DCT
1:19-cv-05880
Riggs Technology Holdings LLC v. Haymarket Media Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Haymarket Media, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05880, S.D.N.Y., 06/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being incorporated in New York and having an established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s myCME mobile application infringes a patent related to methods for managing and providing remote training to users of electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for delivering, managing, and certifying professional training or education (e.g., Continuing Legal or Medical Education) via networks to portable electronic devices.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a discrepancy in the priority date, listing the provisional filing date as October 12, 2011, while the patent document itself states the provisional application was filed on October 12, 2001.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,299,067 Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/329,088) |
| 2007-11-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,299,067 Issued |
| 2019-06-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,299,067 - Methods and systems for managing the provision of training provided remotely through electronic data networks to users of remote electronic devices, Issued November 20, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiencies and high costs associated with traditional, in-person professional training, such as Continuing Legal Education (CLE). These problems include travel expenses, time away from work, and the difficulty of evaluating a trainee's comprehension and certifying completion. (’067 Patent, col. 2:1-15, 30-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where training content is delivered electronically to remote devices, such as PDAs or wireless phones. A central server manages the process by authenticating the user, tracking the status of the training (e.g., pending, completed, failed), evaluating the user, and certifying completion to the user and relevant third parties (e.g., state bars or employers). (’067 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-14). This creates a comprehensive, auditable record of the remote training.
- Technical Importance: At the time of the invention, this approach sought to leverage the growing capabilities of handheld wireless devices and the internet to make mandatory professional education more convenient and manageable. (’067 Patent, col. 3:59-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- Receiving, at a training server, training data from a user of a hand held device representing training taken by the user.
- Receiving identifying information for the user concurrently with the training data.
- Identifying the user of the hand held device.
- Authenticating the identity of the user by comparing authentication data from the user with a master user identification template.
- Recording the training data in a memory associated with the training server.
- Locating at least one training file contained within the training data.
- Determining the status of the training file (e.g., pending, incomplete, failed, passed) by comparing it with an associated master training template.
- Recording the training status in memory.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "at least Haymarket Media's myCME app" as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint provides minimal detail about the accused product's functionality. It is identified as the "myCME app," which suggests it is a mobile application for providing Continuing Medical Education. The complaint alleges that this product is made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's specific technical operation or market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "myCME app" directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’067 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '067 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Haymarket Media Products," but this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶16). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations.
’067 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving at a training server training data transmitted...from a user of a hand held device, the training data representing training taken by the user... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element, but alleges generally that the myCME app practices the claimed technology. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 29:2-7 |
| receiving identifying information for the user of a hand held device concurrently with the training data file | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 29:8-10 |
| authenticating the identify [sic] of the user of the hand held device by requesting authentication data...and comparing...with a master user identification template... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 29:12-18 |
| recording the training data in a memory associated with the training server | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 29:19-21 |
| determining status of the training file by comparing the training file with an associated master training template...the status including a determination if training...meets a set criterion including at least one of: pending, incomplete, failed, passed... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 30:2-9 |
| recording training status in memory | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to map specific functionality to this element. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 30:10-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: A primary question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused myCME app performs each step of the claimed method. Given the lack of detail in the complaint, this will be a central focus of discovery.
- Technical Questions: It will be necessary to determine how the accused app technically implements user authentication and training status tracking. The analysis will question whether the app’s functions for tracking course progress map directly onto the claim's specific requirement of "determining status of the training file by comparing the...file with an associated master training template" to meet a "set criterion" like "pending, incomplete, failed, passed."
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hand held device"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the user-side hardware of the claimed system. Its scope is critical because the patent was filed in 2002 when "PDAs, pagers, and wireless phones" were the primary examples. The dispute may turn on whether modern smartphones, which have vastly different capabilities, fall within the scope of this term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that handheld devices can include "PDAs, pagers, and wireless phones" (’067 Patent, Abstract) and other "data network-enabled portable wireless devices" (col. 1:31-34), suggesting the term is not limited to the specific examples listed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses heavily on the functionalities of early 2000s devices like the "PalmPilot™ PDA" and "Handspring Visor™" (col. 9:60-63; col. 11:9-14). A defendant might argue that the term should be limited to devices with the specific, and more limited, processing and connectivity capabilities contemplated at the time.
The Term: "authenticating the identify [sic] of the user"
- Context and Importance: This is a key security and verification step in the claim. The method of authentication will be a focal point. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes advanced methods like biometrics alongside basic username/password systems, raising questions about what level of authentication is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require comparing "authentication data" with a "master user identification template," which could cover a simple username and password check. Claim 2, a dependent claim, specifies that the data can be a "username" and "password." (’067 Patent, col. 29:28-31).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification dedicates significant discussion to more sophisticated "biometric authentication means," such as a fingerprint reader, as a solution to the weaknesses of passwords (’067 Patent, col. 20:20-51). A defendant could argue this emphasis suggests that simple password entry does not meet the "authenticating" limitation in the way envisioned by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). It also alleges contributory infringement by selling the myCME app for use in a manner that infringes. (Compl. ¶15).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges that Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the patent as of the filing of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, [and] offer for sale" the accused products, which could form the basis for a post-filing willfulness claim (Compl. ¶12, ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the conclusory nature of the complaint, the case will hinge on whether discovery yields evidence that the accused "myCME app" actually performs each specific, ordered step of the method recited in Claim 1, particularly the server-side processing related to authentication and status determination.
- A second key question will be one of claim scope: The dispute will likely involve determining whether the term "hand held device", as described in a 2002-filed patent with examples like PDAs, can be construed to read on the functionality of modern smartphones and their sophisticated app ecosystems.
- Finally, a central legal question will concern divided infringement: As the claim requires actions by both a user (on a "hand held device") and a "training server", the plaintiff will need to demonstrate that the defendant either directs or controls the actions of the users to satisfy all claim steps, or that the defendant itself performs all the server-side steps and induces the users to perform the client-side steps.