Recursive Web Tech LLC v. Cyberalert LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Recursive Web Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: CyberAlert, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02068, D. Del., 10/30/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media monitoring services infringe patents related to the automated extraction of factual and temporal data from unstructured and semi-structured online documents.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns automated information retrieval and analysis from web sources, a foundational process for the media intelligence and brand monitoring industries.
• Key Procedural History: The two patents-in-suit are part of the same patent family, with U.S. Patent No. 8,620,848 being a divisional of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 8,244,661. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,244,661 - "System and Method for Facts Extraction and Domain Knowledge Repository Creation From Unstructured and Semi-Structured Documents"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,244,661, "System and Method for Facts Extraction and Domain Knowledge Repository Creation From Unstructured and Semi-Structured Documents," issued August 14, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of automatically analyzing and aggregating information from the vast number of unstructured or semi-structured documents on the internet, particularly the challenge of accurately extracting temporal information (timestamps) to determine the relevancy of facts ('661 Patent, col. 1:23-31, col. 3:7-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automatically extract and verify timestamps from web pages. The system parses a page into a sequence of paragraphs and then builds a list of candidate timestamps by identifying "valid triads" of words or numbers representing a year, month, and day, which are then subject to verification rules ('661 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:26-34; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: Accurate, automated timestamp extraction is described as critical for creating reliable, structured knowledge repositories from unstructured web content, as the validity of an extracted fact often depends on its date ('661 Patent, col. 3:7-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • parsing a page and representing it as a sequence of paragraphs; and
  • building list of candidates for time stamp for each paragraph by extraction of valid triads representing year, month and day.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 8,620,848 - "System and Method for Facts Extraction and Domain Knowledge Repository Creation From Unstructured and Semi-Structured Documents"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,620,848, "System and Method for Facts Extraction and Domain Knowledge Repository Creation From Unstructured and Semi-Structured Documents," issued December 31, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge of extracting not just text but also meaningful quantitative information from documents. Such numerical data is often crucial for describing facts but is difficult to extract and associate with the correct object automatically ('848 Patent, col. 6:46-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for extracting "Very Important Numbers" (VINs) from documents. The process involves identifying tables and paragraphs that contain numbers, extracting those numbers, and then determining the specific object to which the number refers, such as the number of employees in a company or a percentage of a budget ('848 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:53-58; Fig. 12).
• Technical Importance: The extraction of quantitative data (VINs) is presented as a way to significantly enhance the usability of an information system, providing valuable details for market analysis, lead verification, and other business decisions ('848 Patent, col. 6:56-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 2.
• The essential elements of Claim 2 are:
  • a method for extraction of very important numbers and objects that are associated with from a page comprising:
  • determining paragraphs and tables containing numbers; and
  • extracting the numbers.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's media monitoring services, including CyberAlert 5.0, CyberAlert Buzz, CyberAlert Print, CyberAlert TV, and CyberAlert Radio (the "Product") (Compl. ¶14, ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Product is a media monitoring platform that automatically monitors over 55,000 online news sources, social media sites, blogs, and forums (Compl. p. 4). It is alleged to extract articles, clips, and other documents from websites, parse the content, and display it to users in an online dashboard (Compl. ¶16, ¶28). This dashboard presents the extracted content along with associated metadata, such as timestamps and various numerical metrics (Compl. ¶17, ¶28). A screenshot of the accused dashboard shows a list of articles with associated dates and metrics like "Web Rank" and "Reach/Million" (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’661 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused product's method of identifying a date (e.g., "06/21/2012" as shown in a screenshot (Compl. p. 8)) constitutes the claimed step of "building list of candidates ... by extraction of valid triads," which the patent specification describes with a set of specific rules and constraints (ʼ661 Patent, col. 19:1-21).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the product "parses a page," but a key question for the court will be whether the technical process used by the accused product to segment and display content aligns with the specific method of "representing it as a sequence of paragraphs" as contemplated by the patent.

’848 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "very important numbers" can be construed to read on the types of metadata metrics (e.g., "Web Rank," "Reach/Million") the accused product allegedly extracts. The defense may argue the patent specification defines "VINs" as quantitative information intrinsic to the document's semantic content (e.g., number of employees, salary), not as externally-derived metrics about the document's importance or ranking ('848 Patent, col. 6:53-58).
  • Technical Questions: It raises the question of whether the accused product's process for generating and displaying metrics like "Web Rank" is technically equivalent to the claimed steps of "determining paragraphs and tables containing numbers" and "extracting the numbers" from within those structures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’848 Patent

• The Term: "very important numbers" (VINs)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central object of extraction in Claim 2 of the '848 patent. Its construction will likely determine whether the metrics generated by the accused product (e.g., Web Rank, Reach/Million) fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s allegations rely on equating performance metrics with the patent’s examples of intrinsic factual data.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any number that is "very important" in the context of the document, which could include performance metrics that provide context and value. The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the source or type of number beyond being "associated with" the page.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides specific examples of VINs, such as "number of employees in a company, number of customer representatives, percent of the budget spent on a particular business activity, number of call centers, number of different locations, age of a person, his/her salary etc." ('848 Patent, col. 6:53-58). A party could argue these examples limit the term to quantitative data that is part of the substantive, factual content of the document, rather than externally generated metadata about the document.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant "induces others to perform" the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 28, 29). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be that by providing the Product and its functionalities, Defendant causes its users to engage in the infringing acts of extracting and viewing the patented information.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement or allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief includes a standard request for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides the statutory basis for enhanced damages should willfulness be proven later in the litigation, for example, based on conduct occurring after the filing of the complaint (Compl. p. 18).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "very important numbers," as described in the '848 patent with examples like employee counts and salaries, be construed to cover the performance and ranking metadata (e.g., "Web Rank") that the accused product allegedly generates and displays?
• A key question of technical infringement will be: Does the accused product's method of identifying and processing dates and numerical data meet the specific, multi-step limitations of the asserted claims, such as the "building list of candidates for time stamp... by extraction of valid triads" required by the '661 patent?
• An evidentiary question will concern inducement: What evidence will be presented to establish that Defendant, by offering its automated media monitoring service, specifically intended for its users to infringe the patents-in-suit, as required to prove induced infringement?