Digi Portal LLC v. CarGurus Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cargurus, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01622, D. Del., 08/29/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cargurus.com online automotive marketplace infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently generating and serving personalized web content to a large number of users by combining user-specific preferences with real-time data.
• Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit share a common specification and claim priority back to a 1997 application originally assigned to Yahoo! Inc. The complaint notes that during prosecution, the inventors distinguished the claimed methods from prior art by highlighting unconventional features, such as storing a user template in at least two locations based on access frequency and generating a template unique to the user.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 - "Dynamic Page Generator"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8352854, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 8, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art methods for generating customized web pages as being inefficient and unscalable (Compl. ¶13-14). Methods that execute scripts like CGI to collect information from various servers in real-time are too slow for a large user base, while methods that store customized information on a user’s local device clog networks and result in outdated content (Compl. ¶14-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient, scalable system where a server generates a "user template" based on a user's stored preferences (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 2). This template, which defines the page structure and content categories, is then populated with "live data" (e.g., stock quotes, news) that is stored locally on the page server in a shared memory region (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 2; ’854 Patent, col. 4:4-11). This architecture minimizes slow, repeated calls to external data sources. The solution also proposes storing the user template itself in different locations—such as in a cache for frequent users and a database for infrequent users—based on access frequency to optimize response times (Compl. ¶20, ¶24; ’854 Patent, col. 6:49-59).
• Technical Importance: This server-side template and local data caching architecture was a key technical improvement that enabled the rise of large-scale, personalized web portals by allowing them to serve customized content quickly to millions of users (Compl. ¶12, ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶27).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method comprising the key steps of:
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Receiving a template program that is unique to the user and based on user configuration information, which includes demographic information.
  • Receiving this template program from one of at least two locations, with the specific location being determined by the frequency of the user's requests.
  • Receiving an advertisement selected based on the user's demographic information.
  • Executing the template program with the advertisement to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, and claim 15 (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 - "Dynamic Page Generator"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5983227, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued November 9, 1999.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’227 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’854 Patent and addresses the same technical problems of scalability and latency in prior art systems for generating dynamic web pages (Compl. ¶44).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is identical to that described for the ’854 Patent, centered on a page server architecture that combines user-specific templates with real-time data stored in a local, shared memory to accelerate the generation of customized pages (Compl. ¶44, incorporating ¶13-25; ’227 Patent, col. 1:59-2:14).
• Technical Importance: As the earliest issued patent in the asserted family, this patent describes a foundational approach for the scalable, personalized web services that became dominant in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Compl. ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶45).
• Independent Claim 2 is a method comprising the key steps of:
  • Obtaining user preferences indicating items of interest.
  • Obtaining real-time information from information sources and storing it in a storage device.
  • Combining the user preferences and a template to form a user-specific template program.
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Executing the template program using the stored real-time information to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user in real-time response to the request, where the page includes at least one item of the real-time information.

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414 - "Dynamic Page Generator"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7171414, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 30, 2007 (Compl. ¶58).
• Technology Synopsis: Sharing the same specification as the other asserted patents, this patent discloses a method for providing customized web pages (Compl. ¶62). The complaint emphasizes that the prosecution history highlighted unconventional features, including "storing real-time information in a shared local storage device" on the page server to eliminate calls to other servers, and receiving a user template from one of at least two locations determined by request frequency (Compl. ¶62-63).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 3 are asserted (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The Cargurus.com website is accused of infringing by obtaining real-time information like car listings, storing it in a shared local storage device (a local web/API server), and using it to provide customized pages based on user preferences like location and interests (Compl. ¶65-67).

U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359 - "Dynamic Page Generator"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7565359, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued July 21, 2009 (Compl. ¶79).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also shares the common specification and concerns dynamically generating web pages (Compl. ¶83). The complaint notes that the patentability arguments during prosecution focused on executing a user-specific template with real-time information from a shared local storage device, and on combining user preferences with a generic template to form that user-specific template (Compl. ¶83).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶84).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses a computer-readable medium used by Cargurus.com that allegedly contains instructions for storing real-time information, storing user-specific template programs associated with a user identifier, and generating customized pages based on user preferences (Compl. ¶84-86).

U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342 - "Dynamic Page Generator"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9626342, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued April 18, 2017 (Compl. ¶96).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, claims a method for responding to a user request for a customized page (Compl. ¶100-101). The alleged invention involves generating a template program unique to the user by combining user-specific customization information with a global, generic template, and then executing that program to generate the customized page with real-time information (Compl. ¶102, ¶104).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶101).
• Accused Features: The Cargurus.com website is accused of infringing by generating a template program unique to a user (based on location, favorite topics, etc.) combined with a global template, and executing it to generate a customized page with real-time car listings (Compl. ¶102-104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Cargurus.com website and its associated backend systems and software (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Cargurus.com website is an online automotive marketplace that allows users to search for new and used vehicles (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). Users provide preferences, such as their zip code, to receive customized search results showing vehicle listings near their location (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides a screenshot showing a user inputting a zip code to filter search results (Compl. ¶29, p. 14). The platform also allows users to select "favorite topics" to customize the content they see (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges that the site stores user data and template information in multiple locations, including a main server and local storage on the user's computer (e.g., browser cookies), to create customized pages (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'854 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a user's zip code, entered for a specific search, constitutes "user demographic information" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like age and gender in addition to location (Compl. ¶19; ’854 Patent, col. 5:42-45). The defense may argue that transient search parameters are distinct from stored user demographics.
  • Technical Questions: The allegation that the template's retrieval location is determined by "frequency of the user request" is made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶33). This raises the evidentiary question of whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the Cargurus.com architecture actually makes such a frequency-based distinction between server-side and client-side storage for its templates, as required by the claim.

'227 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "real-time response" will be critical. The defense may argue that the accused process, which involves retrieving data from a database of car listings, does not meet the "real-time" standard contemplated by a patent whose examples include constantly changing stock quotes.
  • Technical Questions: It raises a question whether the accused functionality of applying user filters to a database of listings is technically equivalent to the claimed step of "combining the user preferences ... and a template to form a template program." The defense may argue its system filters a pre-existing data set rather than forming a new "program" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "template program"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused software instructions, described as JavaScript pages (Compl. ¶29, ¶51), fall within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a user template as containing the information about the user that "does not change until the user changes his or her preferences" and is "independent of the live data" (’854 Patent, col. 5:25-32). This could support a broad definition covering any set of instructions that defines the structure and user-specific customizations of a page before dynamic data is inserted.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of a user template as an HTML document with special, non-standard tags and variables embedded as placeholders for live data (’854 Patent, Fig. 4, col. 5:11-14). A defendant might argue this limits the term to a specific file format, rather than general-purpose executable code like JavaScript.

• The Term: "user demographic information"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’854 patent’s advertising-related limitations hinges on whether the user-provided information in the accused system (e.g., location, interests) qualifies as "demographic information."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification includes "location" as an example of user configuration information that can be used for customization (’854 Patent, col. 2:13-14). Plaintiff may argue that in the context of the patent, any user-provided data that characterizes the user, including location, falls under this umbrella.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's most detailed example of demographic information is a string indicating sex, age, and zip code (":M,85,95035,T,*") (’854 Patent, col. 5:42-45). Practitioners may focus on this specific embodiment to argue for a narrower definition limited to traditional demographic data like age and gender, as opposed to any user-inputted preference.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It alleges only that the Defendant had "at least constructive notice of the... patent by operation of law" (Compl. ¶38, ¶56, ¶77, ¶94, ¶113), which is insufficient to support a claim for willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent claims rooted in the server-side technologies of the late 1990s, which describe discrete "template programs" and "demographic information," be construed to cover modern, dynamic web applications like Cargurus.com that use client-side JavaScript, browser cookies, and user-inputted search filters to create a personalized experience?
• A second key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the plaintiff produce concrete technical evidence to substantiate its "information and belief" allegations regarding the internal architecture of the accused system? Specifically, proving the claimed method of selecting a template's storage location (server vs. local) based on user request frequency will likely require significant discovery into the defendant's infrastructure.
• Finally, the case may turn on a question of technical implementation: does the accused system's process—which the complaint describes as combining user preferences with a "global template" to form a unique program (Compl. ¶51, ¶102)—functionally equate to the patented method of generating a user-specific template and then populating it with separate "real-time information"? The distinction between filtering a unified dataset versus populating a static template structure will be a central technical dispute.