DCT
1:25-cv-12761
McLellan v. Google LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mark F. McLellan (Individual)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dowell Commercial Litigation, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12761, N.D. Ill., 10/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Google has an established place of business in Chicago and transacts business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s search engine, including its local search and website ranking features, infringes a patent related to using website promoter activities to adjust search result rankings.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of search engine ranking algorithms, a commercially critical technology for determining the order and relevance of information presented to users on the internet.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-05-25 | ’807 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-05-24 | ’807 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-09-30 | ’807 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-10-19 | Alleged Infringement Start Date (Six years prior to complaint) |
| 2025-10-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,849,807 - "Active Search Results Page Ranking Technology"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,849,807, "Active Search Results Page Ranking Technology," issued September 30, 2014 (’807 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes deficiencies in then-existing search ranking models. It notes that "sponsored results" are not based on content relevance, while "organic" search results may be outdated or point to unsupported websites, creating a poor user experience (’807 Patent, col. 3:1-14). The core problem identified is that traditional ranking systems fail to account for whether a website is being actively maintained and promoted by its owner (’807 Patent, col. 2:54-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to adjust search rankings by tracking the "Activities" of a website's "Promoter" (e.g., the website owner or an agent) (’807 Patent, col. 4:24-27). These activities, such as logging into an account, updating content, or responding to emails, are assigned an "Activity Weight" (’807 Patent, col. 4:56-59). The system calculates a "Total Activity Weight" based on these actions and combines it with a traditional keyword "relevance score" to produce a final "Total Weight," which determines the website's rank in search results (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:15-24). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates an architecture where an "Activity Log" (120) feeds into a "Calculate Weights" module (124) to influence the final indexed content.
- Technical Importance: This approach suggests a method to reward website owners for active engagement and maintenance, potentially providing a signal of a website's currency and reliability beyond what can be inferred from static webpage content or inbound links alone (’807 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1 through 5 (Compl. ¶48).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system with three distinct computer databases: a "first" for website indexing records, a "second" for total activity records (with website ID and a total activity weight), and a "third" for specific activity records (linking a promoter, an activity, and a weight).
- A "tracking system" for tracking website activities and assembling activity records.
- A "search engine computer network" with processors that perform steps including: receiving a query, calculating a relevance score, matching indexing records with activity records, calculating a "total weight" based on both relevance and activity, and assembling a ranked list.
- Independent Claim 4 (Method):
- A method for ranking websites that mirrors the functions of the system in Claim 1, including the steps of receiving a query, calculating a relevance score, matching records, calculating a total weight, and assembling a ranked list. The method also recites receiving activity records generated by a "tracking system" and updating a total activity weight for a website.
- The complaint asserts dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, which add further limitations regarding how the total weight is calculated and specify particular types of website promoter activities (Compl. ¶80-83, ¶107-109).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Google's search engine technology and its local search feature for ranking websites" as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Google's search engine uses a complex system of crawlers, an index, and algorithms to rank webpages based on hundreds of signals (Compl. ¶23, ¶34). It specifically alleges that Google's "Local Search Core Ranking Algorithm" uses factors such as a business owner "logging into" their Google Business Profile and "creating an account" to influence rankings (Compl. ¶47). The complaint asserts that these owner actions correspond to the "Activities" claimed in the ’807 Patent and are used by Google to determine a website's rank (Compl. ¶60, ¶99). The complaint provides a high-level diagram, "Figure 1. High Level Google Search Engine System Architecture," to illustrate the components of the accused system, including its "Crawler," "Indexer," and "Repository" (Compl. ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’807 Patent Infringement Allegations (System Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first computer database comprising machine-readable memory having website indexing records... | Google's "Repository," which allegedly contains the HTML of web pages, a "docID", a URL, and over 200 ranking signals. | ¶51 | col. 14:7-14 |
| a second computer database comprising machine-readable memory having total activity records... a total activity weight | Google's "Links Database" used to compute PageRank, which the complaint alleges corresponds to a "total activity weight." | ¶53 | col. 14:15-24 |
| a third computer database comprising machine-readable memory having activity records... an activity weight for the website activity | Google's storage of user and business profile information, including sign-in activity records and business details provided by owners. | ¶55-56 | col. 14:25-36 |
| a tracking system... for: tracking the website activities... assembling tracked activity records... | Google's "Recent security activity" page and its crawler/login interface, which allegedly monitor changes to business profiles. | ¶62 | col. 16:1-12 |
| a search engine computer network... having computer-executable instructions for... calculating a total weight for each indexed website ID... being based on the relevance score... and the total activity weight... | Google's query evaluation process, which allegedly computes a document's rank based on a combination of factors, including an IR Score (relevance) and PageRank/Activity (activity weight). The complaint includes "Figure 4. Google Query Evaluation" to show this process (Compl. ¶78). | ¶71, ¶74, ¶80 | col. 14:37-40 |
’807 Patent Infringement Allegations (Method Claim 4)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a search query... | Google's search engine presents a user with a box for entering a search query. | ¶85 | col. 14:46-49 |
| calculating a relevance score for each indexed website ID... | Google's "Searcher" function allegedly calculates relevance scores for each website as it compares the search criteria to the indexed content. | ¶89 | col. 15:56-62 |
| transmitting a request for the total activity records from... the second computer database... | Google's "Indexer" allegedly contains total activity weight information that is requested and used to rank results. | ¶90 | col. 16:21-26 |
| calculating a total weight for each indexed website ID... the total weight being based on the relevance score... and the total activity weight... | The Google "Searcher" is alleged to use PageRank and other activity information in combination with a relevance score to rank search results. | ¶93 | col. 16:47-56 |
| receiving the one or more recordable activity records... from a tracking system to the third database... | Google's tracking systems allegedly track sign-in activity and business profile updates, which are stored in its databases. The complaint includes a figure showing the types of information a promoter can add to a Google Business Profile (Compl. ¶82). | ¶96, ¶100 | col. 16:1-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's PageRank, an algorithm based on the quantity and quality of inbound links to a webpage, can be construed as a "total activity weight" as defined by the patent. The patent's specification appears to define "Activities" as affirmative actions taken by a "Promoter," not as a passive quality of a website's link profile (’807 Patent, col. 5:5-col. 8:65). The complaint's equation of the two may be a primary point of dispute (Compl. ¶53).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Google's use of over 200 ranking signals, including "business profile activity," constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶51, ¶60). The analysis may turn on whether Google's complex, multi-factor ranking system is technically equivalent to the patent's more discrete architecture of combining a "relevance score" with a separately calculated "total activity weight." The complaint alleges that Google’s "IR score is combined with PageRank to give a final rank," mapping this directly to the claimed combination (Compl. ¶80).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "website activity"
Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the invention. Its construction will determine whether Google's use of signals like business owner logins, profile completeness, or user reviews falls within the scope of the claims. The infringement theory depends on mapping these Google features to the claimed "activity."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint may argue that the term should be interpreted broadly, as it alleges that Google's use of "logging into" and "creating an account" are "activities that directly affect the rankings" (Compl. ¶47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a detailed, enumerated list of 28 specific "Activities," ranging from "logging into the ASR Operator's website" to "registering a domain name" (’807 Patent, col. 5:5 - col. 8:65). A defendant may argue that this extensive list implicitly defines and limits the scope of the term to the types of promoter actions enumerated, a point the complaint acknowledges by stating the patent "defines a total of 28 activities" (Compl. ¶12).
The Term: "total activity weight"
Context and Importance: The infringement argument hinges on equating Google's existing ranking metrics, such as PageRank, with this claimed term. The viability of the complaint's theory for the "second computer database" element relies on this construction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges PageRank "corresponds to" this term (Compl. ¶53), suggesting an argument that any numerical score reflecting a site's prominence or authority, beyond pure content relevance, could be considered a "total activity weight."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines this term with mathematical precision as the sum of the individual "Activity Weights" from performed activities (
Ω = Σ(πα)) (’807 Patent, col. 11:1-4). This definition suggests a specific calculation based on promoter actions, which may be argued as fundamentally different from a link-based metric like PageRank.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. It does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement, nor does it allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent to support a claim for willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent’s structured concepts of "website activity" and "total activity weight," which are based on a specific methodology of tracking enumerated promoter actions, be construed to cover Google's fundamentally different and more complex ranking signals, such as the link-based PageRank algorithm or general business profile engagement metrics?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the architecture of Google's search engine, which integrates hundreds of signals into a unified ranking function, align with the patent's claimed system comprising three distinct databases for indexing, total activity, and specific activity records? The plaintiff's ability to demonstrate a one-to-one correspondence between Google's infrastructure and these claim elements, as alleged in the complaint, will be central to the dispute.