Lin Hendel v. Agriculture Bank Of China Abchina

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dr. Catherine Gwei-inn Lin-Hendel and Dr. Rudolf Heinz Hendel (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Agriculture Bank of China (ABChina), its Overseas Institutions, Branches, Subsidiaries, Affiliated Entities and Assets (China); Agriculture Bank of China New York Branch (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-16372, D.N.J., 08/05/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege they are residents of New Jersey.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s corporate website infringes eight U.S. patents related to automated website content display and user navigation.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational web interface technologies, including automatically rotating content displays (e.g., carousels) and user-friendly browsing mechanisms like navigation strings (e.g., breadcrumbs).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent an infringement notification letter to Defendants on or about May 12, 2018, which was allegedly ignored, forming a basis for the willfulness allegation. The complaint also makes numerous allegations regarding conspiracies and fraud involving third parties unrelated to the patent claims.

Case Timeline

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: December 11, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional web browsers as static and tedious, requiring users to manually scroll through content and perform one-link-at-a-time navigation, which is described as "finger tiring" (Compl. ¶1; ’653 Patent, col. 2:5-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for automatically scrolling content within a browser window without continuous user input. This automated scrolling can be controlled by placing a cursor on "floating border structures" (e.g., lines or boxes at the edges of the screen) that activate scrolling in a predetermined direction, thereby actively "pushing" content to the user (’653 Patent, col. 2:25-33; col. 4:10-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make the web browsing experience more dynamic and less labor-intensive, akin to a passive television-like format but while retaining user interactivity (Compl. ¶1; ’653 Patent, col. 2:34-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’653 Patent that are allegedly infringed (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6).

---

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

• Issued: May 21, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’653 Patent, the ’198 Patent addresses the same general problem of static web content requiring extensive user interaction to navigate (’198 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
• The Patented Solution: This patent specifically describes a method to program multiple sets of digital content to be displayed in sequence within a "designated display area" of a webpage. The system automatically cycles through these content sets for pre-designated time intervals "without user initiated action for each change," effectively time-sharing a prime display area (’198 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:38-65).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows a single portion of a webpage to feature multiple pieces of content, such as advertisements or news items, thereby increasing the efficiency and value of the webpage's layout (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’198 Patent that are allegedly infringed (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6).

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: Other Patents-in-Suit

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,712,044; 8,108,792; 8,850,352; 9,053,205; and 9,405,852.
• Technology Synopsis: As members of the same patent family as the ’653 and ’198 patents, these patents generally relate to methods and systems for automatically changing or scrolling content within designated areas of a webpage to enhance user experience and display efficiency (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 4).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's website infringes by programming a display area to "automatically change displaying content," thereby "time-sharing the designated display area to automatically display multiple-sets of content-sets" (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 4).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Separate Patent-in-Suit

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,438,487.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent teaches methods and systems for user-friendly website browsing, including an "informational categorical structure" and an "active navigation string" (e.g., a breadcrumb trail) that allows a user to track their browsing path and return to any previously visited page with a single click (Compl. p. 8, ¶ 5).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. p. 8, ¶ 5).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the website's use of a categorical browsing structure and an "active navigation string" for tracking a user's browsing path (Compl. p. 8, ¶ 5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "www.abchina.com/cn" website (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 12).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges the website utilizes features that automatically cycle through different sets of content within a single designated display area on a webpage (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 4).
  • The complaint also alleges the website employs a user navigation system that includes a categorical structure and an "active navigation string" to help users track their browsing path (Compl. p. 8, ¶ 5).
  • The website is alleged to be used for conducting international business, including promoting and selling Defendant’s products and services to customers worldwide, including in the United States (Compl. p. 7, ¶¶ 12-15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "three example claim-charts" in an "Exhibit 4," but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. p. 5, ¶ 2). The complaint also fails to identify any specific asserted claims for any of the eight patents-in-suit. In the absence of an exhibit or asserted claims, a formal claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory for the '653 patent family alleges that the Defendant’s website implements a system to "automatically change displaying content in a designated display area in a portion of a webpage, time-sharing the designated display area to automatically display multiple-sets of content-sets" (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 4). This appears to accuse features commonly known as content carousels or rotating banners.

The narrative infringement theory for the ’487 patent alleges that the Defendant's website uses "an 'active navigation string' for visitors to the website to be able to track his/her browsing path and reach any visited page by a single click" (Compl. p. 8, ¶ 5). This appears to accuse features commonly known as breadcrumb navigation trails.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary question will be whether the complaint's general allegations, without reference to specific claims or detailed technical functions, meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading established by federal court precedent.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether standard, widely adopted web design elements from 2010 onward, such as content carousels and breadcrumb navigation, fall within the scope of patents with priority dates from the early 2000s.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question, once claims are identified, will be whether the accused website's implementation of its content display and navigation features meets the specific technical limitations of the asserted claims. For instance, does the website's code perform the specific method of "time-sharing" a display area as might be claimed, or does it use a different, non-infringing technique?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not assert specific claims, precluding a definitive analysis of key claim terms. However, based on the narrative infringement allegations and the technology described in the patents, disputes may center on the construction of the following or similar terms:

• The Term: "automatically changing the displaying content-set ... without user initiated action" (’198 Patent, Abstract)
• Context and Importance: The definition of this phrase is critical, as it distinguishes the patented invention from user-driven content changes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant could argue that its website's content changes are not fully "automatic" or are dependent on some initial or ambient user action, potentially placing them outside the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the method as "automatically and sequentially presents/pushes such information to particular sets of viewers/users," suggesting a broad, system-driven process not requiring discrete user commands for each change (’198 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a "pre-designated time interval" for each content set could support a narrower interpretation requiring a specific, programmed timing mechanism that may not be present in all forms of dynamic content display (’198 Patent, col. 8:51-53).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by operating its infringing website, Defendant causes "employees, clients, customers, partners and investors worldwide and in the United States of America to also infringe on these patents," which may form the basis for a claim of induced infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶ 18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported continuation of infringement after receiving an "infringement notification letter" with a claim chart on or about May 12, 2018. The complaint states that Defendants "ignored Plaintiffs' good will and good faith notification" (Compl. p. 6, ¶ 3; p. 7, ¶ 9).

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

• A central procedural issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Can the pro se complaint, which lacks asserted claims and specific factual allegations linking accused features to patent limitations, survive a motion to dismiss, or will Plaintiffs be required to amend their pleadings to provide greater specificity?
• A core issue of claim scope will likely emerge: Can patent claims with a 2001 priority date, drafted in the context of early web-browsing technology, be construed to cover the potentially more sophisticated and widely adopted content carousel and breadcrumb navigation technologies implemented on a modern website a decade later?
• A key question for damages will be one of willfulness and notice: Assuming infringement is found, what is the evidentiary strength of the May 2018 notification letter in establishing post-notice willful infringement, and can Plaintiffs establish any pre-suit knowledge by Defendant to extend the period of willfulness back to the alleged 2010 start of infringement?