Digi Portal LLC v. Rexel USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Rexel USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00376, D. Del., 03/23/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently serving personalized web content by combining user-specific templates with real-time data, aiming to solve scalability and performance issues prevalent in late-1990s web architectures.
• Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit descend from a common priority application filed in 1997 and were originally assigned to Yahoo! Inc. The complaint highlights arguments from the prosecution history, noting that features such as storing user templates in multiple locations based on access frequency were presented as unconventional solutions to technical problems in the prior art.

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’s background section describes the technical challenges of serving customized web pages at scale. Prior art methods, such as using Common Gateway Interface (CGI) scripts, were slow and resource-intensive because they required polling multiple external data servers for each user request, leading to delays that frustrated users (Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:42-58). An alternative of transferring data to the user's local machine in non-real-time resulted in network congestion and outdated information (Compl. ¶15; ’854 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient architecture where a "user template," containing a user's preferences, is combined with live data that is stored locally to the page server in a "shared memory" region. This architecture, illustrated in Figure 2 of the patent, eliminates the need for repeated, time-consuming calls to external data sources for every page view (Compl. ¶17; ’854 Patent, col. 3:58-62, Fig. 2). A key feature is the storage of this user template in at least two locations, with the specific location (e.g., a fast cache for frequent users or a database for infrequent users) being determined by the frequency of user requests, thereby optimizing system performance and scalability (Compl. ¶20; ’854 Patent, col. 6:49-59).
• Technical Importance: This server-side architecture for pre-caching and combining templates with locally stored live data was a solution to the performance bottlenecks that limited the growth of large, personalized web portals in the late 1990s (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8, 9, and 15 (Compl. ¶27).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a template program unique to a user and based on user-supplied configuration information, which includes user demographic information.
  • The template program is received from one of at least two locations, where the specific location is determined from the frequency of the user's 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims for this patent.

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

• Issued: November 9, 1999

The Invention Explained

• The complaint states that the ’227 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’854 Patent (Compl. ¶44). The technical problem, patented solution, and technical importance are therefore the same as those described for the ’854 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 2 (Compl. ¶45).
• Independent Claim 2 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Obtaining user preferences indicating items of interest to a user.
  • 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 at the server for a customized page.
  • Executing the user-specific template program, using the stored real-time information as input, to generate the customized page.
  • Providing the customized page to the user in real-time response to the request, with the page including at least one item of the real-time information.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims for this patent.

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

• Issued: January 30, 2007 (Compl. ¶56)

Technology Synopsis

This patent, which shares the same specification as the other patents-in-suit, discloses a method for providing a customized web page by obtaining real-time information, storing it in a shared local storage device, and receiving a user-specific template program from one of at least two locations, where the retrieval location is determined by the frequency of the user's request (Compl. ¶60-61). This architecture is designed to eliminate the need for time-consuming requests to other servers for live data (Compl. ¶60).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶62).

Accused Features

The rexelusa.com website is accused of using a page server that stores real-time information (e.g., store availability from an API) in a shared local storage device (e.g., server or user computer memory) and fetches template components from different locations (e.g., main server or local cache) depending on user access frequency (Compl. ¶62, ¶63, ¶67).

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

• Issued: July 21, 2009 (Compl. ¶74)

Technology Synopsis

Sharing the common specification, this patent claims a computer-readable medium with instructions for generating customized pages. The claimed method involves storing real-time information in a shared local storage device and storing a user-specific template program that is associated with a unique user identifier, where the template is retrieved from one of at least two locations based on request frequency (Compl. ¶78, ¶80-81).

Asserted Claims

Claim 10 (Compl. ¶79).

Accused Features

The accused instrumentality allegedly comprises a computer-readable medium (e.g., server storage) with instructions to generate customized pages based on user preferences. It is alleged to store real-time information and a user-specific template program tied to a user ID, and to retrieve template components from either a main server or local storage based on user request frequency (Compl. ¶79-81).

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

• Issued: April 18, 2017 (Compl. ¶87)

Technology Synopsis

This patent, also sharing the common specification, claims a method for generating and serving customized web pages. The method involves a server generating a unique template program for a user by combining user-specific customization information with a generic global template, executing that program to generate a page that includes real-time information, and serving the page to the user (Compl. ¶91, ¶93-94).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶92).

Accused Features

The rexelusa.com servers are accused of generating a unique template program for each user by combining user account preferences and search parameters with a generic page layout. This program is then allegedly executed to generate a customized page (e.g., store search results) that incorporates real-time information (e.g., store availability) and is subsequently served to the user (Compl. ¶93, ¶94, ¶97).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the e-commerce website located at https://www.rexelusa.com/ and its associated backend computer systems (Compl. ¶27, ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

The website functions as an online portal for Defendant's products, allowing users to create accounts, log in, search for products and store locations, and view customized content (Compl. ¶28-29, ¶46-47). The complaint alleges that after a user logs in, the website displays personalized information, such as the user's name, and provides content based on user preferences and demographic information (Compl. ¶29). A screenshot of the accused website shows a personalized welcome message for a logged-in user (Compl. p. 22). The complaint further alleges that the system uses JavaScript, content delivery networks (CDNs), browser cookies, and local cache to assemble and deliver these customized pages, and that it collects user demographic data to serve targeted advertisements (Compl. ¶19, ¶29-30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Infringement Allegations: '854 Patent

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's use of standard web technologies like JavaScript, CDNs, and browser caching falls within the scope of the patent’s terms "template program" and "received from one of at least two locations."
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the choice of location (e.g., server vs. cache) is "determined from the frequency of the user request." A key factual question is what evidence demonstrates that this specific logic is implemented, as opposed to a generic caching algorithm that is not dependent on the request frequency for a customized page in the manner claimed.

Infringement Allegations: '227 Patent

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A question may arise over whether the accused website's process of displaying database query results within a standard webpage layout constitutes "combining... user preferences... and a template to form a template program specific to the user" as the term is used in the patent.
• Technical Questions: The claim recites a specific sequence of storing real-time information in a storage device and then using that stored information as input. An evidentiary question will be whether the accused system's data flow mirrors this claimed sequence or if it uses a more direct, non-infringing method of displaying data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term for Construction: "template program"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to multiple asserted patents and appears to be a core element of the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether modern web assets, like JavaScript files and data objects rendered on the client-side, are equivalent to the 1997-era, server-centric "templates" described in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as an "improved system for delivering custom pages" in general, which may support construing the term to cover technological evolutions that achieve the same goal (col. 1:52–54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as the exemplary user template in Figure 4, which is a server-side document containing placeholders. An argument could be made that a "template program" must conform to this server-centric architecture where a "page generator" component processes the template (Fig. 2), potentially excluding systems that rely heavily on client-side rendering.

Term for Construction: "location determined from the frequency of the user request for the customized page"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in claims of the ’854, ’414, and ’359 patents and was highlighted in the complaint as an "unconventional" feature distinguished from the prior art (Compl. ¶24). Its construction is critical to determining whether standard web caching mechanisms infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains this concept in the context of improving efficiency, stating that "for infrequent users, the user template is stored in a user configuration database, whereas for frequent users the user template may also be stored in cache" (col. 6:51–59). This could be read to encompass any multi-tiered storage system where frequently accessed data is placed in a faster location.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same passage distinguishes between a "user configuration database" and "cache," suggesting two distinct and specific types of locations. An argument could be made that the claim requires a system that explicitly tracks request frequency for a user's customized page and makes a deliberate decision to move the template between these specific types of storage, rather than merely relying on a generic, system-wide caching policy.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint's prayer for relief requests that damages be trebled as a result of Defendant's alleged willful infringement (Compl. p. 129, ¶g). However, the complaint body does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit, stating only that Defendant had "at least constructive notice" by operation of law (Compl. ¶38, ¶54, ¶72, ¶85).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the 1997-era patent claims, which describe a server-centric architecture with "template programs" and "shared local memory," be construed to cover the accused website's modern architecture that relies on client-side JavaScript, content delivery networks, and browser caching?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused system's use of different storage tiers (e.g., server vs. local cache) is specifically "determined from the frequency of the user request for the customized page" as required by key claims, as opposed to being a generic, non-infringing web optimization strategy?
• The case may also present a question of technological equivalence: is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the server-side "page generator" described in the patent specification and the accused system's alleged use of the user's own browser to execute code and render the final customized page?