DCT
1:19-cv-05704
Razdog LLC v. Cooling Equipment Service Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Razdog LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Cooling Equipment Service, Inc. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05704, N.D. Ill., 08/25/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Illinois and maintains an established place of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes patents related to a cloud-based system for aggregating and navigating content from multiple web-based sources through a single, unified interface.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that provide a single point of access to disparate online content, such as from multiple applications or data providers, allowing a user to scroll through the aggregated content in a unified manner.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts the patents-in-suit are related, with U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068 being a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,729,658. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter dated November 21, 2018, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim. The complaint text refers to this letter as imparting knowledge to "Cook Brothers," which may be a typographical error, as the defendant is "Cooling Equipment."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '068 and '658 Patents |
| 2017-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,729,658 Issued |
| 2018-11-21 | Date of Alleged Pre-Suit Notice Letter Sent to Defendant |
| 2019-06-25 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068 Issued |
| 2019-08-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068, System for managing web-based swipe module tool and software for scrolling and paging through content data and applications, issued June 25, 2019. (Compl. ¶8).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inefficiency and complexity for users needing to access web-based content and services from multiple, distinct sources, which often requires separate login procedures and navigating different user interfaces. (’068 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a cloud-based architecture centered on a "log-in or master server" that acts as a single point of access. (’068 Patent, col. 2:42-45). This server runs a "master content application" that organizes and streams content from multiple providers to a single "master web-page" in real time, allowing a user to navigate through the combined content using a "slide tool." (’068 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-7).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to unify a user's digital experience by aggregating disparate web services into a single, seamless, and navigable interface, a concept central to the development of web portals and application dashboards. (’068 Patent, col. 2:38-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶13).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A "master server" accessible over a network.
- A "master application" on the server that organizes content from "multiple content sources" and streams it "simultaneously in real time" to a "master web-page."
- The master application programs a remote device to execute a "slide tool program" for scrolling or paging through the aggregated content from the multiple sources.
- A "remote tool box feature application" that allows for enabling/disabling features controlling how subsets of content are displayed, and a master server that "collects analytics" based on enabled features to target information to the user.
- The complaint’s general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is preserved. (Compl. ¶13).
U.S. Patent No. 9,729,658
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,729,658, System for managing web-based content data and applications, issued August 8, 2017. (Compl. ¶10).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’658 Patent addresses the same problem as its continuation patent: the fragmentation of a user's online experience across multiple services and interfaces. (’658 Patent, col. 1:52-61).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a cloud-based system featuring a "master server" that unifies access to multiple content sources. It describes a "master content application software" that organizes data onto a single "master web-page" and enables a "slide tool" on the user's remote device to scroll through the aggregated content. (’658 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
- Technical Importance: This patent, like the ’068 Patent, describes a technical framework for creating a centralized hub for a user's digital content, intended to simplify access and interaction. (’658 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶23).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A "master server" accessible over a network.
- A "master application" on the server that organizes content from multiple sources "pre-selected by the user" and streams it "simultaneously in real time" to a "master web-page."
- The master application programs a remote device to execute a "slide tool program" for scrolling or paging.
- A "remote tool box feature application" that allows the "user to write code, select code or delete code" to control how content subsets are displayed, and a master server that "collects analytics" to target information.
- The complaint similarly preserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Cooling Equipment's Website Elements" and the "Exemplary Cooling Equipment Products." (Compl. ¶13, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not describe the specific functionality or features of the accused "Website Elements." It alleges infringement by incorporating by reference claim charts from non-proffered exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4), stating that these charts demonstrate how the accused products "practice the technology claimed." (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶29-30). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an independent analysis of the accused instrumentality's operation or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the complaint's incorporation of these non-proffered exhibits.
'068 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a master server with a processor and memory ... accessible over the internet/Intranet from remote computer devices by a user | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products include a "master server" with the claimed properties. | ¶19, ¶20 | col. 4:50-52 |
| b) a master application ... for organizing content data and content applications from multiple content sources ... streamed to the master server simultaneously in real time ... on a master web-page, wherein the master application programs a processor on the remote computer devices to operate and execute a slide tool program for scrolling or paging through the content data or the content applications from the multiple content sources | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products include a "master application" and "slide tool" that function as claimed. | ¶19, ¶20 | col. 4:58-65 |
| c) a remote tool box feature application that allows code to be written, selected or deleted to enable and disable tool features that control how sub-sets of the content data ... are received, displayed or organized, wherein the master server collects analytics based which tool features are enabled to target specific products, services or information to the user | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products provide a "remote tool box" and perform "analytics" as claimed. | ¶19, ¶20 | col. 7:16-24 |
'658 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a master server with a processor and memory ... accessible over the internet/Intranet from remote computer devices by a user | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products include a "master server" with the claimed properties. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 3:9-12 |
| b) a master application ... for organizing content data and content applications from multiple content sources or service providers pre-selected by the user and streamed to the master server simultaneously in real time ... on a master web-page, wherein the master application programs a processor on the remote computer devices to operate and execute a slide tool program for scrolling or paging | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products perform this function, including allowing for pre-selection by the user. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 5:53-61 |
| c) a remote tool box feature application that allows the user to write code, select code or delete code to enable and disable tool features that control how sub-sets of the content data ... are received, displayed or organized, wherein the master server collects analytics based which tool features are enabled to target specific products, services or information to the user | The complaint alleges, by reference to a non-proffered exhibit, that the Accused Products provide a tool box allowing the user to manipulate code and that the server performs analytics as claimed. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 7:5-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, a primary point of contention will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused "Website Elements" in fact perform the functions of a "master server," a "slide tool," and a "tool box" as claimed.
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Defendant's web server, which may serve content for a single entity, meets the definition of a "master server" that aggregates content from "multiple content sources or service providers" as described in the patents.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case will raise the question of whether any scrolling function on Defendant’s website constitutes the claimed "slide tool program" for navigating "simultaneously" streamed data from "multiple" sources. Further, for the ’658 patent, a key question will be whether the accused system provides a feature that "allows the user to write code, select code or delete code," which suggests a higher degree of user customizability than typical website settings.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '068 and '658 Patents
- The Term: "master server"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core architectural component of the invention. The infringement analysis for both patents depends on whether Defendant's infrastructure includes a component that can be properly characterized as a "master server."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a master server as "a dedicated server for supporting a master program and user interface to access and view content data." (’068 Patent, col. 4:18-22). This could be argued to encompass any web server hosting a dynamic website.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents repeatedly describe the "master server" as a "single point of access" for a "plurality of content data sources or service provider servers." (’068 Patent, col. 4:50-54). This suggests an aggregating function beyond that of a standard server for a single enterprise.
For the '658 Patent
- The Term: "a remote tool box feature application that allows the user to write code, select code or delete code"
- Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 of the ’658 patent appears to require a specific, advanced form of user interaction. Practitioners may focus on this term because demonstrating that a typical commercial website allows an end-user to "write code" may present a significant evidentiary challenge.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that user-configurable settings, such as enabling or disabling widgets or selecting from a list of predefined scripts, constitutes "selecting code."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "write code" and "delete code" suggests a developer-like capability, such as a text box for entering script or a command-line interface. The specification notes the tool box "allows an authorized user or administrator to build the master web-page," which may support an interpretation requiring more than simple user settings. (’658 Patent, col. 5:31-34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims Defendant had knowledge of the patents from a pre-suit notice letter and the filing of the complaint, and that it encourages infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" instructing end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶16-18, ¶26-28).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint cites a letter dated November 21, 2018, as providing pre-suit notice of infringement and alleges that Defendant's infringement continued despite this notice. (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶25-26). Plaintiff requests that the case be found exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. p. 8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be evidentiary: the complaint makes only conclusory allegations of infringement, referencing non-proffered exhibits. The case will likely turn on whether discovery uncovers factual evidence to support the claims that Defendant's "Website Elements" embody the specific "master server" architecture, "slide tool" functionality, and "analytics" collection required by the patents.
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "master server," which the patents describe in the context of aggregating content from multiple, distinct service providers, be construed to cover a conventional web server architecture that serves content for a single commercial entity?
- A critical distinction between the two asserted patents will raise a functional question: for the '658 patent, does the accused website offer a feature that "allows the user to write code, select code or delete code"? The seemingly high bar of this limitation may make infringement of the '658 patent more difficult to prove than the corresponding claim in the '068 patent, potentially focusing the litigation on the latter.