Guada Tech LLC v. Big 5 Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guada Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Big 5 Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00755, D. Del., 04/25/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for navigating hierarchical data structures via keyword-based searching.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in navigating structured information systems, such as website menus, by allowing a user to "jump" directly to desired content using search terms, thereby bypassing intermediate steps.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was cited as prior art during the prosecution of patents assigned to IBM, Fujitsu, and Harris Corporation. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against the patent. On March 3, 2023, the USPTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all claims of the patent, including the claim asserted in this litigation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,379 - "Navigation in a Hierarchical Structured Transaction Processing System", issued June 12, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of navigating hierarchical networks, such as automated telephone menus or early websites, as potentially inefficient and frustrating for a user (ʼ379 Patent, col. 2:9-18). A user who proceeds down an incorrect path may be required to backtrack or start over, making it difficult to reach a desired "goal vertex" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 2:9-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to make navigation more efficient by supplementing the rigid hierarchical structure. The system associates nodes within the hierarchy with specific keywords, creating what the specification calls an "inverted index" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 5:62-67). When a user provides an input containing a recognized keyword, the system can identify a relevant node and "jump" directly to it, bypassing the need to traverse intervening hierarchical levels (ʼ379 Patent, col. 3:35-43). The complaint includes a diagram from the patent to illustrate a generic hierarchical network of nodes that the invention is designed to navigate (Compl. p. 4, citing ’379 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve user experience in complex data systems by allowing navigation based on user intent (expressed via keywords) rather than forcing adherence to a predefined, and potentially cumbersome, menu structure (ʼ379 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A method performed in a system having multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement.
  • At a first node, receiving an input from a user of the system, the input containing at least one word identifiable with at least one keyword from among multiple keywords.
  • Identifying at least one node, other than the first node, that is not directly connected to the first node but is associated with the at least one keyword.
  • Jumping to the at least one node.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The website located at Big 5 Sporting Goods Website and its associated pages and functionality (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality presents a hierarchical arrangement of product categories, such as "Footwear" or "Apparel," which function as navigable nodes (Compl. ¶16).
• It is alleged that the website includes a search box on its home page that accepts user input. This search function is accused of allowing users to bypass the hierarchical category structure (e.g., navigating from the home page directly to a specific product page) by identifying a product node associated with a search keyword and "jumping" to it without traversing intermediate category nodes (Compl. ¶16).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'379 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "not directly connected." The analysis would examine whether a product page displayed as a search result is "not directly connected" to the home page if the site's main navigation menu provides a direct link path (e.g., Home > Category > Product). The patent's focus on bypassing "intervening nodes" suggests the term requires a specific type of hierarchical leap (ʼ379 Patent, col. 5:18-20).
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused website's search function operates via the claimed method. A technical question is what evidence exists to show the site's backend architecture performs an "association" between "keywords" and "nodes" as taught by the patent, rather than utilizing a conventional full-text search algorithm that may produce a similar outcome through a different technical process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "jumping"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the alleged novelty. Its construction determines whether any non-linear navigation (like clicking a search result) meets the limitation, or if a more specific bypass of a defined hierarchical structure is required. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the claimed method from generic search engine behavior.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the final step simply as "jumping to the identified node," which could be argued to encompass any user-directed move to a new page based on a search input (ʼ379 Patent, Abstract).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly contrasts the invention with rigid, step-by-step traversal of a "menu tree" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 3:9-14) and explains the benefit as avoiding "the need to traverse intervening nodes" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 5:18-20). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a demonstrable bypass of established hierarchical layers.

The Term: "not directly connected"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term establishes the prerequisite for an infringing "jump." If the destination node is deemed "directly connected," then the method step cannot be met.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a "connected" graph as one where "there is at least one path connecting every pair of vertices" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 3:3-4). From this, "not directly connected" could be argued to mean any two nodes that are not adjacent (i.e., joined by a single edge).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s solution is framed as allowing jumps "laterally from one vertex to another if the navigation enters a wrong branch of the tree" (ʼ379 Patent, col. 3:35-37). This context suggests the term refers to nodes that, in the formal hierarchy, would require traversal through at least one intermediate node.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as knowledge or intent to encourage infringement, that would be necessary to support a claim for indirect infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the '379 Patent or other facts that would typically form the basis of a willful infringement claim.

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

• Overarching Procedural Question: The primary issue in this case is procedural. Given that the USPTO cancelled all claims of the '379 Patent in post-grant proceedings subsequent to the complaint's filing, the threshold question is whether any viable claim for infringement remains.
• Definitional Scope: Assuming the patent were still valid, a key question would be one of definitional scope: can the term "jumping" to a "not directly connected" node, as rooted in the patent's context of bypassing rigid IVR and menu trees, be construed to read on the functionality of a modern e-commerce search engine?
• Evidentiary Question: A second key question would be one of technical operation: what evidence would show that the accused website's search functionality operates according to the specific method claimed—associating predefined keywords with discrete nodes—as opposed to employing a different, unpatented search algorithm that achieves a functionally similar result for the end-user?