Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. AutoZone Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Autozone, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05321, N.D. Ill., 06/25/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining established places of business within the district and having committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the homepage slideshow feature on Defendant’s website, "www.autozone.com", infringes two patents related to systems and methods for customizable, automated web content presentations.
• Technical Context: The technology involves server-side systems that automatically generate and display sequences of web pages or content as a slideshow, aiming to improve user engagement without requiring custom client-side software.
• 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 notes that the term for the ’629 Patent was adjusted by 252 days. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

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, Issued January 30, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a system that allows website owners to create automated presentations of web page sequences without the high costs of reprogramming site content or installing development tools, and which allows users to customize these presentations (’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67). The existing technology was described as "monolithic" or "tedious and labor-intensive" (Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-side software system with two main parts: a "composer" and a "performer" (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). The composer is used by a site owner or an automated query system to create a "presentation" by defining a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a duration for each URL (’629 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:5-45). The performer, also on the host server, is invoked by a user's browser to automatically load and display this pre-defined sequence of web pages as a slideshow, replacing manual clicking with an automated tour (’629 Patent, col. 11:1-10).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to increase visitor engagement and satisfaction by replacing the "model of a passive site and active visitor clicking through pages" with an "adaptive presentation model of active site and active visitor" (’629 Patent, col. 13:35-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of claim 11 are:
  • A method for customizing access to web sites.
  • Remotely invoking a "composer" operating on a host server.
  • Creating a presentation in the composer by:
    • Establishing a list of URLs via manual entry or a query-based system.
    • Determining a display sequence for the URLs.
    • Determining a display duration for the URLs.
  • Remotely invoking a "performer" operating on the host server.
  • Automatically and locally displaying the presentation as a slideshow, where each slide is shown for a pre-determined duration without human intervention.
• The complaint’s prayer for relief references "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶VII.a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore, Issued September 23, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’707 Patent, which shares its specification with the ’629 Patent, addresses the challenge of automatically creating a slideshow presentation (Compl. ¶44). The prosecution history cited in the complaint notes that prior art required manual composition and storage of slideshows, making automatic generation from existing web page content an unconventional approach (Compl. ¶45).
• The Patented Solution: This invention discloses an "auto-composing" system. Instead of relying on manual input, the system automatically creates a slideshow by "extraction of web page details from a desired web page" (’707 Patent, Abstract). This extraction can involve finding a plurality of hyperlinks (e.g., "href" tags), a special presentation/rendition text file, or a meta tag within the source web page to generate the list of URLs for the presentation (’707 Patent, Fig. 12).
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to further simplify the creation of web slideshows by allowing them to be generated dynamically from the content of a single source page, reducing development overhead (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
• The essential elements of claim 7 are:
  • A computer-implemented 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:
    • Automatically extracting 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’s prayer for relief references "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶VII.b).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's website, "www.autozone.com", specifically the slideshow or "carousel" feature on its homepage (Compl. ¶26, ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the homepage of "www.autozone.com" features an automated slideshow that displays a series of images and promotional offerings to website visitors (Compl. ¶33, ¶34). According to the complaint, this functionality is created using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a visual, Exhibit E, described as a "screen capture from a web browser showing the homepage of www.autozone.com, along with the web slideshow seen in the upper portion" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges that users cannot benefit from these "featured promotional offerings" without the slideshow functioning as described (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused website's architecture maps to the claimed "composer" and "performer" as distinct components both "operating on a host server." The defense may argue that the slideshow functionality is implemented via a combination of standard server-side page generation and client-side JavaScript running in the user's browser, which may not align with the patent's description of a server-based "performer."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the list of URLs is established via manual entry or a query-based system (Compl. ¶30). A key factual dispute will likely be the actual mechanism by which Defendant populates its homepage carousel, and what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show it meets these specific claimed methodologies.

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the meaning of "automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from said desired web page." Does the accused system parse a source web page to find "href" tags as contemplated by the patent, or does it retrieve a pre-defined list of image assets from a database or configuration script? The latter may not constitute "extraction" in the manner required by the claim.
  • Scope Questions: It is unclear from the complaint what "desired web page" serves as the source for the alleged extraction. If the system is merely using a server-side script to populate the homepage with images defined in that same script or a database, it raises the question of whether any "extraction" from a distinct source page is occurring at all.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "composer" and "performer" (’629 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of these two components is fundamental to the architecture of claim 11 of the ’629 Patent, which requires both to be invoked and to operate on a "host server." The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system can be mapped to this two-part, server-side structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to them as a "composing portion and a performing portion" of a single "software program," which may support an argument that they are merely functional modules rather than structurally separate applications (’629 Patent, Abstract).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts "Composer 12" and "Performer 14" as distinct architectural blocks residing on "Host Server 16," each with separate inputs and outputs. This visual representation may support an interpretation requiring two identifiably separate software components (’629 Patent, Fig. 1).

• The Term: "automatically extracting" (’707 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation distinguishing the invention of the ’707 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case for claim 7 turns on whether the accused system's method of generating its URL list constitutes "extraction."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any automated gathering of URLs from a source file, including a configuration file or database record, falls under the plain meaning of "extracting."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 7 itself lists specific sources for extraction: "hyperlinks from said desired web page," a "presentation/rendition text file," or a "meta tag." This enumeration, along with the flowchart in Figure 12 showing a step for extracting "Hyperlinks (hrefs) from Default Page," suggests a specific technical meaning involving parsing a document, not simply reading a pre-formatted list (’707 Patent, Claim 7; Fig. 12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect infringement. However, in its direct infringement allegations for the method claims, it states that to the extent users are involved in performing steps, "such performance is nevertheless attributable to Defendant, because, among other things, Defendant directs or controls performance" (Compl. ¶33, ¶34). This language suggests an intent to proceed under a theory of divided infringement, where a defendant can be held liable for the actions of a third party it directs or controls.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Does the functionality of the accused "autozone.com" slideshow, likely built on modern web technologies, align with the ’629 Patent's claimed architecture of distinct "composer" and "performer" components both operating on a host server, or is there a fundamental mismatch with an implementation based on client-side scripting?
• A key technical question will be one of functional definition: Does the accused system’s process for generating its list of slideshow images meet the ’707 Patent’s specific requirement of "automatically extracting" URLs from a source like hyperlinks or meta tags, or does it use a different method, such as retrieving a pre-populated list from a database, that falls outside the claim’s scope?
• An overarching evidentiary question will be what discovery reveals about the Defendant's internal systems. The complaint relies on "information and belief" for critical allegations regarding how the slideshow is populated and managed, making the actual implementation details a central point of future contention.