DCT

1:25-cv-00273

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co v. Aloft Media LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00273, N.D. Ind., 06/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Plaintiff is headquartered in the district and because Defendants' patent enforcement efforts were directed into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its website does not infringe Defendants' U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable due to improper prosecution and inequitable conduct.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves user interface methods for web-based, multi-level drop-down menus that display hyperlinks.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed after Defendants sent Plaintiff a notice letter on April 28, 2025, alleging infringement. The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit is the result of a long and complex prosecution history involving a chain of related entities. Plaintiff alleges this history is marked by the improper introduction of new matter, an incorrect priority date claim, and a systematic failure to disclose material prior art to the USPTO, giving rise to claims of invalidity and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. The complaint also alleges the patented invention was in public use more than one year before its effective filing date.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-20 Alleged Priority Date of '793 Patent (Filing of '957 App)
2006-07-22 "Instantbull Website" alleged to be in public use
2008-12-12 Filing of '068 Application (alleged effective filing date)
2019-01-08 Application for '793 Patent filed
2019-08-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793 issues
2025-04-28 Defendants send notice letter to Plaintiff
2025-06-02 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional textual hyperlinks as having "certain drawbacks," namely that a user may not be able to identify the destination of the link without navigating to it, which can be "tedious and time-consuming" (’793 Patent, col. 1:49-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user's first action (e.g., hovering over a menu item) reveals a set of hyperlinks. A second action (e.g., clicking on one of those hyperlinks) navigates to the hyperlink's destination, but does so by displaying the destination's content "simultaneously" with the original menu items, potentially in a separate frame on the same webpage (’793 Patent, col. 18:44-57; Fig. 5A). This allows the user to preview a destination without leaving the context of the original page.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the efficiency and usability of web navigation by giving users a clearer preview of a hyperlink's destination content before committing to full-page navigation (’793 Patent, col. 2:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent method Claim 23 as asserted by Defendants (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of Claim 23 include:
    • Providing content for a web page including menu items (displayed without images) and initially hidden hypertext hyperlinks.
    • Allowing receipt of a first input in the form of "hovering" over a menu item.
    • In response to the first input, displaying the set of hyperlinks.
    • Allowing receipt of a second input selecting one of the hyperlinks.
    • In response to the second input, displaying a destination that includes "at least a portion of additional content displayed simultaneously with the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items."
  • The complaint does not mention any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint states the website uses a nested menu for navigation where a user first selects a top-level menu item and then a sub-item from a drop-down list to navigate the site (Compl. ¶¶52-53).
  • The key operational feature, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is that upon a user clicking a hyperlink in the menu, the user is "directed to an entirely new page and the original menu is not persistently displayed but instead reloaded as part of the new page's HTML" (Compl. ¶53). The complaint asserts the website does not use frames, single-page-application routing, or AJAX-based dynamic content loading to display destination content on the initial page (Compl. ¶¶54, 67). A screenshot of the website's drop-down menu is provided as evidence of this conventional functionality (Compl. ¶66, p. 15).
  • The website is used to market and sell insurance-related products and services to churches and ministries (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The declaratory judgment complaint sets forth Plaintiff's arguments for non-infringement of Claim 23.

'793 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method, comprising: Providing content for at least one web page, the at least one web page including a set of one or more representations of one or more menu items and a set of one or more representations of one or more hyperlinks... The Accused Brotherhood Website provides a web page with a navigation menu and hyperlinks. ¶50-52 col. 23:15-21
...cause display of the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items... without any images being used in the display... and with the... hyperlinks being initially hidden... The website displays text-based menu items and reveals hyperlinks in a drop-down menu upon user interaction. ¶52, 66 col. 23:22-29
...allow receipt of a first input, in the form of hovering, that indicates a selection of one of the... menu items... The website allows a user to hover over a menu item to reveal a sub-menu. ¶52 col. 23:30-33
...cause, in response to receipt of the first input... display of the set of one or more representations of one or more hyperlinks... In response to hovering, the website displays a drop-down menu containing hyperlinks. ¶52 col. 23:34-38
...allow receipt of a second input that indicates a selection of the one of the... hyperlinks... The website allows a user to click on a hyperlink in the drop-down menu. ¶53 col. 23:39-42
...cause, in response to 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 complaint alleges this element is not met because clicking a link navigates to a new webpage, which reloads the entire page including the menu. The new content is not displayed "simultaneously" with the original menu instance, as allegedly required by the patent's framed-based embodiment. The complaint uses Patent Figure 5A to illustrate the claimed functionality, which it alleges is distinct from the accused website's operation. ¶58, 60-67 col. 23:43-53

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The primary dispute centers on the technical operation of the accused website versus the functional requirements of the claim. The key question is whether navigating to a new page that re-renders the same menu constitutes displaying new content "simultaneously with the set of... menu items." The complaint argues it does not, contrasting the website's full page reloads with the patent's embodiment of displaying content within a frame on the initial page (Compl. ¶¶63-65).
  • Scope Questions: The complaint raises a question of claim scope regarding the term "destination." It argues that the patent specification describes "destination" as an external website, while the accused menu only links to internal pages of the same site (Compl. ¶59).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "destination"

    • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's non-infringement case argues in part that this term, as informed by the specification, is limited to external websites. Because the accused website's menu allegedly links only to internal pages, the construction of this term is important to that specific non-infringement theory (Compl. ¶59).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 23 does not explicitly restrict "destination" to external sites. The patent's Figure 3 is described as showing a "Framed view of an external website, or of local website page content," which suggests the term could encompass both (’793 Patent, Fig. 3 legend).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues the specification as a whole points to an external context (Compl. ¶59). Patent Figure 5A, which the complaint reproduces, shows a menu on "msn Money" displaying content from other distinct entities like "CBS Market Watch," which could support an interpretation focused on linking to different, external sources (Compl. p. 14, ¶¶63-64).

  • The Term: "displayed simultaneously with the set of one or more representations of one or more menu items"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase is at the core of the infringement dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation determines whether a traditional website that reloads a persistent-looking menu on a new page infringes, or if the claim is limited to technologies (like frames or AJAX) that display new content without a full page navigation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee could argue that from a user's perspective, if a new page loads and the menu is still visible at the top of the screen alongside the new content, they are "simultaneously displayed."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that the specification, particularly the embodiment in Figure 5A, defines this limitation. That figure depicts a single webpage (500) with two distinct frames (502a, 502b), where selecting a link in one frame causes the destination content to load in the other, all without leaving the initial page (Compl. ¶¶63-64). This supports an interpretation requiring the original menu instance and the new content to co-exist on the same page load.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity and Unenforceability: The complaint contains extensive allegations that form the basis for its invalidity and unenforceability counts. It alleges that the '793 Patent improperly claims priority to a 2006 application ('957) when the relevant technology was first introduced as new matter in a 2008 continuation application ('068). This priority date is allegedly critical to avoid invalidation by an alleged public use of the technology on the "Instantbull Website" in July 2006 (Compl. ¶¶78-89, 193).
  • Inequitable Conduct: The complaint alleges that the applicants and their attorneys, across a series of related applications and entities, engaged in inequitable conduct by intentionally withholding material prior art from the USPTO. The complaint alleges these parties knew of prior art references cited in co-pending applications but failed to disclose them during the prosecution of the '793 patent and its parent applications (Compl. ¶¶95-156).
  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is not liable for any induced, contributory, or other form of indirect infringement of the '793 Patent (Compl. ¶57).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the limitation requiring new content to be "displayed simultaneously with" the menu be construed to cover a conventional website's navigation to a new page where the menu is re-rendered, or is its meaning constrained by the specification's two-frame embodiment to technologies that display content without a full page reload?
  • A second determinative issue will be the patent's validity and priority date. The case may turn on whether the patent is entitled to its claimed 2006 priority date or if, as the complaint alleges, the effective filing date is 2008, which would make the patent potentially vulnerable to invalidation by intervening prior art.
  • Finally, the court will likely need to address the extensive allegations of inequitable conduct, which raise questions about whether the applicants intentionally withheld known, material prior art from the USPTO during prosecution, a finding that could render the entire patent unenforceable.