DCT

1:22-cv-00665

Digi Portal LLC v. Tillys Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00665, D. Del., 05/23/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes five patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages for users.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for efficiently serving personalized web content by generating user-specific templates and populating them with real-time data stored locally to the web server, aiming to improve performance and scalability over prior art systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit belong to a single family descending from an application filed in 1997, originally assigned to Yahoo! Inc. The complaint notes that during prosecution, arguments were made distinguishing the invention from prior art based on unconventional features such as storing a user-customized template in at least two locations determined by the frequency of user requests. The complaint also alleges the patent family has been cited during the prosecution of over 700 other patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-06-12 Earliest Priority Date (’854, ’227, ’414, ’359, ’342 Patents)
1999-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 Issues
2007-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414 Issues
2009-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359 Issues
2013-01-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 Issues
2016-07-06 Earliest Accused Product Date Referenced in Complaint
2017-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342 Issues
2022-05-23 Complaint Filing Date

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 describes prior art methods for serving customized web pages as suffering from poor scalability and high latency (Compl. ¶14; '854 Patent, col. 1:42-43). Methods using CGI scripts were slow because they had to poll multiple external servers for data, and methods that pushed data to the user clogged networks and resulted in outdated information (Compl. ¶¶14-15; '854 Patent, col. 1:43-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user’s preferences (user configuration) are combined with a global template to create a user-specific "template program" (Compl. ¶17; '854 Patent, col. 3:58-62). This template contains placeholders for dynamic data. Crucially, the dynamic data (e.g., stock quotes, news) is stored locally on the page server in a shared memory, allowing the server to generate the final custom page quickly without making external network requests (Compl. ¶24; '854 Patent, col. 4:1-11). To further increase efficiency, the user-specific template program is stored in one of at least two locations (e.g., a cache for frequent users, a database for infrequent users), with the storage location determined by the user's request frequency (Compl. ¶20; '854 Patent, col. 6:49-59).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to provide highly scalable and fast delivery of personalized web content, a key challenge for large internet portals during the late 1990s (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving a user request for a customized page.
    • Receiving a template program that is unique to the user and based on user configuration information supplied by the user.
    • The template program is received from one of at least two locations, where the location is determined from the frequency of the user request.
    • Receiving an advertisement selected in accordance with the user's demographic information.
    • Executing the template program using the advertisement to generate the customized page.
    • Providing the customized page to the user.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2 and 9 (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 - "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 (Compl. ¶44). Therefore, it addresses the same problems of latency and scalability in delivering customized web content described for the ’854 Patent.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’227 Patent describes the same core solution: using a page server that combines user-specific preferences with a template to generate a custom page, and populating that page with real-time data stored locally in a shared memory on the server to ensure rapid response times (’227 Patent, col. 2:25-31).
  • Technical Importance: As the parent patent in the asserted family, this invention represents an early approach to solving the performance challenges of large-scale web personalization (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 2, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • 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 stored real-time information to generate the customized page.
    • Providing the user with the customized page in real-time response to the request.

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

  • Issued: January 30, 2007
  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing the same specification as the other patents-in-suit, the ’414 Patent addresses scaling and performance issues in web personalization. The claims focus on a method where a page server provides a customized page by obtaining and storing real-time information in a local storage device, storing a user-specific template program, and executing that program using the real-time data to generate the page (Compl. ¶¶58-59).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through the Tillys.com web server, which provides customized pages (e.g., store search results) based on user preferences, obtains real-time information (e.g., store availability), stores it locally, and combines it with templates to generate the final page (Compl. ¶¶61-69).

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 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 user identifier and indicates items of interest to that user (Compl. ¶¶76-77, 80).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Tillys.com website of using a computer-readable medium (e.g., server code) to generate customized pages based on user preferences, such as showing store search results that meet a user's parameters, by combining a generic template with customized data (Compl. ¶¶79-83).

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

  • Issued: April 18, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’342 Patent claims a method of generating and serving customized web pages. The claimed method involves a server generating a template program unique to a user (using user-specific customization information and a generic global template) and then executing that program to generate a customized web page that includes real-time information (Compl. ¶¶90-91, 94-95).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Tillys.com servers generate a template program unique to a user (e.g., by combining a generic webpage template with a logged-in user's preferences and search terms) and execute it to create a customized page, such as a store search results page displaying the user's name and relevant store availability (Compl. ¶¶94-95).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the e-commerce website located at https://www.tillys.com/ and its associated backend systems ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶27).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality provides customized web pages to users, such as personalized home pages and search result pages (Compl. ¶28). This customization is allegedly based on user-provided data, including login information, account preferences, search inputs, and demographic information like location and age (Compl. ¶¶28-29, 47). The complaint provides a screenshot of the Tilly's privacy policy, which states that it collects personal information to, among other things, offer a "sweepstakes, contest or other promotion" and "provide you with offers that may be of interest to you" (Compl. p. 14). The system allegedly uses this information to serve targeted advertisements (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that the underlying code, including JavaScript, retrieves page components from different locations such as a main server, a CDN server, cookies, or local browser cache, depending on factors like login frequency (Compl. ¶¶18, 29). A screenshot of a logged-in user's store locator page shows personalized results based on a "New York" search query (Compl. p. 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’854 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...receiving a user request for a customized page... The system receives user requests, such as a user login or a search query, for a customized page like a user's home page or search results. ¶28 col. 4:1-4
...receiving a template program that is unique to the user...based on user configuration information...supplied by the user... The system receives a template program (e.g., JavaScript) that is unique because it is built using the user's inputted account preferences and search parameters. ¶29 col. 5:1-4
...the user configuration information including user demographic information... The user's account profile information contains demographic information such as location and age. ¶29 col. 5:39-42
...wherein the template program is received from one of at least two locations, the location determined from the frequency of the user request for the customized page... Page data and templates are retrieved from a main server, CDN, cookies, or local cache, with the location allegedly based on the frequency of user access. ¶29 col. 6:49-59
...receiving an advertisement selected in accordance to the user demographic information... The website provides advertisements to users based on demographic information such as age, gender, language, and location. ¶30 col. 5:39-45
...executing the template program using the selected advertisement to generate the customized page... JavaScript templates are executed with the selected advertisement to generate a customized page that integrates the ad. ¶31 col. 2:57-58
...providing the customized page to the user. The system provides the user's tillys.com page with integrated advertisements. ¶32 col. 4:63-65
  • Identified Points of Contention (’854 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused functionality, which involves modern web technologies like client-side JavaScript, CDNs, and browser cookies, falls within the scope of the term "template program" as defined in a 1997-priority patent. A screenshot of JavaScript code from a CDN is provided as evidence of this "template program" (Compl. p. 17).
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question may be whether the complaint provides sufficient evidence that the storage location of page components (e.g., main server vs. CDN vs. local cache) is actually "determined from the frequency of the user request," as the claim requires, or if it is determined by other standard web caching and content delivery logic.

’227 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...obtaining user preferences, wherein a user's user preferences indicate items of interest to that user... The system obtains user preferences, such as state, city, or store names entered in a store search, which indicate items of interest. ¶47 col. 2:13-15
...obtaining real-time information from information sources... The system obtains currently available store information from various databases. A screenshot with a callout indicates "Currently available information retrieved from information source" (Compl. p. 37). ¶48 col. 2:25-27
...storing the real-time information in a storage device... The retrieved store information is temporarily stored on the tillys.com web/API server and/or the user's computer. ¶48 col. 2:27-28
...combining the user preferences for the user and a template to form a template program specific to the user... The system combines user preferences (e.g., login information and search terms) with a generic webpage template to create a customized template program for that user. ¶49 col. 4:1-4
...receiving, from a user and at the server, a user request for a customized page... A user requests a customized page by logging in or inputting search parameters, and this request is received at the tillys.com web server. ¶49 col. 3:6-9
...executing the template program specific to the user using the real-time information stored in the storage device...to generate the customized page... The system executes the template program (code for the website), using the stored real-time store availability as input, to generate the customized page. ¶50 col. 4:4-11
...providing the user with the customized page, wherein the steps...are performed in real-time response to the receipt of the user request... The customized webpage, showing store results and user-specific content, is created and delivered in real-time after a user login or search initiation. ¶51 col. 4:8-15
  • Identified Points of Contention (’227 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may involve whether the accused system's process of using a generic site-wide template and populating it with user-specific data constitutes "combining the user preferences...and a template to form a template program specific to the user."
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on what technical evidence supports the allegation that the process occurs in "real-time response" as claimed, and whether the accused system's standard server response to an HTTP request meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "template program" (’854, cl. 1; ’227, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for all asserted patents. Its construction will determine whether a combination of modern web assets (e.g., HTML, server-side code, client-side JavaScript, data from cookies/local storage) constitutes the claimed "program." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory appears to equate this term with a collection of JavaScript and data used to render a page (Compl. ¶29).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the template as being generated from a "global front page template" and a "user configuration record," suggesting it is more than just static HTML (’227 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of a "user template" which appears to be a single, server-side HTML-like document with embedded placeholders for dynamic data (’227 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 5:22-23). An opponent could argue this specific embodiment limits the term to a unitary, server-side file structure, not a distributed collection of client-side and server-side assets.

  • Term: "location determined from the frequency of the user request" (’854, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is a key differentiator of claim 1 of the ’854 patent. Infringement requires proving not just that templates are stored in multiple locations (e.g., server and cache), but that the choice of location for retrieval is actively based on how often the user makes requests.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that for infrequent users, the template is stored in a database, while "for frequent users the user template may also be stored in cache," which directly links storage location to user frequency (’854 Patent, col. 6:51-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opponent may argue that this describes a simple caching mechanism common in the art, where frequency is merely one factor in a standard Least Recently Used (LRU) or similar caching algorithm, rather than a distinct, deliberative "determination" process as the claim language might imply.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or other specific facts that would typically support a claim for willful infringement, although the prayer for relief includes a request for trebled damages (Compl. ¶109(g)).

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

The resolution of this dispute may hinge on the court's interpretation of patent claims drafted in the 1990s as applied to the architecture of a modern e-commerce website. The central questions are likely to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "template program," which the patent illustrates as a unitary, server-side file with placeholders, be construed to cover the distributed combination of generic templates, client-side JavaScript, browser cookies, and CDN-hosted assets that the accused website allegedly uses to render a user's page?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional causality: does the complaint provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused system retrieves page components from different locations (e.g., main server vs. cache) specifically "determined from the frequency of the user request," as required by the ’854 patent, or is this simply the operation of a standard, multi-layered web caching system?
  • A final question will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused system's process of populating a generic webpage template with user-specific data and real-time information constitute the claimed act of "combining...user preferences...and a template to form a template program specific to the user," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed and accused technical operations?