Recog IP LLC v. Victoria's Secret & Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Recog IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Victoria's Secret & Co. (Delaware); Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00663, W.D. Tex., 12/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having a "regular and established place of business" in the district, specifically a retail store in Waco, Texas, that stores inventory, accepts returns, and facilitates product pickups.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's e-commerce website infringes a patent related to a method for generating a temporary presentation of a user's browsing history to allow them to easily re-locate previously viewed pages within a single session.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user session tracking in e-commerce, specifically methods to enhance navigation by reminding users of products they have recently viewed.
• Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is an Amended Complaint filed pursuant to Rule 15(1)(B), suggesting it was amended once as a matter of course. No other procedural events like prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-03-30	'062 Patent Priority Date
2007-11-13	'062 Patent Issue Date
2023-12-18	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 - "Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-locating an Information Page that has Already Been Called"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty for internet users to find and return to a specific webpage they have previously visited, especially when that page was accessed through a series of links from a main home page, making standard "back" buttons or history lists ineffective ('062 Patent, col. 2:13-44; Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-side method that registers a user upon visiting a home page and tracks the sequence of information pages they subsequently call. It then generates a temporary, displayable presentation (e.g., a visual map) of this browsing path, which helps the user recognize and re-locate a specific page. Crucially, this presentation is deleted from the vendor's server when the user's session ends, with no long-term storage of the path ('062 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-5).
• Technical Importance: The described method aimed to improve website usability by providing dynamic, session-specific navigation aids while potentially reducing the server's data storage burden associated with tracking user behavior ('062 Patent, col. 2:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • When a user calls a home page, registering the user at the vendor server.
  • At the vendor server, registering the information pages called by the user that proceed from the home page.
  • At the vendor server, only temporarily generating a displayable presentation that visually identifies a sequence of the user's called pages.
  • Deleting the presentation from the vendor server, with no storage of the presentation or information pages at the server, when the user exits the information session.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Victoria's Secret website ("victoriassecret.com") (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint focuses on a website feature referred to as the "Pick Up Where You Left Off" dialog box (Compl. ¶14, Fig. 2). This feature allegedly appears after a user has navigated to one product page and then to another. It presents a list of recently viewed items, providing links for the user to return to those specific product pages (Compl. ¶14, Fig. 3). The complaint alleges this functionality is temporary and relies on cookies; it states that if a user clears their cookies or browses in incognito mode, previously viewed items are not displayed in subsequent sessions (Compl. ¶17). Figure 4, a screenshot of the accused website, is provided to show that previously viewed items are not presented when a user browses in incognito mode (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'062 Patent Infringement Allegations

| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality -

| Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| when a user, via a user computer in communication with said vendor server, calls a home page, comprising home page contents, of an information vendor, registering said user at said vendor server; -
| The Victoria's Secret website allows users to visit the home page and registers them on the vendor server via the use of cookies. -
| ¶15 | col. 4:32-39 |
| at said vendor server registering information pages of said information vendor called by said user directly and indirectly proceeding from said home page; -
| The website's server temporarily stores visited information product pages and analyzes a "Pick Up Where You Left Off Cookie" to build and display the section containing recently viewed items. -
| ¶16 | col. 5:5-9 |
| at said vendor server only temporarily generating a displayable presentation, for display at said user computer which visually identifies a sequence of said information pages of said information vendor called by said user, and deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server, when said user exits an information session with said information vendor. | The "Pick Up Where You Left Off" dialog box is described as temporary because it does not show product pages from a previous session if cookies are cleared or the user browses in incognito mode. This is alleged to show the presentation is deleted when the session ends. -
| ¶17 | col. 6:33-44 |

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint uses client-side evidence (clearing cookies prevents the feature from appearing) to support the claim limitation that the presentation is "delet[ed]...from said vendor server" (Compl. ¶17). A central technical question will be whether this evidence is sufficient to prove the alleged server-side deletion. It is possible the data persists on the server but is inaccessible without the corresponding client-side cookie to identify the user.
• Scope Question: Claim 1 requires a presentation that "visually identifies a sequence" of information pages. The patent specification illustrates this with graphical maps showing a user's path with arrows ('062 Patent, Fig. 3). The accused feature, as depicted in the complaint's screenshots, appears to be a list of recently viewed items (Compl. Fig. 2). This raises the question of whether a simple list of products meets the "sequence" limitation as understood in the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"deleting said presentation from said vendor server...when said user exits an information session"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent emphasizes the temporary, session-specific nature of the generated presentation. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's behavior (where clearing a client-side cookie erases the history) satisfies this server-side action. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's evidence of deletion is indirect and based on user-side actions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the functional outcome is what matters—if the presentation is no longer accessible to the user after the session, it has been effectively "deleted" for the purposes of the claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's discussion of the invention's goal to "reduce the memory outlay of data for the service" ('062 Patent, col. 2:55-63) may support a narrower construction requiring affirmative deletion of the data from the server's storage, not merely making it inaccessible by breaking a link to a user cookie.

"visually identifies a sequence"

• Context and Importance: The patent's infringement theory rests on the "Pick Up Where You Left Off" feature meeting this limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether a list of items constitutes a "sequence."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any chronologically ordered list of visited pages inherently represents a "sequence" of user actions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes identifying the sequence "graphically...with arrows" or "with numbers" ('062 Patent, col. 5:22-26) and provides illustrations that show a navigational path, not a simple product list ('062 Patent, Fig. 3). This may support a construction requiring more than a flat list of items, perhaps demanding some indication of the order or path taken.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant intends for its customers to use the website in an infringing manner and provides "support for, training and instructions" to enable such use (Compl. ¶18). It also asserts that Defendant's actions "have solely caused all of the steps to be performed," language that may be intended to address potential divided infringement issues (Compl. ¶18).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the '062 patent "since at least the filing of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶18). This appears to be an allegation of post-suit willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of server-side operation: can Plaintiff produce evidence to prove that the accused system performs the claimed step of "deleting said presentation from said vendor server," or will discovery show that the browsing data persists on the server and is merely unlinked from a user whose client-side cookie has been cleared?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "sequence," which the patent illustrates with graphical path diagrams, be construed broadly enough to cover the list-based "Pick Up Where You Left Off" feature, or does the term require a more explicit representation of the user's navigational path?
• An underlying legal question will be one of divided infringement: given that the method claim involves actions by both the user (calling pages) and the vendor server (registering, generating, deleting), can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's actions meet the legal standard for liability, either by performing all steps itself or by directing or controlling the user's actions?