DCT

2:22-cv-00766

Agile Journeys LLC v. Walt Disney Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00766, M.D. Fla., 12/02/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendants operate Walt Disney World Resort and other businesses within the district, constituting a regular and established place of business, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Disney Genie and Genie+ services, which provide personalized and dynamic theme park itineraries, infringe a patent related to systems for generating such customized visitor experiences.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns automated itinerary planning and queue management systems for large-scale facilities like theme parks, aiming to enhance visitor experience and manage crowd flow by personalizing schedules based on user preferences.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed history of pre-suit knowledge by Disney. This includes the fact that the patent’s inventors are former Disney employees, that they allegedly disclosed the invention to Disney executives via email and phone calls in 2002 while the patent was pending, and that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cited the patent-in-suit as prior art against at least three separate Disney patent applications, resulting in rejections of Disney's claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,212,983 (based on application filing)
2002-01-03 Inventor allegedly emails Disney executive with overview of the invention
2002-07-18 Inventor allegedly emails another Disney executive with overview of the invention
2002-08-14 Inventor and Disney executive allegedly hold a conference call to discuss the invention
2002-08-20 Inventor allegedly emails Disney executive a package including the pending patent application
2007-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,983 issues
2008-02-22 Disney files U.S. Patent Application No. 12/036,176
2008-11-17 Disney files U.S. Patent Application No. 12/313,227
2009-01-23 Disney allegedly cites the '983 Patent's publication in an IDS for its '227 Application
2011-03-04 USPTO allegedly rejects claims in Disney's '176 Application over the '983 Patent
2011-04-22 Disney files U.S. Patent Application No. 13/092,370
2011-07-29 USPTO allegedly issues Final Rejection for Disney's '176 Application over the '983 Patent
2013-01-04 USPTO allegedly rejects claims in Disney's '370 Application as anticipated by the '983 Patent
2015-03-25 PTAB allegedly affirms rejection of claims in Disney's '176 Application over the '983 Patent
2019-08-25 Disney announces the Disney Genie service at the D23 Expo
2021-08-18 Disney publicly describes the launch of the Disney Genie service
2022-12-02 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,983 - “Method and Apparatus for Providing Visitors with a Personalized Itinerary and Managed Access to Attractions”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that tourists at large facilities like theme parks face "information overload" from static maps and guides, making it difficult to create an optimal plan (Compl. ¶26; ’983 Patent, col. 1:42-58). It also notes that early virtual queuing systems, while helpful, disadvantaged inexperienced visitors who did not know which attractions to select or where to find reservation kiosks (’983 Patent, col. 3:21-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system, preferably implemented on a portable handheld computer, that generates a personalized and dynamic itinerary for a party of visitors (’983 Patent, Abstract). It achieves this by first collecting a "profile" of the party's attributes, interests, and limitations (e.g., party size, presence of infants, aversion to "loud" attractions) and then using this profile to rate and select attractions, creating a scheduled tour that can be recomputed if events change, such as an attraction becoming unavailable (’983 Patent, col. 6:20-34, col. 9:27-33).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to shift the burden of planning from the visitor to an automated system, thereby improving the experience for unfamiliar guests and helping facility operators to diffuse and moderate demand for popular attractions (’983 Patent, col. 5:64-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶145).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A system comprising: data regarding a first set of attractions;
    • information about a party, where at least a portion of the information distinguishes among the attractions with respect to the data;
    • a computer with access to the data and information, having software that selects a second set of attractions from the first set;
    • wherein the second set of attractions consists of at least some attractions for which the data substantially matches the party's information; and
    • a presentation means (e.g., a mobile device display) to receive and present the itinerary to the party.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegations encompass "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶145).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Disney Genie" and "Disney Genie+" services as the accused instrumentalities. These services are integrated into mobile applications, including the "My Disney Experience" and "Disneyland" apps, and are supported by backend servers (Compl. ¶67).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Disney Genie service functions as a "personalized itinerary creator" (Compl. ¶70). It prompts users to provide information about their party, including size, age, and interests (e.g., "Disney Princesses," "Pixar," "thrill rides"), as well as must-do attractions and park attendance plans (e.g., start and end times) (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 78, 82). The service then uses this information to generate a recommended itinerary for the day, which it presents on the user's mobile device and updates with "new suggestions throughout the day" (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 75). One screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for selecting interests such as "Disney Villains" or "Pirates & Adventure" to tailor the recommendations (Compl. ¶82, p. 37).
  • The complaint positions the service as a key feature for maximizing park time, with Disney marketing stating it will "do the planning for you" and provide "customized itineraries geared towards your interests" (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 74).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint incorporates by reference an exemplary claim chart (Exhibit 12), which was not provided with the initial filing (Compl. ¶148). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on narrative allegations in the complaint.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for providing an itinerary to a party, said itinerary comprising a second set of attractions selected from a first set of attractions, said system comprising: data regarding said first set of attractions; The Disney Genie system includes servers and databases containing information on park attractions, including descriptions, locations, and schedules (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 70-71). ¶67, ¶70 col. 10:9-14
information about said party, at least a portion of said information distinguishing among said first set of attractions with respect to said data; The service collects user-provided information, including party size, "must-do attractions," and preferences for themes like "princesses, villains, Pixar, Star Wars, thrill rides" and accessibility needs (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 78, 80, 82). A screenshot shows the interface for selecting these interests (Compl. ¶82, p. 37). ¶72, ¶78, ¶82 col. 6:20-27
a computer having access to said data and said information, said computer having software that selects said second set of attractions from said first set of attractions; Disney's servers, running the Genie service software, access both the attraction data and the user's party information to generate a "personalized itinerary feature that will quickly and seamlessly map out an entire day" (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 72). ¶67, ¶72 col. 31:50-53
said second set of attractions consisting of at least some of said first set of attractions for which said data substantially matches with said information; The system creates a "personalized daily itinerary" and provides "tailored recommendations" that are "inspired by what you told Disney Genie service you're most interested in doing" (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 75). A screenshot of the "My Map" feature shows a customized plan with booked events (Compl. ¶77, p. 33). ¶71, ¶75, ¶77 col. 32:5-11
a presentation means in communication with said computer, said presentation means able to receive said itinerary from said computer and present said itinerary to said party. The My Disney Experience mobile application on a user's smartphone receives the itinerary data from Disney's servers and displays it to the user via the "My Day" and "Tip Board" features (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 71). ¶67, ¶71 col. 32:12-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "selects... for which said data substantially matches with said information." The question is whether the accused Disney Genie service, which provides "recommendations," performs the claimed function of selecting a set of attractions that form a cohesive itinerary, or if it merely provides a filtered list. The definition of "substantially matches" raises questions about how much personalization is required to meet this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides marketing materials and user-facing screenshots but lacks detail on the specific algorithms used by the Disney Genie service. A key factual question for discovery will be how the accused system technically operates—does it perform the automated, profile-based rating, ranking, and scheduling process described in the '983 Patent's specification, or does it use a different method to generate its "tailored recommendations"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "substantially matches"

  • Context and Importance: This term of degree is central to the scope of Claim 1. Its construction will determine the required level of correlation between the user's profile and the resulting itinerary. A broad construction would favor the plaintiff, while a narrow one would favor the defendant. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity is a likely point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular mechanism for matching, which may support a broader interpretation covering any system where user inputs clearly influence the output (col. 32:5-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process where attractions are "rated against each factor" in a profile and then "ranked from high to low, based on the rating thus derived" ('983 Patent, col. 6:49-53, col. 7:24-34). A defendant may argue this detailed description limits "substantially matches" to a more quantitative rating and ranking process.

  • The Term: "selects"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the action the accused software must perform. The dispute will likely be whether "selects" means simply identifying or filtering a list of attractions, or if it requires the more complex act of constructing a sequenced itinerary.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "select" could be interpreted broadly as just picking items from a larger group.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses generating a "sequence of events" and an "itinerary" that considers factors like routing, travel time, and queue lengths, suggesting "selects" implies a more sophisticated scheduling and optimization process, not just filtering (’983 Patent, col. 7:51-65, col. 26:47-54).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Disney provides instructions and advertisements on its websites that knowingly and intentionally encourage customers to use the Disney Genie service in a manner that directly infringes the ’983 Patent (Compl. ¶146).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It claims Disney had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the underlying invention based on: (1) the lead inventor’s prior employment at Disney (Compl. ¶21); (2) alleged direct correspondence in 2002 between the inventor and Disney executives regarding the then-pending patent application (Compl. ¶¶ 92-118); and (3) Disney’s own patent prosecution activities, where the ’983 Patent was cited by the USPTO as invalidating prior art against at least three of Disney's own patent applications between 2011 and 2015 (Compl. ¶¶ 119-140).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can the term "selects", as used in Claim 1, be interpreted to cover the "tailored recommendations" generated by the Disney Genie service, or will it be narrowed by the court to require the specific, automated itinerary sequencing and optimization process detailed in the patent’s specification? The definition of "substantially matches" will be similarly crucial.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming a favorable claim construction for the plaintiff, what evidence will emerge from discovery about the internal workings of the Disney Genie algorithm? The case will turn on whether the accused system's backend performs a function that meets the claim limitations, or if it operates on a fundamentally different technical principle than what is claimed.
  • Finally, if infringement is found, a central question for the trier of fact will be willfulness: Given the unusually detailed allegations of Disney’s pre-suit knowledge, including direct communications with the inventor and extensive patent prosecution history, the determination of whether Disney acted with knowledge or reckless disregard of its alleged infringement will be a significant factor in assessing potential damages.