the mobile unit, which contains an indication of the content.
    • The communication allows the user to "selectively download the content only if the user is interested."
    • The communication is coupled "via a virtual communication session implemented at one or more layers below the application layer."
    • The virtual session is configured to transition between active and inactive states.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 - "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7292844, "Geographical Web Browser, Methods, Apparatus and Systems," issued November 6, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’844 Patent discloses methods for a mobile data network where an "incoming communication" from a server acts as a notification for a user to download further content. A key aspect is that this communication is unsolicited—it is "not a server response message sent in response to a client request message"—and is delivered over a virtual communication session that transitions between active and inactive states. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; ’844 Patent, col. 23:51-24:4).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
• Accused Features: The functionalities of the Wall Street Journal App that allegedly involve receiving unsolicited push notifications based on user preferences, which then allow the user to download additional content (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Wall Street Journal App" and the associated back-end services, collectively referred to as the "Accused Practices" (Compl. ¶39).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant operates, maintains, and provides services that support the functionalities of the Wall Street Journal App (Compl. ¶39). The core accused functionality appears to be the system's ability to send push notifications to users. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused app operates or its market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations based on the narrative infringement counts, which allege that the Accused Practices perform the steps of the asserted claims.

’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

’811 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "Geographical Web Browser" from the patents' titles limits the scope of the claims, which are written more broadly. A defendant may argue the invention is confined to the vehicle-based navigation systems emphasized in the specification, whereas the accused product is a general news application.
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be evidentiary: what proof shows that the Wall Street Journal App and its supporting infrastructure practice each element of the asserted claims? For example, the complaint does not provide technical evidence demonstrating that the accused system uses a "virtual communication session" that transitions between active and inactive states in the specific manner required by the claims of the ’811 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "communication push message" (from ’395 Patent, Claim 4)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement allegation. Its construction will determine whether the modern, platform-mediated push notifications used by the accused app (e.g., via Apple's or Google's services) fall within the scope of a claim with a 1998 priority date. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific technical implementation of push notifications has evolved significantly since 1998.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims provide a functional definition, stating the message "acts as a notification to allow the user to selectively download the further content only if the user is interested in receiving the further content" (’395 Patent, col. 24:20-24). This language focuses on purpose rather than a specific technical structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description focuses on embodiments involving direct communication within "picocell" or other local broadcast domains (’395 Patent, col. 7:6-14). A party could argue the term should be limited to these disclosed architectures, not the third-party-mediated systems common today.

• The Term: "virtual communication session" (from ’811 Patent, Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the asserted claims of the ’811 and ’844 patents. Infringement depends on whether the accused system's method for managing network connections meets the claim's definition of a session that can be transitioned between "active" and "inactive" states.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept's function as allowing an application to "maintain[] a communication session in the absence of a physical communication path," with a connection being "automatically established" only when needed (’811 Patent, col. 2:12-16). This functional description could support a broad reading covering various modern, efficient networking protocols.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly incorporates by reference a co-pending application (the "Dowling reference") for a more detailed disclosure (’811 Patent, col. 2:8-12). A defendant may argue that this incorporation by reference limits the term to the specific technical implementation detailed in that incorporated document.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint anticipates a divided infringement defense by alleging 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. ¶¶ 39, 48, 57). This language lays the groundwork for a claim of induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or make an explicit claim for willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technological evolution: Can terms like "communication push message" and "virtual communication session", originating from patents with a 1998 priority date, be construed to read on the architecture of modern mobile applications, which rely heavily on operating system-level and third-party cloud services for functions like push notifications and session management?
• A key challenge for the plaintiff will be one of evidentiary proof: What specific evidence can be presented to establish that the accused Wall Street Journal App's complex, multi-component system performs every limitation of the asserted method claims, particularly the precise sequence of operations for selective content download and the technical mechanics of transitioning a "virtual communication session" between active and inactive states?