DCT

1:23-cv-00167

LeFebvre v. Extrabux Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00167, D. Del., 05/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Extrabux.com website, which provides online rebate and cashback services, infringes patents related to a networked system for cross-selling third-party products during a consumer's rebate redemption process.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the e-commerce and digital advertising sector, aiming to create a new marketing channel by leveraging consumer data and engagement during the typically siloed process of online rebate fulfillment.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and allegations of infringement via letters dated November 4, 2022, and December 5, 2022. These allegations form the basis of the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-08-15 Earliest Priority Date for '772 and '271 Patents
2012-02-28 '772 Patent Issue Date
2012-11-27 '271 Patent Issue Date
2022-11-04 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2022-12-05 Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant
2023-05-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,126,772 - Rebate Cross-Sell Network and Systems and Methods Implementing the Same

Issued February 28, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art rebate systems as inefficient and focused on profiting from "breakage" and "slippage"—instances where consumers fail to claim or cash in their rebates. These systems were typically closed, offering few disbursement options and no mechanism for third-party advertisers to participate in the process (’772 Patent, col. 1:30-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented network that connects a consumer redeeming a rebate with third-party advertisers. A central "rebate cross-sell network manager" acts as a router, receiving consumer data from a rebate processing center, querying advertiser systems for relevant offers, and presenting those offers back to the consumer as alternative or enhanced rebate disbursement options (’772 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:17-31). This creates a new marketing channel that leverages the consumer's high engagement during a financial transaction.
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a method to transform the rebate redemption process from a simple, often frustrating, cost-center into a dynamic, real-time marketing opportunity for a wide array of industries, particularly financial services (’772 Patent, col. 4:5-9; col. 4:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim detailing a multi-step process for cross-selling products, which includes the following essential elements:
    • At a Rebate Processing Center computer: processing a rebate and collecting consumer redemption information.
    • Generating and sending a query based on that information to a Cross-Sell Network Manager computer.
    • At the Cross-Sell Network Manager computer: receiving the query, analyzing the information, and generating and sending new queries to one or more "target systems."
    • At the target system(s): receiving the query, formulating a response containing a cross-sell offer, and sending it back to the Network Manager.
    • At the Cross-Sell Network Manager computer: receiving the offer, analyzing it, and forwarding a response to the Rebate Processing Center.
    • At the Rebate Processing Center computer: presenting the cross-sell offer to the consumer.

U.S. Patent No. 8,321,271 - System, Method and Computer Program Product for Cross-Selling in Network Environment

Issued November 27, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’772 Patent, the ’271 Patent addresses the same technical problem: traditional rebate systems are isolated and do not leverage the consumer interaction to create value for third parties (’271 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a nearly identical solution to its parent, focusing on a networked environment where a first computer (e.g., a rebate processor) analyzes rebate information and obtains cross-sell offers from a second, communicatively connected computer (e.g., an advertiser's system) to present to the consumer. The invention emphasizes the ability to instantly and passively determine if a targeted offer, such as a pre-approved credit card, should be made (’271 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-51).
  • Technical Importance: The technology claims to improve the user experience by providing more and better rebate options while creating a cost-effective channel for advertisers to reach highly motivated consumers during a financial transaction (’271 Patent, col. 6:30-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30).
  • Claim 11 is a computer program product claim, claiming a non-transitory medium with instructions for a first computer to perform a method with the following essential elements:
    • While processing a rebate, analyzing the associated rebate redemption information.
    • Obtaining one or more cross-sell offers for the consumer from at least one second computer that is communicatively connected.
    • The first and second computers are associated with different entities.
    • Selecting at least one cross-sell offer from the obtained offers.
    • Presenting the selected cross-sell offer to the consumer on an associated device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Extrabux.com" website and its associated online rebate cross-sell network services (Compl. ¶2, ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Extrabux.com is an "online rebate cross-sell network" that allows consumers to receive rebates or cashback on purchases (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation or architecture of the website. It asserts that the website's functionality infringes the patents-in-suit but does not describe how, instead incorporating by reference an external claim chart exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶33, ¶40). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in "Exhibit C" to detail its infringement theories for both the '772 and '271 Patents; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶33, ¶40). The narrative infringement theory is that the "Accused Website literally practices the technology claimed" by operating as a rebate cross-sell network (Compl. ¶33, ¶40). Without the specific allegations from the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Extrabux.com system has the distinct, multi-component architecture required by the claims. The claims recite separate computer systems—a "Rebate Processing Center," a "Cross-Sell Network Manager," and "target systems"—that communicate via a structured query-and-response protocol (’772 Patent, cl. 1). The court may need to determine if the Extrabux.com platform is a single, integrated system or if its functions can be mapped to these separate claimed components.
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the '772 Patent requires a multi-step communication flow between three distinct types of entities. A potential issue is whether the communication flow within the Extrabux system meets these specific limitations or utilizes a different, more streamlined process that may fall outside the claim's scope.
    • "Different Entities" Limitation: Claim 11 of the '271 Patent requires the first and second computers to be "associated with different entities." The case may turn on evidence showing whether the components of the Extrabux system that process rebates and the components that source or serve offers are controlled by legally distinct entities.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "Cross-Sell Network Manager computer" (’772 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is the central technological component of the claimed invention, acting as the intermediary between the rebate processor and advertisers. Its construction will be critical to determining if the accused system contains a corresponding structure. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a physically or logically distinct server from the "Rebate Processing Center computer."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the manager can be integrated, stating it may operate "independent of or be fully integrated into a rebate processor or processing center" (’772 Patent, col. 3:39-42). This could support a finding that the "manager" is a software module within a larger system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the manager as a "central router/server" that "minimize[s] the total number of connections that must be established" by having each participant connect only to the manager, not to each other (’772 Patent, col. 4:20-31). This language suggests a distinct architectural role as a hub, potentially supporting a narrower construction that requires a separate component.

  • Term: "target systems" (’772 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the endpoints from which cross-sell offers are sourced. The definition will be important for determining if infringement is split among multiple actors and whether the accused system interacts with third-party systems in the claimed manner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition, leaving the term open to its plain and ordinary meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently associates "target systems" with third-party "advertisers" or "product/service partners" who are distinct from the rebate sponsor and rebate processor (’772 Patent, col. 4:5-9; col. 11:49-52). This could support a narrower construction requiring the system to be owned or operated by a third-party advertiser.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit. This knowledge is predicated on two letters Plaintiff sent to Defendant on November 4, 2022, and December 5, 2022, which allegedly identified the patents and the infringing conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement continued despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶35-37, ¶¶42-44).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the accused Extrabux.com platform, which may function as an integrated service, possess the specific, distributed architecture of a "Rebate Processing Center," a "Cross-Sell Network Manager," and "target systems" as required by the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of entity separation: Can Plaintiff prove that the different computing functions recited in the claims (e.g., processing the rebate versus sourcing the offer) are performed by components "associated with different entities," as explicitly required by Claim 11 of the '271 Patent?
  • A third pivotal question will concern willfulness: Assuming infringement is found, the court will need to assess the content and sufficiency of the pre-suit notice letters and Defendant's conduct after receiving them to determine if the infringement was deliberate or intentional, which would expose Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.