DCT

1:18-cv-21580

Tropical Paradise Resorts LLC v. Jbshbm LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-21580, S.D. Fla., 04/20/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Jbshbm, LLC resides in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Defendant's patent concerning loyalty point conversions, and further seeks damages for alleged bad faith patent assertions under Florida state law.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns computer-implemented systems for converting loyalty points between different, otherwise incompatible, rewards programs, a practice of significant commercial relevance in the hospitality and travel industries.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a series of pre-suit communications and related litigation. The complaint alleges that Defendant JBSHBM and its licensee, Defendant Point Conversions, sent demand letters to Plaintiff and other hotel franchisees in July 2017 and February 2018. The complaint also notes that related state court actions for non-patent claims were filed by JBSHBM against Plaintiff's franchisor and by Point Conversions against Plaintiff. A significant portion of the complaint is dedicated to alleging that many of JBSHBM's other patents in the same technology area have either expired or been invalidated in prior administrative or judicial proceedings, which is presented as context for the claims of bad faith patent assertion.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-25 ’174 Patent Priority Date
2017-07-XX JBSHBM sends demand letters to Choice Hotels franchisees
2017-07-11 ’174 Patent Issue Date
2017-08-17 Point Conversions, LLC formed
2017-09-01 JBSHBM enters into licensing agreement with Point Conversions
2017-12-15 JBSHBM files state court suit against Choice Hotels International, Inc.
2018-02-18 Point Conversions sends demand letter to Rodeway
2018-02-23 Point Conversions sends second demand letter to Rodeway
2018-03-23 Point Conversions files state court suit against Rodeway
2018-04-12 Rodeway removes the state court action to federal court
2018-04-20 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,704,174 - “Conversion Of Loyalty Program Points To Commerce Partner Points Per Terms Of A Mutual Agreement,” issued July 11, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes challenges with existing loyalty point systems. It notes that third-party exchange systems operating on an open market (e.g., POINTS.COM) can devalue points and undermine the behavior-shaping goals of a specific loyalty program, while aggregated "networked" loyalty programs force participating merchants to cede control to a central operator ('174 Patent, col. 3:35-col. 4:32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method where two distinct program operators (an "entity" and a "commerce partner") establish a "mutual agreement" to allow their respective members to convert points between their otherwise separate and non-fungible loyalty programs ('174 Patent, Abstract). This conversion occurs at a fixed ratio defined by the agreement, allowing for cross-program redemption without resorting to an open-market exchange. The detailed description illustrates this as a "bridge" connecting two independent loyalty programs, enabling conversions that are explicitly permitted by the partners ('174 Patent, Fig. 16B; col. 5:19-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows complementary businesses (such as an airline and a hotel chain) to increase the perceived value and redemption options of their loyalty programs, thereby reinforcing customer loyalty, without losing control over their program's rules or having its value diluted by open-market dynamics ('174 Patent, col. 4:5-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’174 patent generally, without specifying claims, but the analysis centers on the independent claims as representative. Independent claim 1 recites:
    • A computer-implemented method of converting a first quantity of loyalty program points (from a first account) to a second quantity of different loyalty program points (in a second account).
    • The conversion occurs according to a fixed ratio defined in a "mutual agreement" between the two program operators (an "entity" and a "commerce partner"), which are distinct legal entities.
    • The loyalty points of both programs are "non-fungible, non-negotiable units of exchange."
    • The method is responsive to a conversion request and includes the steps of (i) subtracting the first quantity of points from the first account, (ii) adding the second quantity of points to the second account, and (iii) the entity compensating the commerce partner.
    • The conversion performs a "transformation" that changes the physical medium storing the points and alters their governing restrictions, such that the new points are subject to the terms of the second loyalty program, not the first.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the loyalty rewards program operated by Plaintiff Rodeway Inn & Suites as a franchisee of Choice Hotels International, Inc. (referred to as "Choice Privileges" in public materials, though not explicitly named in the complaint) (Compl. ¶16, ¶39).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement accusations relate to Rodeway’s "activities related to reward points conversion" (Compl. ¶39). While the complaint does not detail the technical operation of Rodeway's system, the demand letters from Defendants suggest the accused functionality involves allowing hotel customers to use or exchange loyalty points between the Choice Hotels program and the programs of its commercial partners (Compl. Ex. B, p. 10). The complaint notes that Choice Hotels is a major hotel franchisor with over 6,400 properties, situating the loyalty program as a commercially significant feature for a large network of businesses (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart from the patent holder. It makes a general allegation of non-infringement (Compl. ¶45). The infringement theory from the Defendant must be inferred from the patent's claims and the high-level "example" provided in a demand letter attached to the complaint (Compl. Ex. B, p. 10). The core theory appears to be that the Choice Hotels loyalty program allows for the conversion of points between it and partner programs (e.g., airline frequent flyer programs), and that this conversion is performed by a computer system that executes the steps recited in the ’174 patent’s claims.

A chart included in the complaint lists fifteen patents from the defendant's portfolio that are allegedly either expired or have been found invalid or unpatentable in prior proceedings (Compl. ¶19, p. 4). This visual evidence is used to support the plaintiff's allegations of bad faith patent assertion under the Florida Patent Troll Prevention Act.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court will be whether the business relationships between Choice Hotels and its loyalty partners constitute the "mutual agreement" required by the claims. The patent specification heavily contrasts its claimed "mutual agreement" with open-market exchanges. The analysis will question whether the accused system's partnerships, which may be facilitated by third-party aggregators, fall within the patent's narrower definition or are functionally equivalent to the prior art the patent disclaims.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific "transformation" wherein the converted points become subject to the rules and restrictions of the second program, not the first. A key technical question is what evidence exists that the accused Choice Hotels system performs this exact functional transformation, as opposed to a simple monetary-equivalent exchange that does not transfer the specific restrictions (e.g., expiration rules, blackout dates) from one program to the other.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "mutual agreement"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the patent's asserted novelty over prior art exchange systems. The patent's validity and any infringement finding may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any partnership, or narrowly to require a specific type of integrated, bilateral contract that excludes open-market characteristics.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the absence of an explicit definition in the patent, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass a wide range of business collaborations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with open-market systems like POINTS.COM, suggesting the "mutual agreement" is what makes the invention different ('174 Patent, col. 3:45-55). Language describing the agreement as establishing a "fixed ratio" and a specific "compensation amount" ('174 Patent, cl. 1) could support a narrower construction requiring a formal, pre-negotiated contract with these specific terms.

The Term: "transformation"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its detailed definition in the claim appears calculated to satisfy the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused system performs the multi-part "transformation" as recited.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any process where points from one system are made usable in another, regardless of the underlying technical steps.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a highly specific definition, stating the transformation "changes a physical medium utilized to store respective value," "triggers accounting and tax events," and makes the resulting points "not subject to terms, conditions, or restrictions of the loyalty program, but are instead subject to those of the different loyalty program" ('174 Patent, col. 39:62-col. 40:21). This explicit language provides strong intrinsic evidence for a narrow and specific meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a defensive allegation of non-infringement, stating Rodeway has not induced or contributed to infringement of the ’174 patent (Compl. ¶45). The basis for a potential inducement claim by the patent holder would likely be that Rodeway’s marketing and operational materials instruct hotel guests on how to use the allegedly infringing features of the Choice Hotels loyalty program.

Willful Infringement

The complaint asserts that Rodeway has not willfully infringed (Compl. ¶45). The patent holder's basis for a willfulness claim would be the pre-suit knowledge allegedly established by the demand letters sent to Choice Hotels franchisees in July 2017 and to Rodeway directly in February 2018 (Compl. ¶22, ¶27).

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

  • A core issue will be one of patent eligibility: does the ’174 patent’s claim to a computer-implemented conversion of loyalty points, distinguished by limitations such as a "mutual agreement" and a specific "transformation," recite a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or does it claim a fundamental economic practice for which a generic computer is merely a tool? The complaint directly raises this as a basis for invalidity (Compl. ¶49).
  • A key question for infringement will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mutual agreement," which the patent specification contrasts with open-market exchanges, be construed to read on the actual commercial relationships between the Plaintiff's franchisor and its various loyalty program partners?
  • A third significant issue, unique to this procedural posture, will be the viability of the state law claims: does the Defendants' history of asserting a portfolio that allegedly includes numerous expired or invalidated patents constitute a "bad faith assertion of patent infringement" under the Florida Patent Troll Prevention Act, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the infringement and validity questions for the ’174 patent itself?