TG 2006 Holdings LLC v. Carbonite LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TG--2006 Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Carbonite, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Harbor Law Group; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-13085, D. Mass., 12/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe three patents related to systems and methods for visually tracking information and tasks in a business environment using a hierarchical user interface.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-implemented systems that use a hierarchical, folder-like tree view to visually communicate the status of business processes, where alerts or time-based triggers associated with child items cause visual changes to parent folders.
• Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of the same family. U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 8,583,514. U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323 is a continuation of the application that led to the ’741 Patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-08-13	Earliest Priority Date for ’514, ’741, and ’323 Patents
2013-11-12	’514 Patent Issued
2016-09-27	’741 Patent Issued
2017-10-31	’323 Patent Issued
2023-12-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,583,514 - "System and method for tracking information in a business environment"

Issued November 12, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for a system to track business information that is not "time consuming and confusing" and which presents information in a "visually clear and meaningful way" (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:12-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a software system that uses a modified hierarchical folder tree view to provide visual indications of the status of business tasks (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:21-26). The system's core feature is that "parent folders" have visual attributes, such as color, that are automatically altered in response to the status of "child elements" (e.g., documents or other folders) they contain, particularly when a time trigger or event alert associated with a child element is activated (ʼ514 Patent, col. 1:26-34, col. 3:56-64). This allows a user to identify a problem with a single task deep in the hierarchy by observing a visual change on a high-level parent folder, as illustrated in the user interface shown in Figure 1 (ʼ514 Patent, col. 2:26-28).
• Technical Importance: The described system aimed to simplify the management of complex, multi-step business processes by providing an intuitive, at-a-glance visual alerting mechanism that cascades status changes up a hierarchy (ʼ514 Patent, col. 3:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit, but does not specify them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Independent Claim 1 is representative and requires:

• A method for tracking and displaying operational parameters in a system with interdependent tasks.
• Programming a computer to establish a parent folder and a child element associated with the parent folder.
• Correlating the child element with a time critical task, inventory, or accounting activity.
• Associating a time trigger with that task, inventory, or activity.
• Changing an attribute of the parent folder when the time trigger is met.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including by the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741 - "System and method for tracking information in a business environment"

Issued September 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation, the ’741 Patent addresses the same problem of providing a visually clear and meaningful way to track complex business information ('741 Patent, col. 1:14-23).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also a hierarchical tracking system. This patent's claims refine the concept by explicitly linking business-specific data to the tracking mechanism. The invention describes establishing an "in-house product" and associating it with tasks, products, and labor codes ('741 Patent, col. 11:8-14). A key claimed feature is the act of "changing the color of the parent folder when the child folder changes color" after a time trigger is exceeded ('741 Patent, col. 11:15-21).
• Technical Importance: This patent appears to build on the parent invention by more tightly integrating specific operational data (like labor codes) into the visual tracking system, making it more directly applicable to discrete manufacturing or service-oriented workflows ('741 Patent, col. 1:38-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" from the ’741 Patent but does not specify them (Compl. ¶22). Independent Claim 1 is representative and requires:

• A method for tracking time critical information.
• Establishing a parent folder and an associated child folder.
• Establishing an in-house product with at least one task, and associating products and labor codes with that task.
• Assigning a time trigger to the in-house product.
• Changing the color of the child folder when system time meets or exceeds an alert interval.
• Changing the color of the parent folder when the child folder changes color.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶22).

U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323 - "System and method for tracking information in a business environment"

Issued October 31, 2017

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323, “System and method for tracking information in a business environment,” issued October 31, 2017 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: As a further continuation, the ’323 patent also describes a method for visually tracking time-critical information in a hierarchical system. The claims focus on the core steps of correlating a child folder with a time-critical task, associating an alert interval with that task, and then changing an attribute (e.g., color) of both the child folder and, consequently, the parent folder when a system clock indicates the alert interval has been exceeded ('323 Patent, col. 11:5-21).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶31). The patent contains independent claims 1 and 8.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’323 Patent but does not identify specific accused features in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶31, 36-37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶¶13, 22, 31). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context, incorporating this information by reference to the un-provided exhibits (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the asserted patents, stating that charts in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 compare the exemplary claims to the accused products and demonstrate that they "satisfy all elements" of those claims (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 36). As these exhibits are not part of the public record, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that practice the patented methods for visually tracking information in a hierarchical environment.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent specifications heavily feature examples from manufacturing, production, and physical inventory management (e.g., "production subassemblies," "assy. line 1," "shipping of end-products") ('514 Patent, col. 1:35-44). A potential point of contention is whether the scope of the claims, when read in light of the specification, can extend to the accused products, particularly if they are purely software-based services (e.g., cloud backup or data management) rather than systems for managing physical production.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will likely be whether the accused products implement the specific "cascading alert" functionality required by the claims. The analysis may focus on whether a status change in a "child element" automatically and programmatically causes a visual attribute change in a "parent folder," as the patents describe ('741 Patent, claim 1), or if the accused products employ a different notification architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’514 Patent, Claim 1: "changing an attribute of the parent folder"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for providing at-a-glance status updates. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products perform an action that constitutes "changing an attribute" of a "parent folder" based on the status of a child element.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "attribute" can be broad, including a "change in the color, size, animation, or other visual attribute of the folder" and may also include "audible and textual information" ('514 Patent, col. 3:51-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment and figures consistently depict the change as the folder icon's color changing from one state to another (e.g., green to red) ('514 Patent, Fig. 3a; col. 5:34-36). This could support an interpretation limiting the "attribute" to a direct visual property of the folder icon itself.

Term from ’741 Patent, Claim 1: "changing the color of the parent folder when the child folder changes color"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific causal sequence. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires not just two changes, but a dependent relationship between them. The dispute may turn on the directness of this link in the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "when" implies temporal correlation rather than direct, programmatic cause-and-effect. Under this view, if an underlying event causes the child folder's color to change and also causes the parent folder's color to change around the same time, the limitation could be met.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language suggests a direct dependency: the parent's color change is contingent upon the child's color change. The specification describes a cascading effect where "when a child folder has an IHP that has triggered its user-defined time rule, the parent's icon changes color" ('741 Patent, col. 3:56-59), supporting a reading that requires direct causation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The basis for these allegations is that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct and encourage end users to operate the products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶16, 25, 34).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶¶15, 24, 33). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues to infringe, which may support a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17, 25-26, 34-35).

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

• A foundational issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint's complete reliance on external, un-provided exhibits to identify the accused products and articulate the basis for infringement satisfy the plausibility pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal?
• A central question will be one of applicability: Can the patent claims, which are described and illustrated in the context of manufacturing and physical process management, be construed to cover the functionality of Defendant's products, which are understood to operate in the software and cloud data services sector?
• A key evidentiary question will concern the technical mechanism of infringement: Does the accused technology perform the specific, cascading visual alert function required by the claims, where a time-triggered status change in a "child element" automatically causes a visual attribute of a "parent folder" to change?