DCT
1:24-cv-13381
DataCloud Tech LLC v. Walgreen Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Walgreen, Co. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-13381, N.D. Ill., 12/31/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains its principal place of business and has regular and established places of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android application and website infrastructure infringe patents related to data organization and anonymous network communication systems.
- Technical Context: The patents concern methods for managing digital information received from various providers and for enhancing user privacy and anonymity during network communications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents via a letter dated December 15, 2020, more than four years prior to filing the lawsuit. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-28 | U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Priority Date |
| 2000-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Priority Date |
| 2003-11-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Issued |
| 2007-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Issued |
| 2020-12-15 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant identifying Asserted Patents |
| 2024-12-31 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - "Data Organization And Management System And Method," Issued November 18, 2003
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty for businesses and consumers in collecting and organizing an overwhelming amount of information, such as product manuals, warranties, and service guides, which are often stored in decentralized and inefficient ways (e.g., filing cabinets) or lost. (’063 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "provider" (e.g., a retailer) sends digital "information packs" to a recipient's "User Data Repository." The key is that the provider pre-tags the information with a "category identifier," automatically sorting it for the recipient. The system also allows the recipient to create "custom categories" and provides for a feedback mechanism, wherein the recipient's custom sorting preferences can be communicated back to the provider or a central "processing station" to automate the categorization of subsequent information packs from that same provider. (’063 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-4:54).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to shift the primary burden of information organization from the end-user to the information provider, creating a more streamlined and automated system for managing product- and service-related data. (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶28).
- Claim 4 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
- Storing information in an "information pack" and associating it with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier.
- Communicating the pack over a network to a user data repository and placing it in a location corresponding to the category identifier.
- After communication, creating a "custom location" in the repository and placing the information pack there.
- Sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station.
- The processing station then analyzes the provider identifier of subsequent information packs, compares it with stored identifiers, and automatically places matching subsequent packs into the user's custom location.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network," Issued April 24, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies privacy threats inherent in standard network protocols like HTTP, where a user's activity, software, and identity can be traced and recorded by servers, leading to unwanted solicitations and tracking via "cookies." (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-2:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a three-part system—a "deceiver", a "controller", and a "forwarder"—that works to anonymize a client's network session. A client's request is intercepted by the "deceiver", which passes it to the "controller". The "controller" resolves the true destination, selects a "forwarder", and then instructs the "deceiver" to reply to the client with the "forwarder's" IP address. The client, now "deceived," communicates with the "forwarder", which transparently relays packets between the client and the true destination server. This architecture ensures that the destination server only sees the "forwarder's" IP, and the client only sees the "forwarder's" IP, making both parties mutually anonymous. (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-49).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a system for creating temporary, session-specific "virtual domains" that isolate a client's identity from a destination server, aiming to provide a higher degree of anonymity than a standard proxy server. (’959 Patent, col. 2:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
- In response to a client request, setting up a "forwarding session" using a "forwarder" disposed between the client and a destination server.
- Implementing the session such that neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the forwarder's employment.
- Employing a "controller" that communicates with the forwarder and a domain name server (DNS) to resolve the destination's name.
- Employing a "deceiver" that receives the client's initial request and triggers the controller to query the DNS.
- Initiating the forwarding session after the controller receives the answer from the DNS.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names two instrumentalities: the "Walgreens Android app" and the "Walgreens website infrastructure" (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Walgreens Android app" is a mobile application available on the Google Play store that allows users to access Walgreens' products and services (Compl. ¶¶27-28). Figure 1 presents a screenshot of the accused 'Walgreens' Android application's page on the Google Play store, showing its name, developer, and user interface examples (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 1).
- The "Walgreens website infrastructure" is described as the systems that support multiple Walgreens-owned domain names (e.g., walgreens.com, sso.walgreens.com, arxis.walgreens.com) on the same underlying infrastructure, managing communications between clients and destination servers (Compl. ¶¶37-38).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance or market positioning beyond general statements of Walgreens' business in the district.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’063 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing information to be provided in an information pack; | The complaint alleges that by using the Walgreens Android app, Defendant performs a method that includes this step. | ¶28 | col. 6:27-29 |
| associating with said information pack at least a user destination address associated with one of a multiplicity of user data repositories...and a category identifier; | Defendant's method allegedly associates an information pack with a user destination and a category identifier. | ¶28 | col. 6:24-34 |
| associating with said information pack a provider identifier; | Defendant's method allegedly associates the information pack with a provider identifier. | ¶28 | col. 6:30-34 |
| communicating said information pack by means of a network to said user data repository...; | Defendant's method allegedly communicates the pack over a network to the user's repository. | ¶28 | col. 6:22-24 |
| locating said information pack in a location of said user data repository...reserved for information corresponding to a category to which said category identifier corresponds; | Defendant's method allegedly locates the pack in a pre-defined category location. | ¶28 | col. 7:1-9 |
| creating a custom location in said user data repository; | After communication, Defendant's method allegedly includes creating a custom location. | ¶28 | col. 9:20-28 |
| placing said information pack in said custom location; | Defendant's method allegedly includes placing the pack in the created custom location. | ¶28 | col. 9:48-54 |
| sending a custom category signal to a processing station uniquely associated with said user data repository...; | Defendant's method allegedly includes sending a signal to a processing station. | ¶28 | col. 10:31-41 |
| ...said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent...information packs...and in the event of a match...placing said one of the subsequent information packs in said custom location. | Defendant's method allegedly includes analyzing subsequent information packs and automatically placing them in the custom location based on a provider match. | ¶28 | col. 10:31-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint recites the language of Claim 4 without providing specific facts showing how the Walgreens app performs the more complex, backend steps. This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show the app (1) creates "custom locations" as distinct from generic app folders, (2) sends a "custom category signal" to a "processing station," and (3) uses that signal to automatically categorize subsequent information packs based on the provider identifier.
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the functionality of a standard mobile application can be mapped onto the patent's specific architecture of a "User Data Repository," "information packs," and a "processing station."
’959 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| in response to a request by a client to initiate communication with a destination website; | The complaint alleges this occurs in response to a request like a "Client Hello" from a user's internet device to a Walgreens website. | ¶38 | col. 3:19-24 |
| setting up a forwarding session...employing a forwarder disposed between the client and the destination server...; | The Walgreens infrastructure allegedly sets up a forwarding session using a component like a "front-end server switch" to act as the forwarder between the user and a WWW server. | ¶38 | col. 3:25-39 |
| ...wherein the forwarding session is set up and implemented such that neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder; | The complaint alleges this is met because the WWW server has a direct TCP connection with a local IP address different from the client's IP, masking the forwarder's role. | ¶38 | col. 2:49-54 |
| employing a controller configured to communicate with the forwarder and a domain name server...; | The infrastructure allegedly employs a "firewall" as the controller, which queries a DNS to resolve the website name and communicates with the "front-end server switch" (the forwarder). | ¶38 | col. 3:15-20 |
| employing a deceiver configured to communicate with the controller and the client...; | The infrastructure allegedly employs a "router" as the deceiver, which receives the client's request and initiates the controller to query the DNS. | ¶38 | col. 3:55-4:9 |
| in response to the controller receiving the answer from the domain name server and initiating communication with the forwarder, initiating the forwarding session. | The complaint alleges the "router" (as controller) initiates the forwarding session after receiving the DNS answer. | ¶38 | col. 8:12-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory maps the claimed "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder" to generic network components like a "router", "firewall", and "front-end server switch". This raises the question of whether these general-purpose components perform the specific, distinct functions required by the claims for each of the three named algorithmic actors.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Walgreens infrastructure functions to make the client and server "unaware" of the intermediary in the specific manner claimed by the patent, as opposed to operating as a standard reverse proxy or load-balancing system? The complaint's allegations suggest this, but the technical mechanism is not detailed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’063 Patent
- The Term: "user data repository"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core environment where the claimed method operates. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused "Walgreens Android app" can be construed as such a repository. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a standard mobile app meets this structural definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines it as a "Personal information storage and retrieval area, in which information is stored in a compartmentalized or categorized format" (Compl. ¶28; ’063 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description depict a specific structure containing distinct "Quarantine Area" and "Private Area" sub-components, through which information passes via a "Firewall/Filter" (Compl. ¶28; ’063 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 2:60-65).
For the ’959 Patent
- The Term: "deceiver"
- Context and Importance: This is one of the three unique, co-acting components of the claimed system. Infringement requires showing that the accused infrastructure contains a component that performs the specific function of a "deceiver". Practitioners may focus on this term to argue that standard network hardware does not meet this specialized definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint equates the "deceiver" with a "router" that receives a request from a client (Compl. ¶38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes its specific role in the system's "DNS Misdirection" scheme: it communicates with the client and, upon instruction from the "controller", provides the client with the "forwarder's" IP address instead of the destination's, thereby "deceiving" the client (Compl. ¶38; ’959 Patent, col. 2:39-44, col. 3:55-4:9).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "distributes," "makes," "uses," "sells," and "advertises" the Walgreens Android app (Compl. ¶27). These allegations, particularly distribution of an app to end-users, could be used to support a claim of induced infringement of method claim 4 of the '063 patent, based on the theory that Walgreens provides the app and encourages users to operate it in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the asserted patents as of a letter dated December 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶19). This pre-suit notice is the primary basis for the allegation that any infringement was willful.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency vs. Technical Specificity (’063 Patent): A primary issue will be factual and evidentiary: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Walgreens app performs the complete, highly specific multi-step method of Claim 4? The case may turn on whether there is evidence of the claimed backend processing, specifically the "sending [of] a custom category signal to a processing station" which is then used to automatically sort subsequent information packs.
- Definitional Scope vs. System Architecture (’959 Patent): A core legal and technical question will be one of claim construction and functional mapping: can the claimed terms "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder"—described in the patent as a novel, co-acting system for "DNS Misdirection"—be construed to read on the components of a conventional, multi-domain web hosting architecture (e.g., routers, firewalls, and load balancers)?
- Willfulness and Damages: Given the allegation of a pre-suit notice letter sent over four years before the complaint was filed, the question of whether any infringement was willful will be a central issue, significantly impacting potential damages should liability be found.