Lin Hendel v. China Merchant Group Subsidiaries

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dr. Catherine Gwei-inn Lin-Hendel and Dr. Rudolf Heinz Hendel (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: China Merchants Group and Subsidiaries, et al. (China/New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-16373, D.N.J., 08/05/2019
• Venue Allegations: The complaint does not specify a basis for venue in the District of New Jersey beyond noting the Plaintiffs' residence in the state. Defendants are identified with primary locations in China and a branch office in New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ corporate and subsidiary websites infringe a family of seven patents related to the automated display of web content and a separate patent concerning user-friendly website navigation mechanisms.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to dynamic user interface features for websites, such as automatically rotating content carousels and "breadcrumb" style navigation trails, which are widely used to enhance user engagement and site usability.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiffs sent an infringement notification letter to Defendants on or about May 18, 2018, an event that may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings regarding the patents-in-suit are mentioned.

Case Timeline

---

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

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional web browsing as a static, "passive" experience that requires "tedious and finger tiring" manual user actions, such as repeated clicking of scroll bars or individual links, to access new information (U.S. Patent 10,296,198, col. 1:52-2:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to program a webpage to function more like an "active" television/video format by automatically cycling through multiple "sets of digital content" within a designated area of the page for pre-set time intervals, without requiring user action for each change ('198 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62). This allows information to be actively "pushed" to the user ('198 Patent, col. 2:55-57).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to increase user engagement on websites by combining the passive, continuous content delivery of television with the interactive nature of the web ('198 Patent, col. 2:51-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint broadly alleges infringement of the patent family without specifying claims (Compl. ¶4). Independent Claim 1 of the ’198 Patent is representative of the core technology described.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A method of programming a webpage of a website to time-share a designated displaying area.
  • Displaying a plurality of sets of content one at a time, each for a pre-designated time interval.
  • The method comprises designing the content sets and time intervals, and programming the webpage to automatically display the sequence (e.g., removing a first set and moving in a second set).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

---

U.S. Patent No. 8,438,487 - "Method and system for one-click navigation and browsing of electronic media and their category structure as well as tracking the navigation and browsing thereof"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes navigating websites with deep, hierarchical category structures as a "slow and labor-intensive procedure," requiring a user to click and wait for a new page to load at each level of the hierarchy (U.S. Patent 8,438,487, col. 2:15-3:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that facilitates browsing of category structures, potentially through cursor rollover without clicking, and a "dynamic tracking-string." This tracking string displays the user's current navigation path and allows the user to return to any previous level in the path with a "one-click" action, avoiding repeated use of the browser's "back" button ('487 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:39-47).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make browsing complex websites with many categorical levels faster and more intuitive by reducing page loads and providing a persistent, interactive navigation record ('487 Patent, col. 2:48-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of this patent without specifying claims (Compl. ¶5). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the technology described.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A system with a device configured to display a categorization structure of nested levels.
  • Displaying sub-category titles in response to cursor movement over a parent category title, without a click being required.
  • Displaying a "tracking-string display" that indicates the user's current browsing path within the category structure.
  • Enabling the user to invoke a link-token within the tracking-string display to return to a previously visited category level with one click.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

---

For brevity, the following six patents, which are part of the same family as the ’198 patent, are summarized.

The '198 Patent Family (Additional Patents)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,308,653; U.S. Patent No. 7,712,044; U.S. Patent No. 8,108,792; U.S. Patent No. 8,850,352; U.S. Patent No. 9,053,205; U.S. Patent No. 9,405,852.
• Technology Synopsis: These patents stem from the same priority application as the ’198 Patent. They generally disclose methods and systems for making web pages more dynamic by automatically scrolling or changing content within a designated display area of a browser, thereby "pushing" information to a user without requiring continuous manual interaction (Compl. ¶4).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims for these patents (Compl. ¶4).
• Accused Features: The accused features are website functionalities that "automatically change displaying content in a designated display area" on a time-sharing basis (Compl. ¶4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the websites operated by Defendants, including but not limited to "www.cmhk.com", "www.cmport.com.hk", and "www.cmbchina.com" (Compl. p. 8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these websites are used to conduct international business and communicate with stakeholders (Compl. p. 8). The specific functionalities accused of infringement are:

• Features that "automatically change displaying content in a designated display area," which may correspond to elements such as rotating homepage banners or content carousels (Compl. ¶4).
• 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," which may correspond to breadcrumb navigation trails found on the websites (Compl. ¶5).
• The complaint alleges that using these inventions "dramatically improves the website's effectiveness and attractiveness" (Compl. ¶4).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶3, ¶5). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

10,296,198 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "programming a webpage," as claimed, covers the use of common, off-the-shelf web development tools or JavaScript libraries used to implement content carousels, or if it requires a more specific, novel implementation taught in the patent.
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused websites perform all steps of the claimed method, including the specific sequence of "removing the first set of content... and moving into... a second set." The complaint does not provide technical details on how the accused websites' features operate.

8,438,487 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether a standard HTML "breadcrumb" trail meets the definition of the claimed "tracking-string display." The construction of this term will be critical to determining if it requires functionality beyond that of a simple, static list of hyperlinks.
• Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused websites' navigation systems perform the claimed function of pre-browsing categories via cursor movement without clicking, as this is a recited element of the claimed system. The complaint's narrative focuses only on the tracking-string aspect and does not allege this pre-browsing functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim Term: "programming a webpage... to automatically display" ('198 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This phrase is the active step of the method claim. Its scope will be central to the dispute. Practitioners may focus on whether this term encompasses the use of standard, widely available web technologies for creating features like content carousels, or if infringement requires a more specific implementation method taught by the patent. A broad construction could implicate a vast number of modern websites, raising questions of validity over prior art.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal in general terms as making the "browser/web/computer format" active rather than passive, "pushing" information to the user ('198 Patent, col. 2:55-62). This could support a construction covering any technical means of achieving that result.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments involving sequences of preprogrammed, automatic activation of links and "floating instruction box[es]," suggesting a more complex and specific system than a simple content rotator ('198 Patent, col. 6:14-24).

---

Claim Term: "tracking-string display" ('487 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term's definition is critical to determining whether a conventional breadcrumb navigation element infringes. Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires the dynamic, one-click return capabilities and integration with cursor-based pre-browsing, as described in the patent, or if it can read on a static list of hyperlinks showing a user's location in the site hierarchy.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the feature as facilitating "returning and/or changing path during browsing," a general function that a standard breadcrumb trail performs ('487 Patent, Abstract).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the string as "dynamic" and part of a system that allows browsing category levels without page downloads ('487 Patent, Abstract). Claim 1 itself links the "tracking-string display" to a system that also enables pre-browsing via cursor movement, suggesting the term refers to a component of this more complex, interactive system.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that by operating the infringing websites, Defendants cause their "employees, clients, customers, partners and investors" to infringe the patents (Compl. p. 8). This suggests a claim for induced infringement, though it lacks specific allegations regarding the requisite intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It asserts Defendants were "keenly aware of the benefits their own infringements... have brought them" prior to being notified (Compl. ¶5). It further alleges that Defendants received an infringement notification letter on or about May 18, 2018, but "arrogantly ignored" it and "continued to infringe and even greatly expanded their infringements" (Compl. ¶3, ¶5).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope versus ubiquity: can the asserted claims, which relate to automated content carousels and breadcrumb navigation, be construed broadly enough to cover these now-commonplace website features without being found invalid in light of prior art? The case will likely require a detailed analysis of whether the specific limitations recited in the claims distinguish the patented inventions from conventional web design practices.
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: the pro se complaint is highly conclusory and makes infringement allegations without providing detailed technical mappings or the visual evidence referenced in its own exhibits. A central question for the litigation will be whether the Plaintiffs can produce sufficient factual and expert evidence to demonstrate that the accused websites practice each and every limitation of the asserted claims.