DCT
5:25-cv-00176
Lowe's Home Centers LLC v. Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC and Lowe's Companies, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.; Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00176, W.D.N.C., 10/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Lowe's asserts venue is proper in the Western District of North Carolina because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including Defendant Adaptive's licensing demands, occurred in and were directed to the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its website, lowes.com, does not infringe two of Defendant’s patents related to systems for creating and displaying automated sequences of web pages, and further alleges the patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating customizable, automated "slide show" presentations of multiple web pages to guide a user's browsing experience, relevant to online content delivery and e-commerce.
- Key Procedural History: The action was initiated by Lowe's following licensing demands from Adaptive, which has previously filed at least 28 lawsuits asserting one or both of the patents-in-suit against other major retailers. The complaint notes that both asserted patents expired no later than July 1, 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-10-20 | Priority Date for ’629 Patent and ’707 Patent |
| 2007-01-30 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 |
| 2008-09-23 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 |
| 2022-07-01 | Latest possible expiration date for Asserted Patents, per complaint |
| 2023-10-16 | Video conference between parties |
| 2023-10-23 | Video conference between parties |
| 2025-08-04 | Initial Demand Email from Adaptive to Lowe's |
| 2025-08-14 | Follow-up Demand Email from Adaptive to Lowe's |
| 2025-08-18 | Lowe's acknowledges Adaptive's claim |
| 2025-10-16 | Video conference meeting between parties' counsel |
| 2025-10-23 | Follow-up video conference meeting between parties' counsel |
| 2025-10-24 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - "Customizable Web Site Access System and Method Therefore," issued January 30, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes web browsing as often tedious, requiring users to navigate "vertically through multiple pages at a single destination" or return repeatedly to a search results list to visit different sites. For site owners, visitors take "random paths," resulting in "a significant amount of site content that is never seen" (’629 Patent, col. 7:42-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a software system with two main components: a "composer" and a "performer" operating on a host server (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). A site owner or user invokes the composer to create a "presentation," which consists of a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a set duration for each URL (’629 Patent, col. 9:11-24). The performer then automatically presents this sequence of web pages to a visitor in a "slide show" format, automating the navigation process (’629 Patent, Abstract). The specification states the invention "operates to combine the bookmark feature of web browsers with the slide show feature of presentation software" (’629 Patent, col. 9:1-3).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to automate web navigation, providing site owners a method to create guided "tours" of web content and offering users a way to view multiple sites sequentially without constant manual intervention.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶40).
- The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
- A method for customizing access to a plurality of web sites, comprising:
- remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server;
- creating a presentation in the composer, which includes establishing a list of URLs (via manual or automatic entry), determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration;
- remotely invoking a performer on the host server to present the created presentation; and
- automatically locally displaying the presentation in a "slide show format," where each URL is a "slide" displayed automatically for a pre-determined duration without user intervention.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - "Customizable Web Site Access System and Method Therefore," issued September 23, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’707 Patent addresses the need for an automated way to present web content to overcome the inefficiencies of manual, user-driven navigation (’707 Patent, col. 1:41-51).
- The Patented Solution: This invention discloses an "auto composer" that automates the creation of the presentation itself. Instead of requiring manual entry of URLs, the system automatically extracts web page details from a single "desired web page" to build the URL list for the slide show (’707 Patent, Abstract). The extraction can be performed by identifying hyperlinks within the page, locating a "presentation/rendition text file," or reading a specific "meta tag" in the page's code (’707 Patent, col. 8:20-44).
- Technical Importance: This method simplified the process of creating a guided tour of a website by programmatically generating the presentation from the site's existing structure, rather than requiring manual curation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶54).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- A computer implemented method for auto composing a web site, comprising:
- composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, where the composing step includes one or more of:
- automatically extracting hyperlinks from the page;
- automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from the page; or
- automatically extracting a meta tag from the page;
- and automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created URL list.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as "features of lowes.com" ("Lowe's website") (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint is a declaratory judgment action and does not affirmatively describe the functionality of the accused website features. It states that Adaptive has accused features of the website as it existed in 2022 of infringement and has provided claim charts purporting to map the patent claims to the website (Compl. ¶30). The complaint asserts that the accused features have substantial non-infringing uses, such as allowing customers to "visit, browse, and purchase items" (Compl. ¶42, ¶56).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following tables summarize the Plaintiff's stated bases for why its product does not meet the claim limitations.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’629 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Plaintiff's Stated Basis for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:45-50 |
| creating a presentation in said composer, wherein said step of creating comprises... establishing a list of URLs... by one of a plurality of list establishment methodologies... manual entry via a user interface... and automatic entry by a query-based system | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:51-59 |
| determining a display sequence of said list of URLs in said composer | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:59-60 |
| determining a duration of display for said list of URLs in said composer | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:61-62 |
| remotely invoking a performer operating on said host server to present said created presentation | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:63-65 |
| automatically locally displaying the created presentation presented by said performer in a slide show format... wherein each slide is automatically displayed to a user, absent human intervention, for the pre-determined display duration... | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶41 | col. 14:66-col.15:3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether user interactions with dynamic features on lowes.com (such as product carousels or curated galleries) can be construed as "remotely invoking a composer" to "create a presentation." The definition of "presentation" itself—requiring a list of URLs, sequence, and duration—will be a key issue.
- Technical Questions: A core factual question is whether any component of the lowes.com system performs the specific steps of establishing a URL list with a user-defined or query-based sequence and duration, and then automatically displaying that sequence in a "slide show format."
’707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Plaintiff's Stated Basis for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, wherein said step of composing comprises one or more of the following: automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks...; automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file...; and automatically extracting a meta tag... | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶55 | col. 10:50-63 |
| and automatically displaying said presentation, wherein said presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs. | The complaint alleges the Lowe's website did not meet or embody this limitation. | ¶55 | col. 10:63-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether any feature of the lowes.com website can be considered to be "auto composing" a presentation from a single web page.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the lowes.com backend "automatically extract[s]" URLs from a page's hyperlinks, text files, or meta tags for the specific purpose of creating and displaying an ordered presentation, as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "composer" (’629 Patent, cl. 11)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed method. Whether the accused website has a "composer" will be a dispositive issue for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine if modern, server-side logic for displaying dynamic content falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the composer as a "software program" that can be invoked either "manually by a site owner/developer" or "automatically... by a query-based system" (’629 Patent, col. 9:16-20), suggesting it is not limited to a specific type of user interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description show a specific user interface screen for manually entering a list of URLs and setting parameters like duration and replay, which may support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated tool for creating the presentation (’629 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 11:11-24).
The Term: "slide show format" (’629 Patent, cl. 11)
Context and Importance: The final step of the claimed method is displaying the presentation in this format. Its meaning is critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from other forms of web navigation or content display.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim functionally defines the format as one where "each slide is automatically displayed to a user, absent human intervention, for the pre-determined display duration" (’629 Patent, col. 15:1-3). This language could be argued to cover any feature that automatically cycles through content on a timer.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly analogizes the invention to combining "the bookmark feature of web browsers with the slide show feature of presentation software" (’629 Patent, col. 9:1-3). This could support an argument that the term requires a user experience akin to presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint), where entire pages are loaded sequentially, rather than just rotating images in a carousel on a single page.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Lowe's preemptively denies liability for indirect infringement, alleging it had no knowledge of the ’629 or ’707 patents before receiving demand letters from Adaptive (Compl. ¶42, ¶56). It further alleges that this lack of knowledge predates the patents' expiration, which would preclude pre-suit damages. The complaint also asserts that the accused features of its website have substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶42, ¶56).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by Adaptive in this declaratory judgment complaint. Lowe's arguments regarding lack of pre-suit knowledge would serve as a defense to any future allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶42, ¶56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central legal issue will be one of patent eligibility: Are the asserted claims directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "collecting, organizing, and sequentially displaying data," as Lowe's alleges, or do they recite a specific, inventive concept that constitutes a technical improvement to computer functionality? (Compl. ¶48, ¶62).
- The case will also involve a core question of technical infringement: Do modern, dynamic web features like content carousels or curated product galleries on the lowes.com website perform the specific steps recited in the claims—namely, creating a defined "presentation" with a list of URLs, sequence, and duration, and displaying it in a "slide show format"?
- The outcome may ultimately depend on a question of definitional scope: How will the court construe key terms such as "composer" and "slide show format"? A broad construction might encompass a wide range of automated content displays, whereas a narrow construction tied to the patent's explicit analogy to "presentation software" may not.