TMI Solutions LLC v. Home Depot Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TMI Solutions LLC (Michigan)
  • Defendant: THE HOME DEPOT, INC. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01234, D. Del., 06/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, through its use of cookies to identify and track users across multiple sessions, infringes patents related to client-server communication and user identification.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of maintaining state and user identity over stateless communication networks, a foundational element for modern e-commerce, user personalization, and session management on the internet.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights a September 28, 2018, Memorandum Opinion and Order from the District of Delaware in several related cases involving the same patent family. In that order, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the complaints plausibly alleged the claims captured non-routine, unconventional activity that may improve computer functionality.

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”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,484,077, “Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station Over a Communications Network,” issued November 1, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the state of computer networks prior to the invention, where online services were complex, required extended online sessions, and lacked efficient means for distributing low-cost updates for electronic products (e.g., from a CD-ROM) (’077 Patent, col. 1:20-2:60). The complaint characterizes this problem by citing a news article noting that in May 1994, “every visit to a site was like the first, with no automatic way to record that a visitor had dropped by before” (Compl. ¶18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a remote computer system to recognize a user station over multiple sessions. During a first visit, the remote system receives "first information" from a new user station and sends back "second information" (which is different from the first) to be stored automatically on the user's device. In subsequent visits, the user's device automatically sends this "second information" to the remote system, which then uses it to retrieve "third information" about the user that it had previously stored, allowing for a continuous or personalized interaction (’077 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:23-45).
• Technical Importance: The patented method provides a technical framework for state management between a client and a server, enabling a server to "remember" a user across separate, stateless interactions, a capability foundational to modern web applications (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 6, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • Receiving first information at a remote computer system during a first session from a user station not previously identified.
  • Sending second information, which is a function of and different from the first information, to the user station for automatic storage.
  • Storing third information based on the first information at a location remote from the user station.
  • Receiving the second information automatically from the user station during a subsequent session.
  • 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.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶25).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,484,078, “Providing Services from a Remote Computer System to a User Station Over a Communications Network,” issued November 1, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’078 Patent shares a common specification with the ’077 Patent and thus addresses the same technical problem of automatically identifying users and user stations across different communication sessions in early computer networks (’078 Patent, col. 1:20-5:42; Compl. ¶17).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the ’077 Patent. A remote server establishes a persistent identity for a user station by providing it with unique "second information" during an initial session. This information is automatically sent back by the user station in later sessions, enabling the server to retrieve associated user data and maintain context (’078 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:19-45).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a solution to the problem of statelessness in network communications, which was a critical prerequisite for the development of personalized web experiences and e-commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • Receiving first user station identification information at a remote computer system during a first session from a user not previously identified.
  • Sending second information, which is a function of and different from the first, to the user station for automatic storage.
  • Storing third information based on the first information at a remote location accessible to the system.
  • Receiving the second information automatically from the user station during a subsequent session.
  • Retrieving the stored third information at the remote system using the received second information.
  • Using the retrieved third information for interaction with the remote system.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s website and its associated use of cookies, collectively referred to as "the Accused Practices" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s website uses cookies to automatically identify users and their computer stations over network communications (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35). This functionality is central to modern e-commerce, enabling features such as persistent shopping carts, personalized recommendations, and saved user preferences between visits. The Home Depot is a major retailer in the United States, and its website represents a significant commercial platform.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 that detail the alleged infringement but does not include them in the provided filing (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

’077 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes at least claim 6 of the ’077 Patent through its website's use of cookies (Compl. ¶26). The narrative theory suggests that when a new user visits Defendant’s website (a first session), the website's server receives information from the user's station. In response, the server sends a unique identifier, or cookie (the "second information"), to the user’s browser, where it is automatically stored. The server separately stores data associated with this user, such as browsing history or account details (the "third information"). On a subsequent visit, the user's browser automatically transmits the cookie back to the server, which uses the cookie to retrieve the stored user data and personalize the subsequent interaction.

’078 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes at least claims 1 and 2 of the ’078 Patent through the same "Accused Practices" involving its website and cookies (Compl. ¶35). The infringement theory is functionally identical to the one asserted for the ’077 Patent, mapping the steps of user identification, cookie placement, remote data storage, and subsequent automatic data retrieval to the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the claims, which are described in the patent specification in the context of updating content on CD-ROMs via a "transporter" component, can be construed to cover the general-purpose mechanism of HTTP cookies used on a modern e-commerce website (’077 Patent, col. 7:1-8:13).
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused cookie is a "function of" the information initially received from the user, as required by the claims. The parties may dispute whether the assignment of a unique or random identifier satisfies this limitation, or if a more direct mathematical or logical transformation is required.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"second information that is a function of . . . the first user station identification information"

• Source: ’077 Patent, Claim 1; ’078 Patent, Claim 1
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory maps this "second information" to the cookie placed on a user's browser. The definition of "function of" will determine whether merely generating a unique identifier in response to a new visitor meets the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that a randomly generated cookie is not a "function of" any information received from the user in a technically meaningful way.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a user ID that can be "entered by the user in a product setup and automatically accessed for information transport, or could by pre-loaded by the vendor from data supplied by the user at purchase" (’077 Patent, col. 8:10-13). This suggests the link between the user's initial information and the resulting identifier does not need to be a complex calculation but can be a simple assignment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not provide explicit examples defining the nature of the "function." A party could argue that the absence of such examples limits the term to a more traditional interpretation requiring a direct mathematical or logical dependency, which may not describe the generation of a standard session cookie.

"automatically"

• Source: ’077 Patent, Claim 1; ’078 Patent, Claim 1
• Context and Importance: The claims require that the second information is "stored automatically" at the user station and "automatically" sent back in subsequent sessions. The operation of the accused website's cookie functionality must meet this requirement. The dispute will likely center on whether the standard operation of a web browser, which handles cookies without direct user command for each transaction, satisfies this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art requiring "complex user interaction" and manual steps, suggesting "automatically" should be construed to mean without specific user intervention for the claimed step (’077 Patent, col. 2:38-39). The abstract likewise describes the second information being sent back "automatically from the user station" in a subsequent session (’077 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might point to language discussing user-initiated actions, such as a "user-actuated menu selection" to activate transport or a user's option to "confirm that the fetch transaction should proceed," to argue that the patent does not contemplate a process entirely free of user control or awareness (’077 Patent, col. 8:21-22, 8:40-41). Furthermore, since users can configure browser settings to block cookies, the process may not be considered fully automatic.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.

Willful Infringement

This section is not applicable as the complaint makes no allegations of willful infringement.

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

• Claim Construction and Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "second information that is a function of... the first... information," written in 1994 in the context of specific software "transporters" and CD-ROM updates, be construed to cover the now-ubiquitous practice of assigning a unique HTTP cookie to a new website visitor?
• Patent Eligibility: While a motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds was denied in related cases, patent eligibility will remain a central theme. The key question for the court will be whether the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of identification or to a specific, non-routine, and unconventional method of improving computer network functionality as it existed at the time of the invention.
• Prior Art and Obviousness: Given the 1994 priority date, a key evidentiary question will be the state of the art for client-server state management at that time. The case may turn on what factual evidence is presented regarding systems that existed before May 1994 for maintaining user identity across multiple network sessions and whether the asserted claims represent a patentable advance over that art.