Digi Portal LLC v. Carscom LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CAR.COM, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01623, D. Del., 08/29/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cars.com website infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages based on user-specific information.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently creating personalized web pages by combining user preferences with real-time data, a foundational concept for scalable, customized online user experiences.
• Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit are part of a single family descending from a 1997 application. The complaint notes that patents from this family were cited during the prosecution of over 700 patents owned by major technology companies, suggesting the underlying technology may be considered foundational in the field.

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. 8,352,854, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued January 8, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that early methods for customizing web pages, such as executing a CGI script to poll multiple data servers, did not scale well and resulted in significant delays for the user (Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:42-58). Alternative prior art methods that streamed data to the user’s local machine clogged networks and presented outdated information (Compl. ¶15; ’854 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient system where a user's preferences are used to generate a "user template" from a generic "global front page template" (Compl. ¶17; ’854 Patent, Fig. 2). This user template, which contains placeholders for live data, is then stored in one of at least two locations—such as a fast cache for frequent users or a database for infrequent users—with the storage location determined by the user's request frequency, thereby speeding up page generation for subsequent visits (Compl. ¶20, ¶24; ’854 Patent, col. 6:49-59).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to solve the critical challenge of delivering personalized web content quickly and at scale, which was a significant technical hurdle for the commercial internet in the late 1990s (Compl. ¶12, ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶27).
• Essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Receiving a template program that is unique to the user from one of at least two locations, where the location is determined from the frequency of the user request for the customized page.
  • Receiving an advertisement selected in accordance with the user demographic information.
  • Executing the template program using the selected advertisement to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-3 and 10, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶27).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued November 9, 1999.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that the ’227 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’854 Patent, and it therefore addresses the same technical problems of scalability and latency in prior art customized web page systems (Compl. ¶44; ’227 Patent, col. 1:30-58).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described for the ’854 Patent, focusing on combining user preferences with a generic template to form a user-specific template, which is then populated with real-time data to generate the final page (Compl. ¶44; ’227 Patent, Fig. 2). The claims of the ’227 Patent, however, focus more on the real-time combination of data and user preferences to generate the page.
• Technical Importance: As the earliest issued patent in the family, the ’227 Patent represents the initial protection for the described scalable architecture for personalized web content (Compl. ¶42, ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 2 (Compl. ¶45). Claim 2 of the issued patent is an independent claim.
• Essential elements of independent method claim 2 include:
  • Obtaining user preferences.
  • Obtaining real-time information from information sources.
  • Storing the real-time information in a storage device.
  • Combining the user preferences and a template to form a template program specific to the user.
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Executing the template program using the real-time information to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user in real-time response to the request.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued January 30, 2007 (Compl. ¶58).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares the same specification as the other asserted patents, focuses on a method for providing a customized page where the "template program" is received from one of at least two locations determined by user request frequency (Compl. ¶62-63). A key feature highlighted in the prosecution history is the storing of real-time information in a "shared local storage device" to eliminate time-consuming calls to other servers (Compl. ¶62).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 3 are asserted (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Cars.com server provides customized pages based on user preferences (e.g., location, interests) by obtaining real-time information (e.g., car listings) and storing it in a shared local storage device before generating and displaying the page (Compl. ¶64-66).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued July 21, 2009 (Compl. ¶79).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also shares the same specification. The complaint notes that during prosecution, the examiner focused on the combination of executing a user-specific template program with real-time information from shared local storage, and receiving and combining user preferences with a generic template to form that user-specific program (Compl. ¶83).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶84).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the computer-readable medium (e.g., server memory) of Cars.com that allegedly stores instructions for generating customized pages based on user preferences (e.g., location, saved cars) and real-time information (Compl. ¶84-85).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued April 18, 2017 (Compl. ¶96).
• Technology Synopsis: Sharing the same specification, this patent focuses on the method of generating and executing a unique template program for a user. The method involves combining customization information unique to the user (e.g., location, past searches) with a global template that is generic to a plurality of users (Compl. ¶102).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶101).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Cars.com server performs the claimed method by generating a unique template program for each user to create a customized webpage that combines user-specific data with a generic layout (Compl. ¶102, ¶104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Accused Instrumentality is the Cars.com website (“Cars.com”) (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• Cars.com is a website that allows users to search for vehicles for sale. The complaint alleges that the site provides customized content based on user-supplied information and user behavior (Compl. ¶29-31). For example, search results for available cars are tailored to a user's specified location (zip code) (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot showing different search results for a user in zip code 60007 versus a user in zip code 10011 (Compl. ¶30, p. 17).
• The website also allows users to "save" cars, which are then displayed on a personalized "My Saved Cars" page (Compl. ¶31). The complaint provides screenshots illustrating how this page is customized for a first user who saved Mitsubishi vehicles and a second user who saved RAM trucks (Compl. ¶49, p. 19; ¶49, p. 20).
• The complaint alleges that this customization is implemented using JavaScript code, cookies, and browser local storage, which together form a "template program" unique to the user (Compl. ¶29, ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "template program", as described in the 1997-era specification with HTML-like placeholders, can be construed to read on the modern, dynamic JavaScript code alleged to perform this function on the Cars.com website (Compl. ¶18, ¶29).
• Technical Questions: For the '854 patent, the infringement theory depends on the allegation that the storage location of the template program (server vs. local cache) is "determined from frequency of the user request" (Compl. ¶33). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that this determination is actively made based on frequency, as opposed to being an incidental result of standard browser caching protocols.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "template program"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’854 and ’227 patents and is foundational to the infringement theory. The complaint equates this term with "software instructions and data used for rendering a particular user's Cars.com page such as a JavaScript page" (Compl. ¶29, ¶51). The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this construction is adopted.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as an "improved system for delivering custom pages" that solves scalability problems (Compl. ¶16; ’854 Patent, col. 2:3-5). A party might argue that "template program" should be interpreted functionally to encompass any modern technological equivalent, such as JavaScript, that achieves the claimed result of separating user-specific structure from live data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of a "global user template" as an HTML document with "additional tags as placeholders for live data" (Compl. ¶17; ’854 Patent, col. 5:16-19, Fig. 3). A party could argue the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment of a static file with placeholders, potentially distinguishing it from executable script code.

The Term: "one of at least two locations, the location determined from frequency of the user request"

• Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 of the ’854 Patent is a key element distinguishing the invention from the prior art cited in the patent. The infringement allegation hinges on mapping this to main server storage versus the user's local computer storage (Compl. ¶33).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to improve efficiency. A party could argue that any system architecture that uses different storage tiers (e.g., remote server vs. local client cache) to speed up access for frequent users falls within the scope of the claim, regardless of the precise mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes flushing a template from a cache if a user page has been "inactive for several days," but maintaining it in a "user configuration database" for later retrieval (Compl. ¶21; ’854 Patent, col. 6:59-67). A party may argue that this implies a deliberate, server-side management system that actively determines storage location based on measured frequency, which may be different from the automatic and passive caching behavior of a standard web browser.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. It includes allegations of "constructive notice" for each asserted patent but pleads no specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge or intent that would support claims for willful or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶38, ¶56, ¶77, ¶94, ¶113).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "template program", which is described in the 1997-era specification as an HTML-like file with placeholders, be construed to cover the dynamic JavaScript code and associated data structures that constitute the modern architecture of the accused Cars.com website?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the storage location for the alleged "template program" (server vs. local device) is actively "determined from the frequency of the user request," as required by the claims, rather than being a passive and incidental result of standard web browser caching functions?
• A central technical question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused system's method of generating customized web pages—combining user inputs, saved preferences, and real-time data from multiple databases—perform the specific, ordered steps required by the asserted method claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented process and the actual operation of the Cars.com service?