TMI Solutions LLC v. CVS Health Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TMI Solutions LLC (Michigan)
  • Defendant: CVS Health Corp (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01230, D. Del., 06/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, through its use of cookies, infringes two patents related to automatically identifying user stations across separate communication sessions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating persistent user sessions on computer networks, a foundational element for personalized web experiences and e-commerce.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on September 28, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in a series of related cases involving the same patent family, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the claims plausibly alleged non-routine, unconventional activity that may improve the functioning of computers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,484,077 - Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station Over a Communications Network

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the state of online services in the early 1990s as complex and session-oriented, making it difficult for electronic publishers to distribute low-cost, timely updates or maintain a persistent relationship with a user across different interactions (Compl. ¶17; ’077 Patent, col. 1:36-2:2). Each visit to a service was often like the first, with no automatic way to recognize a returning user or device (Compl. ¶17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a remote computer system, upon interacting with a previously unidentified user station, sends it a unique piece of information to be stored locally. In a subsequent session, the user station automatically sends this unique information back to the remote system, which uses it to retrieve stored data associated with that user station, thereby creating a persistent identity and enabling continuity between sessions (’077 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:22-45).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a foundational mechanism for websites to "remember" visitors, which was a recognized problem at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 6 (’077 Patent).
• Claim 6 (Method) Elements:
  • Receiving first information at a remote computer system during a first user-initiated communication session for a user station not previously identified.
  • Sending second information that is a function of and different from the first information to the user station to be stored automatically.
  • Storing third information based on the first information at a location remote from the user station.
  • Receiving the second information during a subsequent user-initiated session automatically from the user station.
  • Retrieving the stored third information using the received second information.
  • Using the retrieved third information for interaction with the remote computer system during the subsequent session.

U.S. Patent No. 9,484,078 - Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station Over a Communications Network

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’077 Patent, this invention addresses the shortcomings of early online services, which lacked a mechanism for automated user identification across distinct communication sessions, complicating the distribution of updated electronic content and the provision of personalized services (’078 Patent, col. 1:36-2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for establishing a persistent identity for a user station. A remote system receives identifying information, sends back a different, unique identifier to be stored at the user station, and stores related information remotely. On a subsequent visit, the user station automatically provides the unique identifier, which the remote system matches with its stored information to recognize the user station and continue the relationship (’078 Patent, Abstract; col. 29:21-45).
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled a persistent state for network communications, a significant step beyond the stateless, session-by-session interactions common at the time of invention (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (’078 Patent).
• Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
  • Receiving first information at a remote computer system identifying a user station not previously identified.
  • Sending second information that is a function of and different from the first information to the user station.
  • Storing third information based on the first information at a remote location.
  • Receiving the second information during a second session, wherein the user station triggers automatically sending the second information.
  • Retrieving the previously stored third information.
  • Matching at least a portion of the received second information with the stored third information.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 2, which further specifies that the second information is used as a "station identifier" and a "surrogate for a user identifier."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Practices" are identified as Defendant's "use of cookies in conjunction with its website" (Compl. ¶25, ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the CVS Health website operates a system that places cookies on the computers of visitors (Compl. ¶25). When a user first visits the website, the system allegedly receives information, sends a unique identifier (the cookie) to the user's computer for storage, and stores corresponding information on its own servers (Compl. ¶25, ¶34). On subsequent visits, the user's browser automatically sends the cookie back to the CVS servers, which then allegedly use this identifier to recognize the user and retrieve their stored information to personalize the session (Compl. ¶25, ¶34). Defendant is a major health services and retail corporation, suggesting its website is a significant commercial platform (Compl. ¶2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits detailing the alleged infringement but does not attach them (Compl. ¶26, ¶35). The infringement theory articulated in the complaint is summarized below.

• ’077 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Practices infringe at least claim 6 of the ’077 Patent (Compl. ¶25). The narrative infringement theory suggests that when a new user visits the CVS website, Defendant's remote computer system receives initial information (e.g., browser data). In response, the system sends a unique identifier in the form of a cookie ("second information") to be automatically stored at the user station. Concurrently, the system stores corresponding user-related data ("third information") on its servers. During a later visit, the user's browser automatically transmits the cookie back to the CVS system, which then uses it to retrieve the stored data and interact with the user, thereby allegedly practicing the claimed method (Compl. ¶25).

• ’078 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 1 and 2 of the ’078 Patent (Compl. ¶34). The infringement theory is substantively identical to that for the ’077 Patent. It posits that the CVS website's use of cookies to identify a user station on a first visit, store a corresponding profile, and then automatically receive the cookie on a subsequent visit to match it with the stored profile, constitutes practice of the method claimed in claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of certain claim terms. For instance, in claim 1 of the ’078 Patent, the court may need to determine whether a web browser’s standard, and often user-configurable, behavior of sending cookies meets the limitation that the "user station triggers automatically sending the second information."
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of contention may be whether a standard website cookie, which is often a randomly or pseudo-randomly generated unique ID, satisfies the limitation that the "second information... is a function of the first information." The specific technical relationship between the information initially received from a new user and the cookie ID that is sent back may become a key factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted claims of both patents, qualifying how information (the cookie) is stored on the user station and sent back to the remote server in a subsequent session (’077 Patent, cl. 6; ’078 Patent, cl. 1). Practitioners may focus on this term because the standard operation of browser cookies can be controlled or disabled by the end-user, raising the question of whether a user-configurable process can be considered "automatic" within the meaning of the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the benefit of relieving the user from the complex, manual steps of conventional communication products, suggesting "automatic" means without requiring specific user action during the session itself to complete the transport operation (’077 Patent, col. 15:21-16:5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the invention as running in "unattended mode, after initiation" could support a narrower definition that implies a process that, once initiated, proceeds without the possibility of user interruption or configuration (’077 Patent, col. 16:63-65).

• The Term: "user station not previously identified to the remote computer system"

• Context and Importance: This phrase sets the precondition for the claimed method (’077 Patent, cl. 6; ’078 Patent, cl. 1). Its construction is critical for determining the universe of infringing acts. The dispute may center on whether this applies only to a user's first-ever interaction with a website, or to any session where a persistent identifier (like a cookie) is absent, for example, after a user has cleared their browser data.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract's focus is on a "user station not previously identified," which could be read to mean not identified in that session by the claimed mechanism, supporting the view that each new session without a cookie is a "first" session (’077 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The broader context of solving problems for publishers distributing updates to a known customer base could suggest the invention was aimed at establishing an initial, durable identity for a truly new user or device, not just one that has temporarily lost its session token (’077 Patent, col. 4:46-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement.

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

This dispute will likely focus on the precise meaning of the patent claims as applied to the ubiquitous technology of web browser cookies. The central questions for the court appear to be:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "automatically," as used in the claims, be construed to cover a web browser's standard, and potentially user-configurable, transmission of a cookie, or does it require a process that cannot be altered by the user?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the technical implementation of a standard website cookie, which is often a randomly generated identifier, satisfy the claim requirement that the identifier sent to the user is "a function of" the initial information received from that user's station?
• A third question concerns patent eligibility: while the court has previously denied a § 101 motion to dismiss in related cases, the Defendant may renew this challenge with a more developed factual record, forcing a determination on whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (managing user identity) or to a specific, unconventional technological improvement over prior art systems.