DCT

1:24-cv-04092

Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04092, N.D. Ill., 05/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district and allegedly committing acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the automated image slideshow feature on Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to systems for creating and displaying customized, sequential presentations of web content.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for automatically navigating users through a series of web pages or content items, aiming to enhance user experience and engagement without requiring client-side software installation or significant reprogramming of site content.
  • Key Procedural History: The '707 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '629 Patent, indicating a shared technical disclosure. The inventor is the founder and CEO of the Plaintiff entity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-20 '629 and '707 Patents Priority Date
2003-07-01 Inventor publishes related article in XML Journal
2007-01-30 '629 Patent Issue Date
2008-09-23 '707 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-17 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - “Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore,” issued Jan. 30, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art web browsing as often tedious, labor-intensive, and inefficient for presenting a sequence of web pages (Compl. ¶16). It identifies a need for a system that allows website owners to create automated presentations of web page sequences without costly reprogramming or requiring users to install special development tools (’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-side system comprising a "composer" and a "performer" (’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 (’629 Patent, Abstract). The "performer" is a component that automatically loads and displays this sequence to a user as an automated "slide show," which can be paused or controlled by the user via a control panel (’629 Patent, col. 10:9-25; col. 11:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve website "stickiness" and user productivity by replacing passive, user-driven clicking with an "adaptive presentation model" of an active site guiding an active visitor, all without requiring client-side software installation (’629 Patent, col. 13:30-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method 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, determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration.
    • Remotely invoking a "performer" operating on the host server to present the created presentation.
    • Automatically locally displaying the created presentation in a slide show format according to the list and display sequence.
  • The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶VI.a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - “Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore,” issued Sep. 23, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Sharing a specification with the ’629 Patent, the ’707 Patent addresses the same general problem of creating automated web presentations (Compl. ¶44). The focus here is on automating the creation of the content list itself, which was allegedly unconventional at the time (Compl. ¶45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "auto-composing" system that creates a web slide show by automatically extracting "web page details" from a desired web page (’707 Patent, Abstract). These details can be a plurality of hyperlinks found on the page, a separate presentation/rendition text file, or a specific meta tag within the page’s code (’707 Patent, col. 10:7-20). The "performer" then displays the slide show based on this auto-composed list of URLs.
  • Technical Importance: This approach further reduces manual effort by programmatically generating the slide show’s content from the constituent elements of an existing web page, rather than requiring a developer to manually compile a list of URLs (’707 Patent, col. 8:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
  • The essential elements of claim 7 include:
    • Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, where the composing step comprises one of:
      • (a) automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the web page;
      • (b) automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from the web page; or
      • (c) automatically extracting a meta tag from the 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. ¶VI.b).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the website "www.saksfifthavenue.com", and specifically its automated "web slideshow" feature (Compl. ¶26, ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the homepage of the accused website features an automated slideshow, identified in the HTML code as a "

" element with class names including "homepage-slider" and "slick-slider" (Compl. ¶28). This feature uses HTML, JavaScript, and CSS to automatically present a sequence of images that function as promotional offerings (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). Exhibit E presents a screen capture of the saksfifthavenue.com homepage, showing the accused web slideshow in the upper portion (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges that the slides advance automatically for a pre-set duration, citing as evidence a "translate3d()" CSS variable that progressively rotates through pixel values for a series of images (Compl. ¶36, ¶50).

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 or its associated code remotely invokes a "composer" operating on the host server of the Accused Instrumentality. ¶28 col. 14:11-14
creating a presentation in said composer, wherein said step of creating comprises the steps of: 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 images, allegedly through methods including manual entry by Defendant or automatic entry by querying a database or file. ¶30 col. 14:50-54
determining a display sequence of said list of URLs in said composer; The display sequence is determined by the composer and is reflected in the website’s source code and the observed slide sequence. ¶31 col. 14:55-57
determining a duration of display for said list of URLs in said composer; The "composer" accepts a pre-set display duration, and the slides are alleged to advance based on this pre-set timing. ¶32 col. 14:58-60
remotely invoking a performer operating on said host server to present said created presentation; and A web user navigating to the homepage remotely invokes the "performer", which then presents the slideshow. ¶33 col. 14:61-63
automatically locally displaying the created presentation presented by said performer in a slide show format according to said list and said display sequence... The "performer" code on the host server displays the automated web slideshow on the user's browser, with slides advancing automatically. Exhibit A, a screenshot of HTML elements, is provided as evidence of the code comprising the slideshow. ¶34, ¶27 col. 14:64-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused website’s integrated JavaScript slider/carousel functionality embodies the distinct "composer" and "performer" architecture described in the patent. The patent specification depicts these as discrete software components, and the defense may argue its system does not map to this structure (’629 Patent, Fig. 1).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that the list of URLs is established via manual entry into a composer or by a query-based system (Compl. ¶30). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates this specific method of list creation, as opposed to the URLs being, for example, hard-coded or populated by a standard content management system (CMS) that may not meet the claim's definition of a "composer".

’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 (a) automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page... The system automatically extracts "web page details" to create a list of URLs for the slideshow. The complaint alleges the image URLs constitute the "plurality of hyperlinks" that are automatically extracted. ¶48, ¶49 col. 10:35-42
...or (b) automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file... or (c) automatically extracting a meta tag from the desired web page... The complaint alleges infringement occurs via one of the three alternative methods (a, b, or c) for creating the URL list. ¶49 col. 10:43-50
automatically displaying said presentation, wherein said presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs. Software components on the server load and advance the displayed URLs in order, presenting the slideshow to the user upon visiting the website. ¶50 col. 10:51-54
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The central issue for this patent is the meaning and operation of "automatically extracting." The infringement theory hinges on whether the accused system actively parses the web page to find and collect URLs, or whether the list of image URLs is supplied to the slider component by a backend CMS. The complaint alleges extraction, but the provided evidence primarily shows the final list of URLs, not the process by which it was generated (Compl. ¶49; Ex. C).
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a URL for an image file (e.g., a .jpg) is properly construed as a "hyperlink" in the context of the patent, which describes navigation between "web pages" and presents examples of URLs ending in .htm (’707 Patent, Fig. 7).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "composer" / "performer" (’629 Patent)
    • Context and Importance: The infringement reading of claim 11 depends on mapping the functions of the accused website's code to the patent's "composer" and "performer" components. The defendant may argue its integrated slider is architecturally distinct from the claimed system.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the components functionally: the "composer" is used to "create a presentation" and the "performer" "operates to load and display the presentation," which could support an argument that any code performing these functions infringes, regardless of its specific implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "composer" and "performer" as separate block-diagram elements within the host server. The detailed description refers to them as two main "components" of a "software program," which may support an argument that they must be structurally distinct modules (’629 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:14-16).
  • Term: "automatically extracting" (’707 Patent)
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to claim 7, as it defines how the list of URLs is created. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system "pulls" URLs from the page content versus "receiving" them from a backend source.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any automated server-side process that gathers URLs associated with a given page (e.g., from a database record for that page) and uses them to build the slideshow qualifies as "extracting" from the "web page details."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart in Figure 12 explicitly shows steps like "Extract Hyperlinks (hrefs) from Default Page," which suggests an active parsing of the page's code or DOM to find elements, a potentially narrower meaning than simply receiving a list from a CMS (’707 Patent, Fig. 12).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A central architectural question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused website's integrated image carousel, likely built using modern JavaScript libraries, embody the functionally distinct "composer" and "performer" system architecture required by the claims of the ’629 Patent?
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’707 Patent will be one of technical operation: does the accused system "automatically extract" URLs from the page’s content to build the slideshow, as the claim requires, or are the image URLs simply provided to the slideshow component from a backend content management system, potentially creating a factual mismatch with the claimed method?
  • A related legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hyperlink," used in the context of navigating between web pages in the patent, be construed to read on a list of URLs pointing to image files for use in a single-page carousel component?