DCT
1:23-cv-02492
Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Blick Art Materials LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Blick Art Materials, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02492, N.D. Ill., 04/20/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant maintains its principal place of business in Highland Park, Illinois, which falls within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the automated image slideshow feature on Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying customizable sequences of web content.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for automatically presenting a series of web pages or URLs as a "slide show," aiming to enhance user navigation and content delivery on the World Wide Web without requiring extensive reprogramming or client-side software installation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629, indicating the patents share a common specification and inventive lineage. The complaint also references a 2003 article by the inventor and an endorsement from computer pioneer Dr. Doug Engelbart as context for the invention's development.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-10-20 | Earliest Priority Date for '629 and '707 Patents |
| 2003-07-01 | Inventor authored feature article in XML Journal |
| 2007-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 Issued |
| 2008-09-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 Issued |
| 2023-04-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629, "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore," issued January 30, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art web navigation as inefficient, requiring users to manually click through web pages or repeatedly return to a search results list, resulting in a "tedious and labor-intensive" experience (Compl. ¶16). It identifies a need for a system that allows web developers to create "automated presentation of desired web page sequences" without costly reprogramming or forcing users to install special development tools ('629 Patent, col. 7:60-67; Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-based system comprising a "composer" and a "performer" ('629 Patent, FIG. 1). The composer is used to create a presentation by establishing a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a duration for each URL ('629 Patent, Abstract). The performer then automatically loads and displays this sequence to a user as a slideshow, aiming to deliver a seamless viewing experience without requiring any special software on the user's computer (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).
- Technical Importance: The system was designed to improve visitor engagement by replacing the "passive site and active visitor clicking through pages" model with an "adaptive presentation model of active site and active visitor" ('629 Patent, col. 13:36-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
- The essential elements of claim 11 include:
- Remotely invoking a "composer" operating on a host server.
- Creating a presentation in the "composer" by:
- Establishing a list of URLs using manual or query-based methods.
- Determining a display sequence for the list of URLs.
- Determining a display duration for the list of URLs.
- Remotely invoking a "performer" operating on the host server to present the created presentation.
- Automatically and locally displaying the presentation in a slide show format, wherein each URL is a slide that is automatically displayed for a pre-determined duration.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 17).
U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707, "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore," issued September 23, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part with a shared specification, the '707 patent addresses the same general problem of inefficient web navigation (Compl. ¶44). The prosecution history, as described in the complaint, highlights the unconventional nature of automatically composing a slideshow by extracting details directly from a web page, as prior art methods were manual (Compl. ¶45).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a method for "auto composing" a web presentation. It does so by "automatically extracting" web page details—specifically, a plurality of URLs—from one of three sources within a desired web page: the hyperlinks ("hrefs") on the page, a dedicated "presentation/rendition text file," or a specific "meta tag" ('707 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶45). The system then displays the presentation based on the extracted URLs.
- Technical Importance: This auto-composition method claims to further simplify the creation of web slideshows by programmatically generating the presentation from the existing content of a single source page, reducing manual configuration (Compl. ¶44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
- The essential elements of claim 7 include:
- A method for auto-composing a web site.
- Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs.
- The composing step comprises one or more of the following:
- "Automatically extracting" a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page.
- "Automatically extracting" a presentation/rendition text file from the desired web page.
- "Automatically extracting" a meta tag from the desired web page.
- Automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the website "www.dickblick.com" and, more specifically, the automated "web slide show" feature on its homepage (Compl. ¶26, ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the website uses HTML, JavaScript, and CSS to create and display an automated slideshow of images for promotional offerings (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). A screen capture of the homepage shows the slideshow prominently featured in the upper portion of the page. This visual is provided as Exhibit E in the complaint (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges this feature functions to present a sequence of images that "progressively rotates" (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’629 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server; | A web browser remotely invokes a composer, which is a component of the Accused Instrumentality operating on Defendant's host server. | ¶28 | col. 14:51-52 |
| establishing a list of URLs in said composer by one of a plurality of list establishment methodologies... | The composer establishes a list of URLs for the slideshow, allegedly through manual entry by Defendant or automatic entry by querying a server-side resource. | ¶30 | col. 14:57-62 |
| determining a display sequence of said list of URLs in said composer; | The display sequence is allegedly determined by the composer and is reflected in the website's source code and the sequence depicted in Exhibit C. | ¶31 | col. 14:63-65 |
| determining a duration of display for said list of URLs in said composer; | The composer accepts a pre-set display duration for each URL in the slideshow. | ¶32 | col. 15:1-3 |
| remotely invoking a performer operating on said host server to present said created presentation; | The performer is invoked when a user navigates to the "www.dickblick.com" homepage. | ¶33 | col. 15:4-6 |
| automatically locally displaying the created presentation...in a slide show format...wherein each of said plurality of URLs comprises a slide... | The performer, a component on the host server, provides the code and resources for the automated slideshow, which uses elements such as the "slick-slide" class identified in Exhibit A. | ¶34, ¶35 | col. 15:7-14 |
| and wherein each slide is automatically displayed to a user, absent human intervention, for the pre-determined display duration... | The slides advance automatically based on a pre-set duration, as evidenced by the progressive change of a "transform: translate()" variable. | ¶36 | col. 15:14-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 11 is for a method of customizing access to a "plurality of web sites," but the accused product is an image slideshow on a single homepage. This raises the question of whether a series of image URLs on one page meets the scope of a claim seemingly directed at navigating between different web pages or sites ('629 Patent, col. 11:58-12:51).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a server-side "composer" and "performer." A central technical question will be whether the accused functionality is driven by distinct server-side components as claimed, or by a single, standard client-side JavaScript library that is merely configured on the server. The complaint cites front-end code (HTML/CSS) as evidence for the operation of these server-side components (Compl. ¶28).
’707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, wherein said step of composing comprises...automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page... | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly composes the slideshow by creating a list of URLs, a step which comprises automatically extracting the image URLs that are invoked in a user's browser. | ¶49 | col. 10:1-8 |
| automatically displaying said presentation, wherein said presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs. | The website includes software components that automatically load and advance the displayed image URLs in order. The complaint alleges this is activated when a user enters the website. | ¶50 | col. 10:9-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the '707 patent relies on the list of slideshow URLs being created via "automatically extracting" them from the "desired web page" (e.g., the homepage). A key question is what evidence demonstrates this specific extraction process. The complaint alleges that dynamic server-side components can be used to display different images (Compl. ¶48), but it does not specify how this equates to the claimed extraction from hyperlinks, a text file, or a meta tag, as opposed to the server simply providing a pre-configured list of images.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "composer" ('629 Patent, Claim 11)
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on identifying a "composer" on the host server that performs the claimed creation steps. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused system, likely a combination of server-side configuration and client-side scripts, contains the claimed component.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the composer as a "software program" or "component" used to "create a presentation" ('629 Patent, col. 9:15-17). This functional language may support an interpretation that any server-side logic that assembles the slideshow parameters is a "composer."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "composer" as a distinct block on the "Host Server," separate from the "performer". This could support a narrower construction requiring a discrete, architecturally separate software module dedicated to creating (but not displaying) the presentation.
- The Term: "automatically extracting" ('707 Patent, Claim 7)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept alleged for the '707 patent. Infringement hinges on whether the accused website extracts its image list from the homepage content itself, rather than having it manually defined or hard-coded.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself may be argued to cover any automated server process that gathers URLs for the slideshow from the page's contents before it is sent to the browser.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly links this term to three specific methods: extracting hyperlinks ("hrefs"), extracting a "rendition text file," or extracting a "meta tag" ('707 Patent, FIG. 12, col. 8:18-42). This may support a narrower construction requiring the accused system to use one of these particular extraction techniques.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or willful infringement. However, in its direct infringement allegations for the '629 patent, it addresses the potential for divided infringement by stating that to the extent users are involved in performing steps, "Defendant directs or controls performance" (Compl. ¶33, ¶34). This suggests an argument that Defendant remains liable for direct infringement even if a user's browser performs the final display steps.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims of the '629 patent, which describe a system for navigating a "plurality of web sites," be construed to read on an automated slideshow of image URLs presented on a single e-commerce homepage?
- A second central issue will be one of technical evidence: Does the accused system operate using the specific architecture recited in the claims—namely, a server-side "composer" and "performer" ('629 patent) that "automatically extracts" URLs ('707 patent)—or is its functionality attributable to standard client-side scripting technologies that are merely configured on a server, creating a potential mismatch in technical operation?
- Finally, a key legal question may be one of infringement liability: Given that the user's browser executes the final display, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant "directs or controls" the user's system to a degree sufficient to establish liability for direct infringement of the complete method claims?