DCT

6:22-cv-02272

Agile Journeys LLC v. Walt Disney Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-02272, M.D. Fla., 03/06/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants operating the Walt Disney World Resort and maintaining "one or more regular and established places of business" within the Middle District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Disney Genie and Genie+ services, which provide personalized theme park itineraries, infringe a patent for a method and apparatus for providing visitors with a personalized, dynamic itinerary and managed access to attractions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns computerized systems that dynamically generate personalized itineraries for visitors at large venues, such as theme parks, to optimize the visitor experience and manage crowd flow.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, asserting that one of the named inventors, a former Disney employee, disclosed the invention to Disney executives in 2002. It further alleges that the patent-in-suit was subsequently cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as prior art that anticipated or rendered obvious claims in at least three separate patent applications filed by Disney, allegedly establishing Disney's pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,983 Priority Date
2002-01-03 Inventor allegedly contacts Disney regarding the invention
2002-08-14 Inventor and Disney allegedly hold conference call to discuss invention
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
2011-04-22 Disney files U.S. Patent Application No. 13/092,370
2019-08-25 Disney Genie service announced at D23 Expo
2021-08-18 Disney Genie service launched
2023-03-06 First Amended 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”

  • Issued: May 1, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "information overload" faced by visitors to large facilities like theme parks, where static guides and maps are inflexible and fail to account for individual preferences, real-time conditions, or crowd distribution (Compl. ¶¶27-28; ’983 Patent, col. 1:42-58). Prior art itinerary generators often required visitors to already know which attractions they wanted to visit, disadvantaging unfamiliar guests and failing to manage demand across a facility (’983 Patent, col. 3:21-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computerized system that creates a personalized and dynamic itinerary. It works by collecting a "profile" of the visiting party, including their interests, preferences, and limitations (e.g., aversion to violence, presence of an infant) (’983 Patent, col. 5:20-49). The system's software then uses this profile, along with data about the facility's attractions (e.g., location, queue times, capacity), to automatically select a sequence of attractions and generate a customized schedule for the party (’983 Patent, col. 28:46-59). The system is designed to be dynamic, with the ability to recompute the itinerary to accommodate interruptions or unscheduled closures (’983 Patent, col. 9:27-36).
  • Technical Importance: The invention represented a shift from static, user-directed planning tools to automated, system-generated itineraries that could optimize a visit based on a computed "desirability" for each attraction, thereby enhancing visitor experience and enabling facility operators to manage demand (’983 Patent, col. 9:50-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 3 (a method). (Compl. ¶¶54, 57).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 (System) include:
    • data regarding a first set of attractions;
    • information about a party, with at least some information distinguishing among attractions;
    • a computer with software that selects a second, smaller set of attractions from the first set, where the selected attractions substantially match the party's information;
    • a presentation means to receive and present the resulting customized itinerary to the party.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 3 (Method) largely mirror the system claim, comprising the steps of:
    • providing data about attractions;
    • gathering information about the party;
    • providing a computer with software to select attractions;
    • selecting a second set of attractions with the software based on a substantial match;
    • providing a presentation means;
    • presenting the customized itinerary to the party.
  • The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims and states that the "Asserted Claims" include, but are not limited to, a specific list. (Compl. ¶212).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Disney Genie and Disney Genie+ services (collectively, "Disney Genie"), which are integrated into the My Disney Experience and Disneyland mobile applications. (Compl. ¶117).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Disney Genie service is described as a "complimentary Disney Genie service [that] creates your best Disney day inspired by your party's top interests" and functions as a "personalized itinerary creator that seamlessly and smartly maps out your visit with updates that continue from morning to night." (Compl. ¶120).
  • The system gathers information from users, including their desired date, park, party members, "must-do attractions," and preferences related to themes (e.g., "Disney Princesses," "Pixar"), attraction types (e.g., thrill rides), and accessibility needs. (Compl. ¶¶129-130, 132). The complaint provides a screenshot of the "My Interests" selection screen to illustrate this data-gathering function. (Compl. p. 63).
  • Based on this input, the service generates a "Personalized Daily Itinerary" which is displayed to the user on a "My Day" tab within the mobile application and can be updated throughout the day with new suggestions. (Compl. ¶121, 125). A screenshot in the complaint shows an interactive map displaying recommended attractions and times as part of the personalized itinerary. (Compl. p. 59).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’983 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
data regarding said first set of attractions; The Disney Genie service accesses and uses data about Disney's attractions, including locations, operating hours, wait times, and dining reservation availability. ¶121, ¶125 col. 19:13-29
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 prompts users to input their preferences, such as interests (e.g., "Star Wars," "Mickey & Friends"), attraction types, and accessibility requirements, which are used to tailor the itinerary. ¶130, ¶132 col. 21:1-14
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... The Disney Genie service, operating on Disney's servers and the user's mobile device, allegedly uses its software to automatically select and generate a "Personalized Daily Itinerary" from the available attractions based on the user's provided information. ¶117, ¶120, ¶124 col. 15:46-59
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 Disney Genie service presents the generated itinerary to the user on the screen of their mobile device via the "My Day" and "Tip Board" sections of the My Disney Experience or Disneyland apps. ¶121, ¶127 col. 11:7-14
whereby said itinerary is customized for said party. The generated itinerary is described as being "geared towards your interests" and "inspired by what you told Disney Genie service you're most interested in doing." ¶124, ¶125 col. 24:1-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of the software "selects" the attractions. Plaintiff frames this as an automatic, system-driven choice that distinguishes it from prior art where a user manually picked destinations. (Compl. ¶55). A counterargument could be that because the Disney Genie user provides significant input by selecting their "top interests" and "must-do attractions," the user, not the software, is performing the primary "selection," and the software is merely a sophisticated routing or filtering tool.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Disney Genie functions like the claimed invention, but a technical question will be whether the underlying method is the same. For example, does Disney's algorithm compute a "desirability" score for each potential attraction using a "utility function" as described in the patent (’983 Patent, col. 27:60-28:22), or does it use a different, non-infringing technical method to generate its recommendations?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selects" (from "software that selects said second set of attractions")
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art itinerary tools where the user, not the software, chose the attractions to be included in an itinerary. The infringement analysis depends on whether the Disney Genie software is found to be "selecting" attractions in the manner claimed, or merely organizing attractions pre-selected by the user.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed, automated process (process 1400) where the software computationally "evaluates" attractions for "desirability" based on a utility function and incrementally builds the itinerary by selecting the "currently most-desirable attraction." (’983 Patent, col. 15:46-59, col. 28:46-59). This supports a construction where "selects" means an autonomous, algorithmic determination made by the software itself.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent acknowledges that the process begins with a user providing a "profile" of their interests and preferences. (’983 Patent, col. 5:20-24). An argument could be made that this initial user input is a form of selection, and the software's subsequent actions are merely responsive to these user-defined constraints, not an independent "selection."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Disney provides instructions and advertisements on its websites that teach and encourage customers to use the Disney Genie service in a manner that infringes the ’983 Patent. (Compl. ¶213). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the service is designed for an infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶214).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It asserts that Disney had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the underlying invention through multiple channels: (1) one of the inventors is a former Disney employee who allegedly disclosed the invention to Disney executives in 2002; (2) during the prosecution of at least three separate Disney patent applications, the U.S. Patent Office rejected Disney's claims as being anticipated by or obvious in view of the ’983 Patent; and (3) Disney allegedly copied the patented technology. (Compl. ¶¶137-210).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the term "selects," in the context of the patent, require a fully autonomous software determination, or can it read on a system like Disney Genie where the software’s output is heavily guided by a user’s pre-selection of interests and "must-do" attractions?
  • A second central question will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: can Plaintiff prove that Disney had actual knowledge of the '983 patent and its specific teachings—based on the alleged inventor disclosures and, more pointedly, the extensive prosecution history of its own patent applications—to a degree that supports a finding of willful infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the Disney Genie service's backend algorithm function in a manner that is technically equivalent to the "utility function" and "desirability" computation method described in detail in the '983 patent specification, or does it achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different and non-infringing technical approach?