Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Hibbett Retail Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Hibbett Retail, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00690, N.D. Ill., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district, from which it has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying automated, customizable slideshows of web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for automatically sequencing web pages or web content into a guided presentation, aiming to increase user engagement and overcome the limitations of manual, click-by-click navigation.
• 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. It also cites the prosecution history of the ’707 patent to argue that the claims were allowed over prior art that required manual composition of slideshows.

Case Timeline

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, issued January 30, 2007. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional web browsing as potentially "tedious and labor-intensive," particularly when navigating multiple websites from a search result list. (Compl. ¶16). For site owners, creating engaging, automated presentations of web content was costly and often required reprogramming the site or installing specialized development tools. (’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system featuring a "composer" and a "performer," typically operating on a host server. (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). The composer is used to create a "presentation" by defining a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a display duration. The performer then automatically loads and displays this sequence to the end-user as a slideshow, without requiring any client-side installation. (Compl. ¶18, ¶20; ’629 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to improve user engagement by replacing the "passive site and active visitor" model with an "active site/active visitor" model, where users could be guided through a "tour" of content. (Compl. ¶19; ’629 Patent, col. 13:30-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶26).
• The key 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 (via manual or query-based entry), determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration.
  • Remotely invoking a "performer" operating on the host server.
  • Automatically locally displaying the created presentation in a slideshow format, where each slide (URL) is displayed for a pre-determined duration without human intervention.
• The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims is reserved. (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, issued September 23, 2008. (Compl. ¶40).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part sharing an identical specification with the ’629 patent, the ’707 patent addresses the same general problem of inefficient manual creation and navigation of web content sequences. (Compl. ¶44).
• The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a method for "auto-composing" a slideshow. The system automatically creates a presentation by extracting web page details—such as hyperlinks, data from a text file, or information from a meta tag—directly from a desired web page to form the list of URLs for the slideshow. (Compl. ¶45; ’707 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The innovation highlighted during prosecution was the automation of the list-creation step, distinguishing it from prior art where slideshows were composed manually and stored as static files. (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶46).
• The key elements of claim 7 include:
  • Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs.
  • The composing step comprises one or more of: (a) "automatically extracting" a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page; (b) "automatically extracting" a presentation/rendition text file from the desired web page; or (c) "automatically extracting" a meta tag from the desired web page.
  • Automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims." (Compl. p. 17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the website of Hibbett Retail, Inc. (www.hibbett.com), and specifically the method it performs for customizing access to website content, which includes an automated slideshow on its homepage. (Compl. ¶26, ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

The Hibbett homepage features an auto-playing slideshow or carousel that displays a sequence of promotional images. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges this functionality is implemented using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, where server-side resources assemble the list of image URLs and their display sequence. (Compl. ¶28, ¶31). A screenshot provided as Exhibit E depicts the homepage of www.hibbett.com with the web slideshow visible in the upper portion. (Compl. ¶27). The slideshow advances automatically, presenting promotional offerings to the user. (Compl. ¶33, ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the functional blocks of code on Hibbett's server that generate the homepage constitute the distinct "composer" and "performer" components as described in the patent. The defense may argue that a standard web page generation process does not map onto the patent's more structured system architecture.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, on "information and belief," that the list of URLs is established via "manual entry via a user interface portion of the composer" and "automatic entry by a query-based system." (Compl. ¶30). The factual basis for these specific methodologies, as opposed to simply hard-coding URLs in a file, will be a subject for discovery.

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be the meaning of "automatically extracting... from said desired web page." The question is whether generating a webpage that includes a list of URLs (pulled from a database or file) satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires a two-step process where an existing webpage is first identified and then parsed to extract the URLs.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system "extracts" URLs from a "desired web page" as opposed to simply assembling a new page with URLs sourced from a back-end database? The complaint's theory appears to equate the presence of URLs in the final HTML with the act of "extracting" them from a webpage. (Compl. ¶49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’629 Patent

• The Term: "composer" / "performer"
• Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’629 Patent depends on whether Hibbett's web server architecture can be mapped onto the patent's "composer" and "performer" structure. The definition of these terms will determine if a standard, modern web application architecture falls within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract and Detailed Description define the components by their function: the composer "is used to create a presentation" and the performer "operates to load and display the presentation." (’629 Patent, Abstract). This functional language could support an argument that any server-side code performing these respective functions meets the limitations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts "Composer 12" and "Performer 14" as distinct architectural blocks that interact via a "Presentation 20" data object. (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more modular system than a single script that generates a webpage.

For the ’707 Patent

• The Term: "automatically extracting"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central technical element distinguishing the ’707 patent's asserted claim. Whether the accused system infringes will likely depend entirely on how this term is construed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any automated process where a server retrieves URLs from a source (e.g., a database, a configuration file) and uses them to build a presentation constitutes "extracting" in a general sense. The complaint alleges the system "automatically extracts web page details in order to display the slideshow images." (Compl. ¶48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies "extracting... from said desired web page." (’707 Patent, cl. 7). This phrasing suggests the "desired web page" is the source of the extraction, not the product of it. This could be interpreted to require parsing an existing, complete webpage, a process distinct from generating a new webpage using data from a back-end source.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations are focused on direct infringement by the Defendant.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement and does not request enhanced damages in its prayer for relief. (Compl. p. 17).

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

This case appears to center on the application of patent claims, drafted in the context of early-2000s web architecture, to a modern e-commerce website. The outcome will likely depend on the court’s resolution of two key questions:

1. A core architectural question: Does Hibbett's system for generating a webpage with an embedded image carousel embody the distinct "composer" and "performer" components required by the '629 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent’s disclosed system and the accused technology?
2. A central functional question: For the '707 patent, does the process of assembling a webpage with URLs sourced from a server-side database meet the "automatically extracting... from said desired web page" limitation, or does that claim language require the specific act of parsing a pre-existing webpage?