Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Trustpilot, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02796, S.D.N.Y., 08/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s regular and established place of business within the Southern District of New York, as well as the commission of infringing acts and substantial business conducted in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online review platform infringes a patent related to systems and user interfaces for discovering, analyzing, and presenting information within large volumes of text content.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of information overload in unstructured text, such as online user reviews, by enabling users to filter and view content based on semantic attributes like sentiment.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint, filed following a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has entered into prior settlement licenses with other parties, arguing these settlements did not create a patent marking obligation that would limit pre-suit damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428
2015-07-28	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428
2024-08-26	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015 (the “'428 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "data overload," where finding specific, needed information within large amounts of scattered text data—such as hundreds of online hotel reviews—is difficult and "virtually impossible" for a user (’428 Patent, col. 2:18-25). Conventional search methods are described as time-consuming and inefficient for parsing such unstructured content (’428 Patent, col. 2:26-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, or contextual attributes of words or phrases (e.g., identifying a comment as having a "positive opinion") (’428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides an "actionable user interface object" that allows a user to select a desired attribute (e.g., "positive comments only") and perform an action, such as extracting, displaying, or highlighting all text segments that match the selected attribute (’428 Patent, col. 5:58-6:8; Fig. 9A).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more efficient tool for information discovery that goes beyond simple keyword searching to enable analysis based on the meaning and context of the text (’428 Patent, col. 2:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with those semantic attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" associated with a label representing the semantic attributes.
  • Allowing a user to select an attribute via the interface object.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims add further limitations based on grammatical, contextual, or topical attributes (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant Trustpilot's online platform, described as a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused system, which allows for the discovery and presentation of information from text content, such as user reviews (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes a highlighted portion of the ’428 patent's abstract to illustrate the allegedly infringing functionality. This excerpt describes a system for identifying attributes of words and providing interface objects for users to perform actions like extracting or highlighting text (Compl. ¶14). However, the complaint does not contain specific allegations describing how the Trustpilot platform itself operates or provide screenshots of the accused user interface in action.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit B," which was not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶18). In lieu of a chart, the infringement theory is summarized below.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Trustpilot’s review platform embodies the system and method claimed in the ’428 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The plaintiff’s theory appears to be that when Trustpilot displays user reviews, it necessarily performs the claimed steps of obtaining text content, analyzing it for certain attributes (such as positive or negative sentiment), and providing users with interface tools to filter or sort reviews based on those attributes. The complaint includes a visual excerpt from the patent's background section, which describes the desirability of a tool that lets a reader "select a criterion and click a button, and then present all the information the reader is looking for in an easy-to-digest way" (Compl. ¶10). This suggests Plaintiff will argue that any filtering or sorting feature on the Trustpilot website constitutes the claimed "actionable user interface object" performing the claimed method. The complaint's allegations, however, are framed in general terms that track the patent's language rather than describing specific operations of the accused Trustpilot platform.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the Trustpilot platform performs the specific steps recited in the claims. The complaint does not explain how the accused system allegedly identifies a "semantic attribute" (as defined by the patent) or provides an interface object that allows users to select from such attributes. The court may need to assess whether standard features like star-rating filters or a keyword search bar meet the claim limitations.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For instance, does Trustpilot’s interface provide an "actionable user interface object" that allows selection of a "semantic attribute" as contemplated by the patent, or does it operate on different principles (e.g., user-provided metadata like star ratings)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"actionable user interface object"

Context and Importance

This term appears central to the invention, as the complaint repeatedly highlights it as the "focus" and solution to the prior art's problems (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). Its construction will be critical, as it defines the mechanism by which a user interacts with the system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether a wide range of common web interface elements (e.g., buttons, drop-down menus, filters) fall within the claims or if it is limited to a more specific implementation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is facially broad. The patent states that an "important part of the present invention is the user interface object and its function in displaying a pre-defined attribute as a criterion" (’428 Patent, col. 15:34-36), which could be argued to cover any UI element that allows for selection based on a defined characteristic.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a dropdown menu to "extract positive opinions" (Fig. 7), selectable checkboxes to "show positive comments only" (Fig. 9A), and radio buttons to "Highlight positive comments" (Fig. 11). These examples consistently tie the object to actions based on pre-defined semantic or topical attributes, which could support a narrower construction limited to interfaces that present such specific analytical categories to the user.

"semantic attribute"

Context and Importance

This term defines the basis of the analysis and filtering. Infringement will depend on whether Trustpilot's system is shown to operate on "semantic attributes" of the text itself, rather than on external metadata like star ratings.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides several examples, including "opinion" and whether a term is the name of a drug, suggesting the term covers various classifications based on meaning (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-28).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily focuses on a specific type of semantic attribute: sentiment or opinion. Claim 3 narrows this to "a positive opinion versus a negative option," and the detailed description discusses using dictionaries and contextual rules to determine if a term is positive or negative (’428 Patent, col. 9:8-38; Fig. 6). This could support a construction that requires a specific type of linguistic sentiment analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19). No specific instructions or user manuals are cited.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). This pleading supports a claim for post-filing willfulness only.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and definition: can the term "semantic attribute", which the patent illustrates with examples of linguistic sentiment analysis, be construed to cover the filtering criteria available on the Trustpilot platform, which may rely on user-generated metadata like star ratings rather than automated textual analysis?

2. The case will likely hinge on an evidentiary question of technical operation: can the plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused Trustpilot system actually performs the specific analytical and interactive steps of claim 1? Specifically, what proof exists that the platform identifies semantic meaning within review text and then provides an "actionable user interface object" that allows users to filter or highlight content based on that identified meaning, as opposed to simply offering keyword search or other conventional filtering tools?