TMI Solutions LLC v. H&M Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TMI Solutions LLC (California)
  • Defendant: H&M Group, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01232, D. Del., 06/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, through its use of cookies, infringes two patents related to methods for automatically identifying users and their computer stations across separate communication sessions.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of maintaining state in client-server communications, a foundational concept for enabling persistent user sessions in e-commerce and personalized web services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on September 28, 2018, the District of Delaware, in a case involving other patents from the same family, denied motions to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims captured "a non-routine, unconventional, and not well-understood activity" at the time of invention.

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 early 1990s online services, where interactions were not persistent. Each user visit to a remote system was like the first, with no seamless way for the system to remember the user or integrate new information with existing data, requiring complex and manual user actions for every session (’077 Patent, col. 2:36-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automate user recognition. During a first session, a remote computer system receives information from a user station, sends back a different piece of information to be stored on the user’s station, and stores its own related information remotely. In subsequent sessions, the user station automatically sends its stored information, allowing the remote system to retrieve the corresponding remote data and recognize the user without manual input (’077 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:22-46).
• Technical Importance: This automated approach to session management was a foundational step toward creating persistent, personalized online experiences, a significant departure from the stateless, session-by-session interactions common at the time (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claim 6, which relies on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A method where a remote computer system receives "first user station identification information" during a first session.
  • The remote system sends "fourth information" that is a "function of" and "different from" the first information back to the user station to be stored automatically.
  • The remote system stores "fifth information" based on the first information at a remote location.
  • During a subsequent session, the remote system automatically receives the "fourth information" from the user station.
  • The remote system uses the received "fourth information" to retrieve the stored "fifth information" for interaction during the subsequent session.
• Dependent Claim 6 adds the limitation that the remotely stored "fifth information includes user demographics."

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: As with the related ’077 Patent, this invention addresses the lack of automated user recognition in early computer networks, where each interaction required users to manually re-establish their context with a remote system (’078 Patent, col. 2:36-45).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where a remote computer receives identifying information from a new user station and sends back a unique identifier ("second information") for storage. Concurrently, the remote server stores its own data associated with the user ("third information"). In later sessions, the user station "triggers automatically" the sending of its stored identifier, which the server then matches with its stored data to re-establish the user's context (’078 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:10-27).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a technical solution to the problem of "amnesia" in online systems, automating the process of maintaining state and enabling more sophisticated and continuous user interactions (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A method of receiving "first information identifying a user station" at a remote system during a first session.
  • Sending "second information" that is a "function of and different from" the first information back to the user station for storage.
  • Storing "third information" based on the first information at a remote location.
  • During a subsequent session, receiving the "second information" from the user station after "the user station triggers automatically sending the second information."
  • Retrieving the stored "third information" and "matching at least a portion of the received second information with the stored third information."
• Dependent Claim 2 adds the limitation that the "second information is used by the remote computer system as a station identifier" and as "a surrogate for a user identifier."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Defendant's website (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website infringes by "use of cookies in conjunction with its website" (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32). The complaint does not provide specific details, screenshots, or technical descriptions of how the Defendant's website or its cookies operate, nor does it make allegations regarding the website's specific market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'077 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website practices the method of claim 6 (Compl. ¶24). The narrative theory suggests that when a user first visits the website, the site receives initial information (e.g., from an HTTP request), sends a unique identifier in the form of a cookie (the "fourth information") to be stored on the user's computer, and stores corresponding data about the user, including "user demographics," on its remote servers (the "fifth information"). On a subsequent visit, the user's browser automatically sends the cookie back to the website, allowing the site to retrieve the stored demographic data to inform the interaction (Compl. ¶24).

'078 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website practices the methods of claims 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶32). The infringement theory is that the website sends a cookie (the "second information") to a user's computer during a first session and stores related data (the "third information") remotely. On subsequent visits, the user's browser is "triggered to automatically" send the cookie, which the website then "matches" with the stored data to recognize the user. The allegation for claim 2 further posits that this cookie functions as both a "station identifier" (identifying the specific computer/browser) and a "surrogate for a user identifier" (acting as a stand-in for the user's actual identity) (Compl. ¶32).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim term "user station," as understood in the patent's 1994 priority context, reads on a modern web browser, and whether a browser's standard protocol of sending a cookie qualifies as the "user station trigger[ing] automatically" the sending of information.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's theory for the '077 patent hinges on the remote server storing "user demographics" as required by claim 6. A key question will be what, if any, specific demographic data the complaint provides evidence of being stored by the Defendant in connection with a cookie. For the '078 patent, a question is what evidence supports the cookie's dual role as both a "station identifier" and a "surrogate for a user identifier."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"second information that is a function of and different from the first information" (’078 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether a standard web cookie, often a randomly generated string of characters, can be considered a "function of" the initial information received from a user's browser. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue that a randomly generated cookie is independent of, not a "function of," the initial HTTP request data.

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process in general terms, suggesting that the key inventive step is the automated exchange of identifiers to create a persistent session, not the specific mathematical relationship between them. The context suggests that being generated in response to the first information may satisfy the "function of" requirement (’078 Patent, Abstract).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the technical term "function of" could be argued to imply a direct mathematical or logical transformation of the "first information," rather than merely being generated in the same transaction.

"the user station triggers automatically sending the second information" (’078 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement turns on whether a standard web browser's protocol of automatically including a cookie in a subsequent HTTP request to the same domain meets this limitation. A defendant may argue this requires a distinct, active "trigger" mechanism separate from the browser's passive, protocol-driven behavior.

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to create a process that is seamless and automatic from the user's perspective. From this viewpoint, any action the station takes without direct user command for that specific purpose could be seen as an automatic trigger (’078 Patent, col. 5:19-24).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to an "information transport component" or module that is part of the overall system (’078 Patent, col. 7:4-14). A party could argue that this "component" is what performs the "triggering," suggesting a more specialized software element than a generic web browser.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can claim terms drafted in 1994 to describe interactions with discrete online services and "transporter" software components be construed to cover the ubiquitous, standardized, and protocol-driven functioning of modern websites, web browsers, and HTTP cookies? The dispute may center on whether a browser is a "user station" that "triggers" the sending of information or merely a passive tool executing a network protocol.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual mapping: beyond the general use of cookies, what specific evidence will be presented to show that the accused website stores "user demographics" as required by claim 6 of the ’077 Patent, or that its cookies serve the dual roles of "station identifier" and "surrogate for a user identifier" as required by claim 2 of the ’078 Patent? The complaint's high-level allegations place the burden on discovery to substantiate these technical requirements.