Tron Holdings LLC v. Booking Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tron Holdings LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Booking Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Napoli Shkolnik LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01419, D. Del., 10/26/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has an established place of business in the District, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified online products and services infringe patents related to a method for displaying advertising to a user during the time that user-requested content is loading.
• Technical Context: The patents address the monetization of "loading screens" or "interstitial" time in software applications and web browsers, a period often perceived by users as unproductive downtime.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent 9,524,513 is subject to a terminal disclaimer. U.S. Patent 9,870,575 is a continuation of the application that led to the '513 Patent, linking the two patents through their prosecution history and shared specification.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,524,513 - System and method of advertising for use on internet and/or digital networking capable devices, Issued December 20, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of advertising on devices with limited visual space, such as mobile phones, where traditional banner and pop-up ads can be "annoying and potentially aggravating to a user" ('513 Patent, col. 1:51-53). It notes that the "loading space"—the time a user waits for a program or web page to load—is an "underutilized" resource ( Compl. ¶; ’513 Patent, col. 2:28-30, 2:39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to utilize this loading time by displaying advertising content in the foreground while the user's originally requested content (e.g., an application or webpage) loads in a background operation ('513 Patent, col. 8:16-24). Once the background loading is complete, the system ceases displaying the advertisement and redirects the user to their requested content ('513 Patent, col. 8:46-56; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to monetize user wait times in a way that is potentially less intrusive than interrupting an already-loaded, interactive user session ('513 Patent, col. 2:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method performed by a web browser that includes:
  • displaying advertisement content in a foreground operation in response to the browser initiating a loading of user requested content in a background operation;
  • monitoring the loading of the user requested content;
  • determining that the loading has concluded, which defines a "user requested content stop event";
  • ceasing the display of the advertisement content in response to the stop event; and
  • redirecting the user to the now-loaded requested content.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 9,870,575 - Advertising during the loading of content, Issued January 16, 2018 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application for the '513 Patent, the '575 Patent addresses the same technical problem of underutilized loading time on digital devices ('575 Patent, col. 2:41-43). It discloses a similar solution wherein a web browser displays advertisement content while user-requested content loads, monitors for the conclusion of the loading process, and then redirects the user to the requested content ('575 Patent, col. 8:1-21).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims, referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). The independent claims are 1, 19 (article of manufacture), and 20 (system).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features for this patent beyond the general allegations made against the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, websites, or applications by name. It refers only to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in external exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. Instead, it incorporates by reference external "Exhibit 3" for the '513 Patent and "Exhibit 4" for the '575 Patent, which allegedly contain claim charts comparing the patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having its "employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶12-13, ¶21-22). The complaint does not describe how any specific feature of any Booking Holdings product is alleged to meet the specific limitations of any asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is based on representative independent claim 1 of the '513 Patent.

• The Term: "background operation"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the state of the user-requested content while the advertisement is being displayed. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system's loading process qualifies as a "background operation" as distinct from the "foreground operation" of the advertisement. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented method from conventional web page loading sequences that might display some elements before others.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims link the term directly to "the web browser initiating a loading of user requested content," suggesting any loading process not actively displayed to the user could qualify ('513 Patent, col. 8:22-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s description of Figure 1 describes a distinct step of "Load User Initiated Process In Background" (element 120), which runs concurrently with the ad display ('513 Patent, col. 4:36-43). This could be argued to require a specific, parallel processing architecture rather than a simple sequential loading of elements.

• The Term: "user requested content stop event"

• Context and Importance: This "event" is the trigger for ceasing the advertisement and displaying the user's content. Its definition is critical because it dictates the timing of the transition. Infringement may turn on whether the accused system uses the specific trigger defined in the claim—the conclusion of loading—or some other trigger, such as a simple timer or user interaction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an expansive definition, consistently tying the event to the conclusion of the loading process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly defines the event: "determining...that the loading of the user requested content has concluded in the background operation to define a user requested content stop event" ('513 Patent, col. 8:39-42). This suggests the "event" is not merely the loading being finished, but the specific act of the browser determining it is finished, potentially requiring a specific monitoring and detection mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents ('513 Patent, ¶15; '575 Patent, ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint and the attached (but unprovided) claim charts. The allegation is therefore based on post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24).

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

1. Evidentiary Specificity: The complaint's complete reliance on unprovided external exhibits to identify the accused products and articulate its infringement theory raises a primary procedural question. A central issue will be whether the complaint, on its face, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, or if it will be deemed deficient for failing to identify the "who, what, and how" of the alleged infringement.

2. Technical Mapping: Assuming the case proceeds, a key substantive question will be one of functional mapping: does the accused system's process for loading content and displaying advertisements align with the specific, sequential method mandated by the claims? This will involve a technical deep-dive into how the accused system determines that content loading is complete and what precisely triggers the transition from advertisement to content.

3. Claim Scope and Timing: The infringement analysis will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms that define the timing and nature of the claimed process, such as "background operation" and "user requested content stop event". The core dispute will question whether the accused system performs the specific monitoring, determination, and cessation steps in the sequence and manner required by the patent claims, or if its operation is technically distinct.