Digi Portal LLC v. CareerBuilder LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CareerBuilder, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00860, D. Del., 06/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s CareerBuilder.com website infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages based on user preferences and real-time data.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for efficiently delivering personalized web content, a foundational capability for large-scale web services that tailor information for individual users.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the five patents-in-suit share an identical specification and originate from a common application filed in 1997. It also states that patents from this family have been cited during the prosecution of over 700 other patents, suggesting a potential foundational role for the technology 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 (’854 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the technical challenge of providing customized web pages at scale. Prior art methods, such as executing a CGI script for each request, were slow and did not scale well, leading to user impatience. Other methods that streamed custom information continuously clogged networks and resulted in outdated, locally stored data (Compl. ¶13-15; ’854 Patent, col. 1:42-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user’s preferences are used to generate a “user template.” This template is combined with “live data” (e.g., stock quotes, news) that is stored locally on the page server in a shared memory. This architecture allows a customized page to be built entirely within the page server, which is significantly faster than repeatedly querying external data sources (’854 Patent, col. 2:5-11). To further increase efficiency, user templates are stored in at least two locations (e.g., a main database and a local cache), and the retrieval location is determined by the frequency of the user’s requests (Compl. ¶24; ’854 Patent, col. 5:23-38).
• Technical Importance: This server architecture was designed to enable early, large-scale web portals to serve personalized content to millions of users quickly and efficiently, solving a key scalability problem (Compl. ¶12, 16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8, as well as dependent claims (Compl. ¶27).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) essential elements:
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Receiving a template program unique to the user, based on user configuration information that includes demographic information.
  • The template program is received from one of at least two locations, with the location being determined by the frequency of the user’s request.
  • Receiving an advertisement selected in accordance with the user demographic information.
  • Executing the template program with the advertisement to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user.

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 (’227 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that the ’227 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’854 Patent and therefore addresses the same technical problems of scalability and latency in serving customized web pages (Compl. ¶44; ’227 Patent, col. 1:14-18, 1:42-58).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is identical to that described for the ’854 Patent, focusing on a page server architecture that uses user-specific templates and locally stored real-time data in shared memory to generate pages efficiently (’227 Patent, col. 2:1-14). The claims of the ’227 Patent focus on providing real-time responses to user requests for customized pages (Compl. ¶45).
• Technical Importance: As with the ’854 Patent, this technology was aimed at enabling scalable, personalized web services (Compl. ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claim 2, which depends on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) essential elements:
  • 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 stored real-time information as input.
  • Providing the customized page to the user.
• The asserted dependent claim 2 adds the limitation that the executing and providing steps are performed in "real-time response" to the user request.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued January 30, 2007 (’414 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’414 Patent shares the same specification as the patents described above and relates to providing customized web pages (Compl. ¶62). The complaint highlights claim features including storing real-time information in a shared local storage device and receiving a template program from one of at least two locations based on request frequency (Compl. ¶62-63).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The CareerBuilder.com server is accused of providing customized pages based on user preferences, obtaining real-time job listings, storing them in a shared local storage device (e.g., a web/API server), and receiving a user-specific template program from multiple locations (e.g., main server or local storage) based on access frequency (Compl. ¶64-65, 72).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued July 21, 2009 (’359 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’359 Patent shares the same specification and addresses dynamic page generation (Compl. ¶83). The complaint emphasizes claim limitations requiring execution of a template program using real-time information from a shared local storage device and combining user preferences with a generic template to form a user-specific template (Compl. ¶83).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 10 (Compl. ¶84).
• Accused Features: The accused instrumentality is alleged to be a computer-readable medium (e.g., code) that generates customized pages based on user preferences, stores real-time information (job listings) in a shared local storage device, and stores a user-specific template program associated with a unique user identifier (Compl. ¶84-86).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342, titled “Dynamic Page Generator,” issued April 18, 2017 (’342 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’342 Patent also shares the same specification (Compl. ¶100). The asserted claims relate to a method of responding to a user request by generating a unique template program and executing it to create a customized web page that includes real-time information.
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶101).
• Accused Features: The accused method involves generating a user-unique template program by combining user-specific information (e.g., location, saved jobs) with a global template, and then executing that program on a server to generate a customized web page containing real-time job listings (Compl. ¶102, 104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The CareerBuilder.com website, referred to as the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes CareerBuilder.com as a platform where users can receive customized pages based on user-supplied configuration information (Compl. ¶28-29). This includes providing a location to receive geographically relevant job listings or selecting "Saved Jobs" to create a personalized list (Compl. ¶31, 46).
• The complaint provides screenshots showing how job listings vary for users who input different locations, such as "Newark, DE" versus "Los Angeles, CA," to demonstrate the customized nature of the pages (Compl. ¶30).
• A screenshot of the "My Saved Jobs" page is provided to show another form of user-driven customization (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,352,854 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "JavaScript page" and associated data stored in browser cookies or local storage meet the definition of a "template program" as that term is used in the patent, which describes a server-side HTML-based template structure (’854 Patent, col. 5:16-23).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that the retrieval location of template information (server vs. local storage) is determined by the "frequency of the user request" (Compl. ¶33). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that this specific decision logic exists, as opposed to standard, generalized caching behavior inherent in modern web infrastructure.

5,983,227 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The definition of "real-time information" will likely be contested. The patent specification gives examples of rapidly changing data like stock quotes and sports scores (’227 Patent, col. 1:47-51). The question for the court will be whether a database of job listings, which is updated less frequently, qualifies as "real-time" within the meaning of the claim.
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused system "combine" preferences with a "template" to "form a template program" as required by the claim, or does it use a more conventional approach of querying a database with user preferences as search filters to populate a single, generic page layout? The patent describes a distinct two-step process of first creating a user-specific template and then executing it, which may differ from the accused system’s actual operation (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 2).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "template program"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of multiple asserted patents. Its construction is critical because the infringement theory depends on mapping this term to the modern web technologies used by the accused website, such as JavaScript pages, browser cookies, and data stored in local storage (Compl. ¶29, 33, 51).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the invention's purpose is to dynamically generate customized pages efficiently (’854 Patent, col. 2:2-11). A party could argue that "template program" should be interpreted functionally to cover any set of instructions and data structures—including modern JavaScript objects—that achieve this purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of a "user template" as an HTML document containing special placeholder tags, such as <!-- channel:nsum --> (’854 Patent, col. 5:16-19, Fig. 3). A party could argue the term should be limited to this server-side, HTML-based structure and not read on client-side script objects and browser-based storage.

• The Term: "location determined from the frequency of the user request"

• Context and Importance: This limitation from the ’854 Patent is a key differentiator highlighted in the complaint (Compl. ¶24). Infringement hinges on whether the accused system’s use of different storage locations (e.g., server vs. local cache) is driven by the specific frequency of an individual user's requests.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains that caching is more effective for users who make several requests in a short time span (’854 Patent, col. 5:29-32). This could support an argument that any standard caching mechanism, which inherently benefits frequent users, meets the claim limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a system where user templates "are stored in cache 214 for long enough to be reused" for frequent users, while infrequent users' templates might not be cached (’854 Patent, col. 4:42-46). This language may suggest a specific, deliberate architectural choice based on user behavior, potentially allowing an argument that it does not cover ubiquitous, automatic browser or CDN caching that is not tied to a server-side frequency determination logic.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms from a 1997-priority patent, such as "template program" and "shared memory," which describe a specific server-side architecture, be construed to cover modern, distributed web technologies like client-side JavaScript, browser local storage, and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)?
• A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what factual evidence will the plaintiff present to substantiate its "information and belief" allegations that the accused system performs specific actions recited in the claims, particularly the allegation that the storage location for template data is actively "determined from the frequency of the user request"?
• A final key question will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused system’s method of populating a web page—which may involve using user preferences as filters for a database query—constitute the same technical operation as the patent’s described multi-step process of first "combining" preferences with a global template to "form a template program specific to the user" and then separately "executing" that program?