DCT
1:24-cv-03549
Linfo IP LLC v. 4patriots LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: 4Patriots, LLC (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Ducos Law Firm, LLC; Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03549, N.D. Ga., 08/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, specifically its interactive product review and filtering system, infringes a patent related to discovering and presenting information within text content.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for analyzing unstructured text, such as customer reviews, to identify and categorize information based on semantic attributes, allowing users to filter content by meaning rather than simple keywords.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has never sold a product. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities regarding its patents, though it asserts these licenses were not for producing a patented article and do not trigger patent marking requirements.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Priority Date |
| 2015-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Issue Date |
| 2024-08-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "data overload" or "information overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, relevant information within large volumes of unstructured text, such as thousands of online hotel reviews. (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-25). Conventional keyword searches can be insufficient for locating nuanced information, such as opinions on a specific aspect of a service. (’428 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-assisted method to analyze text by tokenizing it and associating grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes to the words or phrases. (’428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides a user interface with objects that allow a user to select a specific attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action (e.g., "extract," "highlight"), enabling the system to process and present only the information that meets the user-specified criteria. (’428 Patent, col. 3:16-29; Fig. 1). This is designed to make information discovery more efficient and meaningful.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for moving beyond simple text matching to a more sophisticated, meaning-based analysis and filtering of content, which is valuable for managing and interpreting large datasets of user-generated content. (’428 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20. (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is detailed in the complaint's exhibits.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
- Selecting a first and second "semantic attribute" for users to choose from, where each attribute is associated with a name or description.
- Identifying words or phrases in the text content associated with either the first or second semantic attribute.
- Displaying an "actionable user interface object" with a label representing the name/description of the semantic attributes.
- Allowing the user to select one of the names/descriptions as a user-specified attribute.
- Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general assertion of claims 1-20 implies they may be asserted later. (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the 4Patriots, LLC website, and specifically its interactive product review functionality, as exemplified by the review section for the "Patriot Pure Ultimate Water Filtration System." (Compl. Ex. B, p. 37).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused website feature allows customers to view product reviews and provides tools to filter them. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 39). Users can interact with the system by clicking on different star-rating levels (e.g., 5-star, 4-star, etc.) to see reviews corresponding to that rating. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 41). The complaint also points to a search box within the review section where users can input text, such as "love it," to filter the displayed comments. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 40). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user review for a water filtration system, indicating the feature's application in e-commerce. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 37). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific commercial importance beyond its function on an e-commerce website.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’428 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining, by a computer system, a text content comprising one or more words or phrases or sentences, each being a term or an instance of a term; | The 4Patriots computer system receives customer reviews, which constitute the text content. The user can input terms like "Love it" into a search section, which the system obtains. | Ex. B, p. 40 | col. 16:2-4 |
| selecting a first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute for users to select from, wherein the first semantic attribute or the second semantic attribute includes an attribute type or attribute value; | The system presents selectable star ratings (e.g., 5-star, 1-star) to the user. These ratings are alleged to be the first and second semantic attributes. | Ex. B, p. 41 | col. 16:5-9 |
| wherein the first semantic attribute is associated with a first name or description, and the second semantic attribute is associated with a second name or description; | The 5-star rating is alleged to be the first semantic attribute associated with a "first name or description" (the visual of five stars), and the 1-star rating is the second attribute. | Ex. B, pp. 42-43 | col. 16:10-13 |
| identifying a words or phrases in the text content associated with the first semantic attribute or the second semantic attribute; | The complaint contends that the word "Love" is a word identified in the text content that is associated with the 5-star (first) semantic attribute. | Ex. B, p. 44 | col. 16:14-16 |
| displaying an actionable user interface object, wherein the actionable user interface object is associated with a label representing the first name or description or the second name or description; | The user interface displays the bar graph of star ratings, which is alleged to be the actionable user interface object. A screenshot shows the 5-star rating bar. | Ex. B, p. 45 | col. 16:17-20 |
| allowing the user to select the first name or description or the second name or description as a user-specified or user-desired attribute; | The system allows a user to click on the 5-star rating bar, thereby selecting the "first description" as the user-specified attribute. | Ex. B, p. 46 | col. 16:21-24 |
| and performing, by the computer system, an action on the word or phrase associated with the user-specified or user-desired semantic attribute... | When a user performs a search for "Love It," the system displays the 5-star reviews associated with that phrase. This is alleged to be the performance of an action. | Ex. B, p. 47 | col. 16:25-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether a quantitative star rating constitutes a "semantic attribute" as contemplated by the patent. The patent specification repeatedly frames this term in the context of linguistic analysis, such as identifying "positive" or "negative" opinions based on the meaning of words. (’428 Patent, col. 8:15-34). The defense may argue that a star rating is a numerical score, not a linguistic or semantic property derived from the text itself.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to conflate a keyword search (inputting "love it") with the selection of a pre-defined attribute (clicking a star rating). A question for the court will be whether the accused system performs the specific sequence of steps in the claimed order. For example, does the system first identify words like "love" that are associated with a 5-star rating, or does it simply filter for reviews that both have 5 stars and contain the keyword "love"? The latter may not map cleanly onto the claim's requirement of acting on words associated with the selected attribute. The final step shown in a screenshot, where a user's click on "Love It" results in a display of 5-star reviews (Compl. Ex. B, p. 47), raises a question of causation and whether this accurately reflects the method claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "semantic attribute"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the dispute. The entire infringement theory rests on equating a product's star rating with a "semantic attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to require linguistic or contextual analysis of the text itself, the plaintiff's infringement case, which is based on pre-assigned numerical ratings, could be substantially weakened.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, referring to an "attribute type or attribute value" without further limitation, which could support an interpretation that includes any data value used to categorize content. (’428 Patent, col. 16:8-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification consistently provides examples of "semantic attributes" that are rooted in linguistic meaning and sentiment, such as "opinion," "positive," or "negative." (’428 Patent, col. 8:30-34). The detailed description explains that the "meanings of a word or a phrase can also be named as 'connotation' or 'semantic attributes.'" (’428 Patent, col. 8:22-24). This language may support a narrower construction limited to properties derived from the text's meaning, not external metadata like a star rating.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant encourages and instructs its customers on how to use the accused website features, thereby causing them to infringe. (Compl. ¶11). It also pleads contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶12).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11-12). This pleading appears to target potential post-filing willfulness and does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "semantic attribute", which the patent specification describes in the context of linguistic opinion and connotation analysis, be construed to cover a numerical, user-assigned star rating system? The outcome of this claim construction question may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused website’s filtering function perform the specific, ordered steps of Claim 1? The court will need to determine whether the interaction between the keyword filter and the star-rating selector constitutes identifying words associated with a selected attribute, or if it is merely a conjunctive search that functions in a technically different manner than what the patent claims.