DCT

3:25-cv-50188

Morse Group Inc v. Aloft Media LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-50188, N.D. Ill., 04/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff The Morse Group, an Illinois corporation, alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because it is headquartered there and because Defendant Aloft Media purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district, including through an Illinois-based licensing agent.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Defendant's patent related to web hyperlink interfaces and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for displaying hyperlinks on web pages, specifically a multi-step process where user interaction with a primary menu reveals a secondary set of links for navigation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex and disputed prosecution history. Plaintiff argues that the asserted patent improperly claims priority to a 2006 application, contending that the subject matter was impermissible "new matter" added in a 2008 continuation. This priority date is critical, as Plaintiff alleges the invention was disclosed in a publicly available website ("Instantbull Website") in July 2006, which would constitute an invalidating on-sale bar if the 2006 priority date is denied. The complaint also makes extensive allegations of inequitable conduct, asserting that the patent owner and its attorneys repeatedly failed to disclose material prior art references to the USPTO across multiple related applications.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-20 Alleged Priority Date of ’793 Patent (from U.S. App. No. 11/384,957)
2006-07-22 "Instantbull Website" allegedly demonstrating the invention becomes publicly available
2008-12-12 Filing of U.S. App. No. 12/334,068, which Plaintiff alleges contains "new matter" and is the proper effective filing date
2019-08-06 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793
2025-02-18 Defendant Aloft Media sends Notice Letter to Plaintiff Morse alleging infringement
2025-04-22 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793 - Hyperlink with Graphical Cue

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, issued August 6, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve drawbacks of prior hyperlink systems. It describes purely textual hyperlinks as failing to provide a clear indication of their destination, while graphical hyperlinks, which are clearer, consume too much valuable screen "real estate" (Compl. ¶41; ’793 Patent, col. 1:28-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-step user interface. A user first interacts with an initial set of representations (e.g., text-based menu items). This interaction, such as hovering a cursor, causes the display of a second, initially hidden set of representations (e.g., graphical logos). The user can then select one of these newly-displayed representations to navigate to the corresponding destination (’793 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:1-23). The patent specification illustrates this with a web page containing a frame for menu items and a separate frame where destination content is displayed (’793 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to combine the space-efficiency of text menus with the clarity of graphical links by revealing the graphics only upon user interaction, thereby improving hyperlink usability without permanently occupying significant screen space (’793 Patent, col. 2:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 23 as the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶23, 42).
  • Essential elements of Claim 23 include:
    • A method providing a web page with menu items and initially hidden hyperlinks.
    • The display of menu items is "without any images."
    • The hidden hyperlinks are "textual representations."
    • Allowing a first input ("hovering") to select a menu item.
    • In response, displaying the set of hyperlinks.
    • Allowing a second input to select a hyperlink.
    • In response, displaying a "destination" with "additional content displayed simultaneously with the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items."
  • The complaint does not state whether dependent claims are asserted but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused website as a corporate site for an electrical contracting services company, used to market its services and engage with customers (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
  • Plaintiff asserts the website uses a conventional nested menu for navigation. A user interaction with a menu item (e.g., clicking "About Us," then "Safety") causes the browser to navigate to an entirely new, server-rendered webpage (Compl. ¶¶44-46). An image from Exhibit 2 of the complaint shows a screenshot of the Accused Morse Website's homepage, illustrating the top-level menu ribbon (Compl. ¶45; Ex. 2). Plaintiff emphasizes that the website's navigation menu is reloaded in full with each new page and does not use persistent client-side rendering, AJAX, or dynamic content loading within a frame (Compl. ¶¶46-47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff The Morse Group presents its theory of non-infringement in the complaint.

’793 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Cause, in response to receipt of the second input ... display of a destination ... the destination including at least a portion of additional content displayed simultaneously with the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items... The Accused Morse Website navigates the user away to an entirely new web page. The menu is not persistently displayed but is reloaded as part of the new page's HTML. This is alleged not to be a "simultaneous" display as contemplated by the patent. ¶¶52, 54 col. 23:41-54
...so as to allow use of the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items while the at least portion of additional content is simultaneously displayed... Plaintiff argues this limitation requires the new content to be displayed without navigating away from the first page (e.g., in a frame), allowing continued interaction with the original menu. The Accused Website's full page reload, which replaces the original menu with a new instance, is alleged to not meet this limitation. ¶54 col. 23:50-54
...display of a "destination" as that claim term is defined by the specification... Plaintiff argues the patent specification teaches a "destination" as an external website, whereas the Accused Morse Website only navigates to other internal pages within its own site. ¶53 col.11:1-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be the construction of the phrase "displayed simultaneously with." Does this phrase require the original menu and the new content to persist on the same, uninterrupted page view (e.g., via frames or AJAX), as Plaintiff contends? Or could it be read more broadly to cover a scenario where a new page loads that contains both the new content and a re-rendered version of the menu?
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the user experience. Does the full-page reload on the Accused Website function in a manner technically and experientially distinct from the frame-based or dynamic-loading systems described in the patent's specification? Plaintiff alleges it does, pointing to the absence of AJAX or single-page application (SPA) technology (Compl. ¶47).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "destination including at least a portion of additional content displayed simultaneously with the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the crux of Plaintiff's non-infringement argument. The interpretation of "simultaneously" will likely determine whether a conventional, server-side website with full-page reloads can infringe a claim that Plaintiff argues is directed at more dynamic, client-side rendering techniques.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "simultaneously" is met as long as the destination page, when loaded, includes both the new content and the menu items on the screen at the same time, regardless of the underlying loading mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to the specification, which describes displaying new content "without navigating away from the first web page, such as display of destination content in a frame" (Compl. ¶54). The patent's figures, particularly Figure 3 showing separate frames for a message table (menu) and message content (destination), may support an interpretation that "simultaneously" requires the original menu to persist while new content loads within the same parent page (’793 Patent, col. 3:1-15, Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

Invalidity and Unenforceability

  • The complaint includes extensive allegations that the ’793 Patent is invalid and unenforceable.
    • Improper Priority Claim / New Matter: Plaintiff alleges that the patent family improperly claims priority back to a 2006 application (’957 Application). It contends that the core technical disclosure was improperly added as "new matter" in a later (2008) application (’068 Application) that was wrongly designated as a "Continuation" instead of a "Continuation-in-Part," thereby deceiving the USPTO to secure an earlier priority date (Compl. ¶¶73-76, 142-155).
    • On-Sale Bar (§ 102): Plaintiff alleges that if the 2006 priority date is invalidated, the patent is anticipated by the "Instantbull Website," which allegedly practiced the invention and was publicly launched in July 2006, more than a year before the alleged proper 2008 filing date (Compl. ¶¶64-65, 78). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Instantbull Website from July 2006, showing a hover-activated menu displaying content within an embedded iframe (Compl. ¶65; Ex. 8).
    • Inequitable Conduct: Plaintiff makes detailed allegations that the patent's applicants and their attorneys repeatedly and intentionally withheld numerous material prior art references from the USPTO during the prosecution of the ’793 patent and its parent applications. The complaint alleges these individuals knew of the references because they were cited in co-pending, related applications (Compl. ¶¶97-104, 108-115, 122-129).
    • Prosecution Laches: The complaint alleges unreasonable and unexplained delay in the prosecution of the patent, which it claims has prejudiced the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶186-188).

Indirect Infringement

  • Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is not liable for any induced, contributory, or other indirect infringement (Compl. ¶51).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is not alleged against Plaintiff. However, the dispute arises from a "Notice Letter" sent by Defendant, establishing that Plaintiff had pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of prosecution integrity: can the patent owner defend the 2006 priority date against detailed allegations of improper introduction of new matter? The outcome of this question is dispositive for the on-sale bar defense, which hinges on whether the 2006 launch of the "Instantbull Website" predates the patent's effective filing date. The related, extensive allegations of inequitable conduct present a separate but significant threat to the patent's enforceability.
  • A second key issue will be one of claim construction: does the limitation requiring content to be "displayed simultaneously with" the menu items require the persistence of the original menu on a single webpage, as seen in frame-based or AJAX-powered interfaces, or can it be read to cover a full-page reload where the menu is simply re-rendered on the new page? The answer will likely determine whether conventional website designs fall within the scope of the claims.