DCT
1:22-cv-04878
Lexos Media IP LLC v. ABT Electronics Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lexos Media IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Abt Electronics, Inc. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fuksa Khorshid, LLC; Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-04878, N.D. Ill., 09/09/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains its sole physical location—a "regular and established place of business"—within the district, from which it supports the e-commerce operations of its website and allegedly commits acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes patents related to a server-based system for dynamically modifying a user's cursor image for purposes of online advertising and user interaction.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to early web advertising methods that sought to create more engaging user experiences by transforming standard user interface elements, like the cursor, into interactive promotional tools.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit survived inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by a third party, Ralph Lauren, in 2018. While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cancelled certain claims, it confirmed the patentability of others, including claims asserted in this litigation. The complaint states the Federal Circuit affirmed these PTAB decisions, a fact that may be raised by the Plaintiff to suggest the asserted claims' resilience to validity challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-25 | ’102 & ’449 Patents - Earliest Priority Date |
| 1997-01-01 | Accused abt.com website launched |
| 1999-11-30 | ’102 Patent Issued |
| 2000-09-12 | ’449 Patent Issued |
| 2016-01-01 | Approximate start date of alleged infringement |
| 2018-01-01 | Third party filed IPR petitions against Asserted Patents |
| 2022-09-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102, titled “Server system and method for modifying a cursor image,” issued November 30, 1999 (the “’102 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, prevalent forms of online advertising like banner ads and pop-up windows were described as either too passive and "easily ignored" or "totally interrupting and intrusive." (’102 Patent, col. 2:24-31; Compl. ¶19). The patent identifies a need for a less disruptive yet more engaging method of delivering advertising online. (’102 Patent, col. 2:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a server-based system that modifies a user’s cursor image. A web page transmitted from a server contains "cursor display instructions" that are interpreted by the user's browser. (’102 Patent, col. 4:25-36). These instructions cause the standard cursor (e.g., an arrow) to transform into a "specific image," such as a corporate logo or brand image, that is related to the content being displayed on the screen. (’102 Patent, col. 3:63-65). This allows a server to remotely control the cursor's appearance to create an interactive advertising experience. (’102 Patent, col. 7:4-9).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents an early effort to integrate advertising directly into the user interface, transforming a functional tool—the cursor—into a medium for brand messaging and engagement. (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 72. (Compl. ¶26).
- Essential elements of independent claim 72 (a method claim) include:
- Receiving a request at a server to provide specified content information to a user terminal.
- Providing the specified content information, which includes a cursor display instruction and information to be displayed.
- Transforming an initial cursor image into a "specific image" in response to the cursor display instruction.
- The specific image includes "content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed."
- The transformation is "responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of at least a portion of said information."
U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449, titled “Server system and method for modifying a cursor image,” issued September 12, 2000 (the “’449 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’102 Patent, the ’449 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the shortcomings of existing online advertising methods, which were deemed either ineffective or annoying. (’449 Patent, col. 2:25-35).
- The Patented Solution: The ’449 Patent describes the same core technical solution: a server system that transmits a web page containing instructions for modifying a user's cursor image. (’449 Patent, Abstract). The server remotely manages the cursor’s appearance, linking it to the on-screen content to provide a novel advertising method. (’449 Patent, col. 4:25-36).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a system-level approach to making the user interface itself a dynamic part of the online advertising content. (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 38 (method), and 53 (method). (Compl. ¶42).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a system claim) include:
- Cursor image data corresponding to a specific image.
- Cursor display code operable to modify the cursor image.
- A first server computer for transmitting specified content information to a remote user terminal.
- The content information includes at least one cursor display instruction indicating a location of the cursor image data.
- The system is operable to cause the user terminal to display a modified cursor image in the shape and appearance of the specific image.
- The modification is responsive to "movement of said cursor image over a display of at least a portion of said information to be displayed."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s e-commerce website, abt.com. (Compl. ¶25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The abt.com website is a retail platform for electronics, appliances, and home goods. (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). The complaint identifies a specific "cursor modification technology" on the website as the infringing feature. (Compl. ¶25). This feature is described as a product image zoom function: when a user moves the cursor over a product image, the standard arrow cursor transforms into a crosshair cursor within a transparent rectangle. (Compl. ¶34, ¶37). This action simultaneously causes an enlarged portion of the product image to be displayed in an adjacent window. (Compl. ¶34). The complaint alleges this functionality enhances the online shopping experience and contributes to the website's commercial success. (Compl. ¶25). As shown in Figure 2 of the complaint, moving the cursor over a washing machine image results in a modified cursor and a magnified view of a portion of the machine. (Compl. ¶34, Fig. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’102 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 72) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a request at said at least one server to provide specified content information to said user terminal; | Abt's server system receives a request from a user's browser for a web page from the abt.com website. | ¶28 | col. 6:53-56 |
| providing said specified content information to said user terminal in response to said request... | Abt's server system transmits the requested web page, which includes instructions and content, to the user's terminal. | ¶29 | col. 6:53-56 |
| transforming said initial cursor image displayed on said display of said user terminal into the shape and appearance of said specific image in response to said cursor display instruction... | The code provided by Abt's website transforms the initial arrow cursor into a "specific image" described as a crosshair inside a transparent rectangle. | ¶31, ¶34 | col. 7:1-15 |
| wherein said specific image includes content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal... | The complaint alleges the transformed image—the transparent rectangle and crosshair—is not generic but "represents some or all of the subject matter being displayed" by highlighting a portion of the product. | ¶32, ¶37 | col. 17:51-64 |
| responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The cursor transformation occurs as a "consequence of the user moving the cursor image over the display of the" product image on the user's terminal. | ¶35-¶36 | col. 23:40-46 |
’449 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first server computer for transmitting specified content information to said remote user terminal... | Abt's server system transmits web pages from abt.com to a remote user terminal. | ¶47 | col. 18:40-45 |
| said specified content information including at least one cursor display instruction indicating a location of said cursor image data... | The web page transmitted by Abt includes code and instructions operable to modify the cursor image on the user's display. | ¶46, ¶48 | col. 18:45-48 |
| said cursor display code operable to cause said user terminal to display a modified cursor image on said user's display in the shape and appearance of said specific image... | The code from the abt.com website causes the user's terminal to display a modified cursor image in the shape of the crosshair and rectangle. | ¶48, ¶50 | col. 18:48-52 |
| said specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal... | The complaint alleges the modified cursor image relates to the content on the screen, as reflected in screenshots showing the zoom functionality on a product page. | ¶49, ¶51 | col. 18:58-64 |
| responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The modification of the cursor image occurs in response to the user moving the cursor over a product image displayed on the user's terminal. | ¶50 | col. 19:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused functionality—a crosshair cursor inside a "transparent rectangle" used to trigger a zoom feature—meets the claim requirement of a "specific image including content corresponding to... information to be displayed." The complaint advances the theory that the rectangle "is an image that represents" the subject matter by highlighting it. (Compl. ¶37). A counterargument may be that a functional, transparent overlay does not "include content" in the manner of a brand logo or other graphical image described in the patents' specifications.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused system "transforms" the cursor into a new image, or whether it merely changes the cursor's state to a standard functional pointer (a crosshair) and separately renders an overlay (the rectangle) and a zoom window. The complaint provides a screenshot in Figure 4 showing the same zoom functionality on a different product, a camera, which Plaintiff may use to argue this is a consistently applied, infringing method. (Compl. ¶39, Fig. 4).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed" (from ’102 Patent, claim 72 and similar language in ’449 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegations appears to turn on the construction of this term. Plaintiff's case requires this phrase to be broad enough to read on the accused crosshair-and-rectangle cursor. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a functional user-interface element, like a zoom selector, can be considered an "image including content" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the cursor's appearance "may correspond to the actual content of the data being provided to the user." (’102 Patent, col. 7:9-11). This language could be interpreted to mean the cursor need only relate to or be thematically associated with the on-screen content, which may support Plaintiff’s argument that a highlighting tool "corresponds" to the content it highlights.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary examples describe the "specific image" as a "corporate name or logo, a brand logo, an advertising or marketing icon or slogan, an animated advertising image," or a product image like a "Fizzy Cola" bottle. (’102 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2; col. 17:5-8). This evidence may support a narrower construction requiring the "specific image" to be a distinct graphical or branding element, rather than a functional tool like a transparent selection box.
VI. Other Allegations
- No willful or indirect infringement is alleged in the complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "specific image including content," which the patent specification exemplifies with corporate logos and brand-related graphics, be construed to cover the accused functionality—a transparent rectangle with a crosshair cursor that serves as a selector for a product zoom feature?
- A related question will be one of technical and functional comparison: is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented invention, which describes replacing a cursor with a self-contained advertising image, and the accused instrumentality, which uses a modified cursor state to trigger a separate display function (the zoom pane)? The case may turn on whether the court views the accused feature as a simple cursor change or as a complex, multi-part user interface action that falls outside the patent's claimed process.