Digi Portal LLC v. CoStar Realty Information Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00861, D. Del., 06/28/2020
• 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 BizQuest.com website infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages based on user-specific information.
• Technical Context: The patents address foundational methods for efficiently delivering personalized web content by pre-loading dynamic data into server-side memory and combining it with user-specific templates, a key technology for scalable personalized web services.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents, which share a common specification, claim priority to an application filed in 1997 and were originally assigned to Yahoo! Inc. The complaint notes that patents from this family were cited during the prosecution of over 700 patents and applications owned by major technology companies, suggesting their potential foundational nature in the field of web technologies.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 - "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 8, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with early methods of generating customized web pages, such as Common Gateway Interface (CGI) scripts, which were slow and did not scale well for many simultaneous users ( Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:42-43). These methods required polling multiple, potentially slow, external data servers for every user request, creating delays that would turn users away (Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture where a "template program" unique to a user is generated based on their stored preferences (Compl. ¶19; ’854 Patent, col. 5:23-28). This template is then used to generate a customized page. A key aspect alleged in the complaint is that this template is stored in and retrieved from one of at least two locations (e.g., a server database or local cache), with the retrieval location determined by the user's access frequency, improving efficiency (Compl. ¶20, ¶24; ’854 Patent, col. 4:49-52, col. 6:49-59).
• Technical Importance: This architectural approach was designed to make the generation of dynamic web pages quicker and more efficient, allowing a server to scale and handle substantially more requests for customized content (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶27). Claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
  • Receiving a template program unique to the user, which is based on user configuration information supplied by the user.
  • The template program is received from one of at least two locations, with the location being determined from the frequency of the user's request.
  • Receiving an advertisement selected in accordance with 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 reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 - "Dynamic Page Generator," issued November 9, 1999

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’227 Patent shares its specification with the ’854 Patent and addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency and lack of scalability of prior art systems for delivering customized web content (Compl. ¶44; ’227 Patent, col. 1:30-44).
• The Patented Solution: The solution centers on storing "real-time information" (e.g., stock quotes, news) in a "storage device" local to the page server (Compl. ¶50; ’227 Patent, col. 2:9-14). A user's preferences are combined with a generic template to form a user-specific "template program," which is then executed using the locally stored real-time data to generate the customized page in real-time response to a user request (Compl. ¶51, ¶53-54; ’227 Patent, col. 18:40-63).
• Technical Importance: This system was designed to provide rapid, real-time responses for customized pages by avoiding the need to make requests to external servers for live data portions (Compl. ¶44; ’227 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶45).
• Claim 2 requires:
  • Obtaining user preferences indicating items of interest.
  • 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 stored in the storage device to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user, where the executing and providing steps are performed in real-time response to the user request.

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414 - "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 30, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: Sharing the same specification as the patents above, the ’414 Patent describes a method for providing a customized web page where real-time information is obtained and stored in a "shared local storage device" (Compl. ¶62, ¶65). A user-specific template program is created based on user preferences and stored in a data structure associated with a unique user identifier (Compl. ¶68).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BizQuest.com uses a page server to provide customized pages based on user preferences, obtains real-time business listings, stores them in a shared local storage device, and stores user-specific template programs tied to user identifiers (Compl. ¶64-68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359 - "Dynamic Page Generator," issued July 21, 2009

• Technology Synopsis: The ’359 Patent, also from the same family, claims a computer-readable medium containing instructions for generating customized pages. The claimed method steps include storing real-time information in a shared local storage device and storing a user-specific template program for each of a plurality of users, with each template being associated with a user identifier that is in turn associated with a user request (Compl. ¶83-85).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶84).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges BizQuest.com utilizes a computer-readable medium with code for generating customized pages based on user preferences, including storing business-related deals in a shared local storage device and storing user-specific template programs tied to user login credentials (Compl. ¶84-86).

U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342 - "Dynamic Page Generator," issued April 18, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: The ’342 Patent, also from the same family, claims a method where a server computer generates a template program unique to a user by combining customization information unique to that user with a global template generic to a plurality of users (Compl. ¶100, ¶102). This unique template is then executed to generate and provide a customized web page that includes real-time information (Compl. ¶104, ¶107).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶101).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges BizQuest.com's server generates a unique template program for each user by combining their specific customization information (e.g., location, saved searches) with a global template, and then executes this program to generate and serve the user's customized web page (Compl. ¶102, ¶104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the BizQuest.com website, a service operated by the Defendant (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• BizQuest.com is an online marketplace for buying and selling businesses (Compl. p. 13). The complaint alleges that the site delivers customized web pages to users. This customization is based on user-supplied information, such as location, which alters the business listings displayed (Compl. ¶29, ¶46). For example, the complaint provides screenshots showing different "Transportation Businesses for Sale" listings for a user interested in New York versus a user interested in New Jersey (Compl. p. 15, 16). The complaint further alleges that users can log into accounts to save searches and business listings, which results in the display of further customized pages showing this saved information (Compl. ¶31). The site also allegedly integrates advertisements selected based on user demographic information (Compl. ¶34-35). A screenshot of the BizQuest homepage shows a user can enter a location and industry to find relevant business listings (Compl. p. 13).

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 potential point of contention for the ’854 Patent revolves around the limitation requiring the "template program" to be "received from one of at least two locations, the location determined from the frequency of the user request." The complaint alleges this is met by storing data on a main server and in the user's browser cache/cookies (Compl. ¶33). The case may raise the question of whether this modern, distributed client-server architecture falls within the scope of the claim language, which is rooted in a 1997 server-centric architecture.
• Technical Questions: For the ’227 Patent, a key technical question may be whether the accused system's alleged temporary storage of business listings on a "local web/API server" (Compl. ¶50) constitutes the "storing the real-time information in a storage device" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification emphasizes a "large region of shared memory" closely coupled to the page generator to avoid calls to other servers ('227 Patent, col. 2:5-14). The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's architecture is functionally and structurally equivalent to the specific system disclosed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "template program" (’854 Patent, Cl. 1; ’227 Patent, Cl. 2)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theories for multiple patents. The complaint alleges this term covers modern web assets like "JavaScript pages" and associated data used for rendering (Compl. ¶29, ¶51). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claims read on contemporary web technologies or are limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the 1997-priority application.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "user template" functionally as containing user preference information that "does not change until the user changes his or her preferences" and includes "internal variables such as a time zone and demographic information" (’854 Patent, col. 5:29-33). This could support a broader, functional definition not tied to a specific file format.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of a "global user template" as an "HTML (HyperText Markup Language) document with additional tags as placeholders for live data" (’854 Patent, col. 5:16-19; Fig. 3). A defendant may argue that "template program" should be construed more narrowly in light of this specific disclosure.

• The Term: "shared local storage device" (’227 Patent, Cl. 2; ’414 Patent, Cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The patent’s solution relies on storing real-time data locally to the page server to improve performance. The definition of this term is critical because it distinguishes the invention from prior art systems that polled remote data sources. The complaint alleges this is met by storing business listings on "BizQuest.com's servers/databases" or a "local web/API server" (Compl. ¶50, ¶65).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states that with "live data stored in a local, shared memory, any custom page can be built within the page server, eliminating the need to make requests from other servers" (’227 Patent, Abstract). This functional description could support an interpretation covering any storage that is local to the page-generating process and avoids external network calls for data integration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 2 depicts a "Shared Memory" (212) as a distinct component within the "Page Server" (104) architecture, separate from the external "Data Sources" (’227 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support a narrower, structural interpretation requiring a specific type of closely-coupled memory architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

• The complaint alleges Defendant had at least constructive notice of the patents-in-suit but does not include specific allegations to support claims for either indirect or willful infringement (Compl. ¶38, ¶56, ¶77, ¶94, ¶112).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused BizQuest.com website, which operates on modern web architecture involving client-side scripting and distributed data storage (e.g., browser cookies, local storage), function in a way that is legally equivalent to the specific, server-centric architecture disclosed in the 1997-priority patents, which emphasizes a centralized "page server" with a closely-coupled "shared memory"?
• The case will also likely turn on a question of claim scope: can terms such as "template program," conceived in the context of placeholder tags in HTML files, be construed to cover the complex JavaScript objects and instructions used to dynamically render modern web pages, or does the patent's specification limit the terms to the specific embodiments disclosed?
• A third key question will be one of infringement evidence: what factual evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused system retrieves a user-specific template from different locations based on the "frequency of the user request," as required by claims of the ’854 Patent, and how will that frequency be measured and proven?