Linfo IP LLC v. American Giant Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: American Giant, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09119, S.D.N.Y., 11/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to methods for analyzing text, identifying semantic attributes, and providing a user interface to act upon the discovered information.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of information overload by automatically analyzing large volumes of text (such as product reviews or articles) to extract and present information based on semantic meaning, such as topic or sentiment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior matters, and preemptively argues that the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) do not apply, noting it may limit its infringement claims to method claims to remove any marking requirement.

Case Timeline

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," issued July 28, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of "data overload," where it is difficult and time-consuming for users to find specific, needed information within large amounts of unstructured text, such as online user reviews for a hotel or product. (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted method that analyzes text to associate "semantic attributes" (e.g., positive or negative opinion) with words or phrases. It then provides a user with interface objects (e.g., buttons or menus) to perform actions—such as extracting, displaying, or highlighting—on the words or phrases that possess a user-selected attribute. (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-28). For instance, a user could click a button to see only the negative comments about "room service" from hundreds of hotel reviews.
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for automating the summarization and filtering of unstructured text based on meaning rather than simple keyword matching, enabling users to more efficiently digest large datasets. (’428 Patent, col. 1:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20. (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Obtaining a text content via a computer system.
  • Providing a user a selection between at least a first and second "semantic attribute."
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" associated with a name or description of the attributes.
  • Allowing a user to select an attribute via the interface object.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, or highlighting) on the identified words or phrases.
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It refers generally to "a system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers." (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused system provides users with "interface objects to act on the discovered information, such as extracting, displaying or hiding, or highlighting or un-highlighting words or phrases in a text content." (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused system or its market context. It references a "preliminary exemplary table" in Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an inline claim chart or provide the referenced Exhibit B containing one. (Compl. ¶9). Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose based on the text of the complaint.

The core of the infringement theory is that the Defendant operates a system that performs the method claimed in the ’428 patent. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that this system discovers information in text and provides a user interface that allows users to perform actions on that information, such as extracting or highlighting it. (Compl. ¶7). This general functionality is alleged to map to the limitations of the asserted claims, which require identifying terms with specific attributes and allowing a user to perform an action on them. (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint's allegations are general and lack specific facts about the accused system's operation. A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system identifies words based on pre-defined "semantic attributes" and allows user-selected actions, as required by the claims, rather than operating as a conventional keyword search or filter.
• Scope Questions: A dispute may arise over whether the accused system’s functionality, once detailed, falls within the scope of the claims. For instance, does the system’s method of categorizing information constitute identifying a "semantic attribute" as that term is used in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "semantic attribute" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the criteria used by Defendant's system to filter or organize text (e.g., by topic, date, or user rating) can be classified as a "semantic attribute."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that attributes can be "grammatical, semantic, contextual, or topical," which could support a broad definition covering many types of data categorization. (’428 Patent, col. 6:8-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed examples and figures focus heavily on specific types of semantic content, particularly "opinion" (e.g., positive or negative sentiment) and specific topics (e.g., "drug names"). (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-35, Fig. 6). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly to these types of linguistic meanings.

The Term: "actionable user interface object" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The characteristics of the user interface in the accused system will be compared to this claim element. The case may turn on whether a generic filter or search button qualifies as the claimed "actionable user interface object."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a wide variety of standard UI elements that could embody this term, including a "dropdown menu," "radio buttons," or a "slider," suggesting flexibility. (’428 Patent, col. 9:8-10, col. 11:46-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the object to be associated with a "label representing the first name or description or the second name or description" of the semantic attribute. (’428 Patent, col. 16:11-14). This could support an argument that the term requires more than a generic UI element and must be explicitly linked to a choice between defined semantic categories.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "has actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶10). It makes a parallel allegation for contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of post-suit willful infringement and treble damages. (Compl. VI.¶e). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered. (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1).

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

• A central issue will be evidentiary: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused product, a primary question is whether Plaintiff can produce discovery evidence that demonstrates the Defendant's system performs the specific, multi-step method of the asserted claims, particularly the identification of and action upon "semantic attributes."
• The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "semantic attribute"? Whether it is interpreted broadly to cover any data-based filtering category or narrowly to the patent's specific examples of linguistic analysis (like sentiment) will be critical in determining infringement.