DCT

2:19-cv-14707

Lin Hendel v. Wilmington Trust National Association

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Dr. Catherine Gwei-inn Lin-Hendel, Ph.D. Physics & Dr. Rudolf Heinz Hendel, Ph.D. Physics (New Jersey)
    • Defendant: Wilmington Trust, M&T Bank, et al. (Delaware, New York)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-14707, D.N.J., 07/03/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the City of Summit, New Jersey, and at the Union County Vicinage of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ websites infringe eight patents related to the automated display of content on a webpage as part of a broader conspiracy to steal Plaintiffs’ intellectual property and real estate assets.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational methods for dynamically displaying and automatically changing digital content within a designated area of a webpage, a precursor to modern web carousels and content sliders.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent multiple notifications of infringement to Defendants and other parties beginning in 2011 and 2012, with specific notifications to Defendants in July 2018 and May 2019, which were allegedly ignored. The complaint also details extensive state-court foreclosure and federal bankruptcy proceedings involving the parties, which Plaintiffs allege were part of a conspiracy to prevent them from enforcing their patent rights.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’487 Patent
2001-01-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’653, ’044, ’792, ’352, ’205, ’852, and ’198 Patents
2007-12-11 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,308,653
2010-05-04 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,044
2011-01-01 Alleged Infringement Begins (approx.)
2012-01-31 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,108,792
2013-05-07 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,438,487
2014-09-30 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,850,352
2015-06-09 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 9,053,205
2016-08-02 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 9,405,852
2019-05-21 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,296,198
2019-07-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,308,653 - "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links" (issued Dec. 11, 2007)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional web navigation as "tedious and tiring," requiring users to manually operate scroll bars to view content that extends beyond the display window and to click on links one at a time to access new information (ʼ653 Patent, col. 2:1-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to make the browser experience more "active" by automatically scrolling content. This automated scrolling is controlled by placing the user's cursor over specific "floating border structures" located at the edges of the display window or on a floating control tool, thereby "pushing" content to the viewer without continuous manual input (ʼ653 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-20; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The technology introduced a method for making static webpages more dynamic, allowing for the presentation of more content than could fit on a screen in a sequential, automated fashion (Compl. ¶ 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 is summarized below.

  • A method of automatically scrolling, comprising the steps of:
    • placing a cursor on a respective end of a floating border structure;
    • in direct response, automatically scrolling through content... in a predetermined direction... without user input;
    • determining if a full-screen shift of the content has occurred;
    • in response, automatically pausing the scrolling;
    • clicking a left key of a mouse; and
    • in response, resuming the scrolling.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,044 - "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links" (issued May 4, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’653 Patent, the ’044 Patent addresses the same problem of static, user-driven web navigation requiring tedious manual scrolling and clicking (ʼ044 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’044 Patent further describes methods for making web media "active" and "interactive." The specification details how pre-programmed sequences of links can be automatically activated to retrieve and display linked information, "pushing" new content to the user without requiring the user to manually click each link (ʼ044 Patent, col. 5:1-17; Fig. 5A).
  • Technical Importance: This technology builds on the concept of automated content presentation by adding automated navigation between different pages or information sets, further reducing the need for manual user interaction (Compl. ¶ 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 is summarized below.

  • A method of automatically scrolling displayed content, comprising:
    • displaying content in a display window;
    • displaying a floating icon; and
    • in response to a user placing a cursor on the floating icon, automatically scrolling through the content without further user action.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,792 - "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,792, "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links," issued Jan. 31, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, the ’792 Patent continues to describe methods for automatically scrolling and navigating web content, focusing on systems with independent, auto-scrolling partitions or sub-windows within a main browser page (ʼ792 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-13).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1 and 11.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites utilize features that practice the patented methods for displaying content (Compl. ¶ 19).

U.S. Patent No. 8,850,352 - "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,850,352, "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links," issued Sep. 30, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’352 Patent further develops the core invention, with claims directed to a method where a first set of content is automatically scrolled while a second set may be manually scrolled by the user, allowing for hybrid interaction models (ʼ352 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1 and 11.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites utilize features that practice the patented methods for displaying content (Compl. ¶ 19).

U.S. Patent No. 9,053,205 - "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,053,205, "Automated Scrolling of Browser Content and Automated Activation of Browser Links," issued Jun. 9, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’205 Patent claims methods for displaying and navigating a webpage that contains a designated area where a first set of content (e.g., an image with a link) is displayed for a time and then automatically replaced by a second set of content, describing a time-based content rotation system (ʼ205 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1, 14, and 24.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites utilize features that practice the patented methods for displaying content, particularly the time-based changing of content sets (Compl. ¶ 11).

U.S. Patent No. 9,405,852 - "Automated Changing of Content Set Displaying in the Display Screen of a Browser and Automated Activation of Links Contained in the Displaying Content Set"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,405,852, "Automated Changing of Content Set Displaying in the Display Screen of a Browser and Automated Activation of Links Contained in the Displaying Content Set," issued Aug. 2, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’852 Patent claims a system for displaying digital content where sets of content are automatically changed in a designated area. The claims include user interaction mechanisms for pausing, resuming, or changing the direction of the automated content display (ʼ852 Patent, Claim 7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1, 11, and 21.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites utilize features that practice the patented methods for automatically displaying and changing content (Compl. ¶ 11).

U.S. Patent No. 10,296,198 - "Automated Changing of a Content Set Displaying in a Designated Display Area of a Webpage..."

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,296,198, "Automated Changing of a Content Set Displaying in a Designated Display Area of a Webpage...," issued May 21, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’198 Patent claims a method of programming a webpage to "time-share" a display area, where multiple sets of content are programmed to display in sequence for pre-designated time intervals. The claims focus on the programming method to achieve automated, looping content display ('198 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1 and 13.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites utilize features that practice the patented methods for automatically displaying content in a time-shared manner (Compl. ¶ 11).

U.S. Patent No. 8,438,487 - "Method and System for One-Click Navigation and Browsing of Electronic Media..."

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,438,487, "Method and System for One-Click Navigation and Browsing of Electronic Media...," issued May 7, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from a different family, describes a system for navigating nested category structures (e.g., menus) of electronic media. It allows a user to "pre-browse" sub-categories by rolling a cursor over parent categories without clicking, with the sub-category listings appearing dynamically ('487 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Independent claims include 1, 11, 22, and 24.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants have infringed this patent teaching "'One Click Navigation'" (Compl. ¶ 12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the websites of Defendants Wilmington Trust and M&T Bank (Compl. ¶ 19).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Defendants' websites implement "extensive infringements" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶ 19). The allegedly infringing functionality involves "methods and systems to automatically display multiple content-sets and changing from displaying a content-set in a time-interval to displaying a next content-set in a next time-interval in a designated prime display area on a webpage" (Compl. ¶ 11). This description suggests the accused features are functionally similar to modern website content carousels or image sliders that automatically cycle through different panels of information. The complaint does not provide specific technical details, URLs, or visual evidence of the accused website features. The complaint alleges Defendants are major financial institutions with significant assets and revenue (Compl. ¶ 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that infringement has occurred since at least 2011 (Compl. ¶ 12). It states that claim charts demonstrating infringement were provided to Defendants in exhibits that are not attached to the complaint itself (Compl. ¶ 20). Without asserted claims or claim charts, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

The general infringement theory is that Defendants' websites contain features that automatically display and rotate through different sets of content in a designated area. This functionality is alleged to "dramatically [improve] the usage and capacity of prime display areas on a webpage" to attract visitor attention, which Plaintiffs allege is the subject matter of their patents (Compl. ¶ 11).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency Questions: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to support a plausible claim of infringement under federal pleading standards, given the absence of specific asserted claims, claim charts, or any description of how the accused websites operate.
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the '653 patent family may be whether the claimed "floating border structure" or "floating icon" for controlling automated scrolling can be construed to read on the user interface elements of modern web carousels (e.g., navigation dots, arrows, or timer-based triggers), which may operate differently from the embodiments described in the patents.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence regarding the technical implementation of the accused websites. A key question will be whether the accused features, in fact, practice the specific steps and limitations recited in any of the asserted patent claims. For example, for a claim requiring a user to place a cursor on a structure to initiate scrolling, evidence would be needed to show that the accused websites operate in that specific manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms may become central to the case.

  • The Term: "floating border structure" (from claim 1 of the ’653 Patent)
    • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the primary mechanism through which a user controls the patented automated scrolling. The viability of the infringement claim may hinge on whether this term is construed broadly enough to encompass the control elements of modern web carousels, which may not be "border structures" in a literal sense.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structures as "floating lines or boxes or other geometric shapes," which suggests the term is not limited to simple lines at the edge of a screen (ʼ653 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description primarily depict these structures as lines or boxes located on the right, left, top, and bottom edges of the display window, which could support an interpretation limiting the term to peripheral screen elements (ʼ653 Patent, col. 3:45-50; Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on Defendants' direct use of the patented technology on their own websites.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint repeatedly alleges "Willful Patent Theft" and "willfully infringing since at least 2011" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 12). The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint states that "Plaintiffs have repeatedly notified Defendants of their infringements" and sent written notifications with infringement examples and claim charts in July 2018 and May 2019, which were allegedly ignored (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 19, 20).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency and evidence: Does the complaint, filed pro se and lacking specified claims, claim charts, or technical descriptions of the accused products, allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for patent infringement, and what evidence can be produced to show that the accused websites practice the specific limitations of the patents-in-suit?
  • A central legal question will be one of claim scope and technological evolution: Can the term "floating border structure," rooted in early-2000s web design paradigms for user-initiated automated scrolling, be construed to cover the distinct user interface controls and timer-based triggers of modern, automated website content carousels?
  • A significant procedural question will be case management: How will the court address a complaint that intertwines patent infringement allegations with complex, factually distinct claims of racketeering, conspiracy, and predatory lending practices, and whether these disparate claims will be managed in a single proceeding.