Linfo IP LLC v. Fast GROWING TREES LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Fast Growing Trees, LLC d/b/a Fast Growing Trees.com (South Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC; Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 0:24-cv-05108, D.S.C., 09/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, committing alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducting substantial business in South Carolina.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes a patent related to systems and methods for analyzing text content and presenting the discovered information to users.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated linguistic and semantic analysis of text to identify and categorize information, a field relevant to managing large volumes of user-generated content, reviews, and technical documents.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities and asserts that these licenses did not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

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 describes the problem of "information overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, relevant information within large amounts of unstructured text, such as numerous online hotel reviews or long medical documents (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-24). Conventional search methods are described as potentially time-consuming and inefficient for locating nuanced information, such as only negative comments about a specific topic (’428 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words and phrases (’428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides a user interface with objects that allow a user to select an attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and perform an action (e.g., "extract" or "highlight") on the text associated with that attribute (’428 Patent, col. 3:15-29). The system can present this filtered information in various formats, such as a hierarchical "topic tree" that organizes comments by subject (’428 Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: This technology offers a method for structuring and filtering large datasets of user-generated text, enabling users to more efficiently digest opinions, feedback, and other specific information that would otherwise be buried in undifferentiated content (’428 Patent, col. 1:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-assisted method comprising the key steps of:
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first and second "semantic attribute" for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text content associated with the selected semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an actionable user interface object.
  • Allowing a user to select a semantic attribute.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the word or phrase associated with the user-specified attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, which add limitations such as handling sentiment (positive vs. negative opinion) and analyzing the context of a word to determine its meaning (Compl. ¶8; ’428 Patent, claims 3, 7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as Defendant's "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint captions and party descriptions indicate this system is operated through the website FastGrowingTrees.com (Compl. p. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges in general terms that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" a system that performs the functions of "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶8). No specific features of the FastGrowingTrees.com website (e.g., product review filters, search functionality, or help articles) are detailed or singled out as the basis for the infringement allegations. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific technical operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶9). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's system directly infringes claims 1-20 of the ’428 patent by performing the claimed methods (Compl. ¶8). The core of this allegation is that the Defendant's website allows for the discovery, extraction, and presentation of information from text in a manner that maps onto the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be what specific functionality on the FastGrowingTrees.com website is alleged to perform the claimed steps. The complaint does not specify whether it is the site's search engine, customer review display, product filtering, or another feature. Evidence will be needed to show that the accused system performs functions beyond simple keyword matching, such as identifying a "semantic attribute" (e.g., sentiment) and acting upon it as required by claim 1.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the functionality of an e-commerce website for selling plants falls within the scope of the patent, which provides examples focused on analyzing large bodies of user reviews or complex documents (’428 Patent, col. 1:18-38, col. 9:6-21). A central question is whether Defendant's system identifies and acts on "semantic attributes" in the manner described and claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of claim 1. Its construction will determine what types of information analysis are covered by the patent. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused system is found to identify and use a "semantic attribute."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that meanings of a word can be "named as 'connotation' or 'semantic attributes'" (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-25). This could support a broad definition covering any assigned meaning or classification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of semantic attributes, such as "opinion," "positive," "negative," being a "drug," or a "pain-reliever" (’428 Patent, col. 8:25-29). An argument could be made that the term is limited to these types of substantive classifications, rather than more generic labels.

• The Term: "context" (Referenced in the specification and appears in dependent claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent emphasizes that context can change a word's inherent meaning (e.g., "good" vs. "not good") (’428 Patent, col. 13:20-32). The ability to prove infringement may depend on showing that the accused system performs this type of context-aware analysis, rather than just acting on isolated keywords.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes context broadly, including whether a term is near another specific word (’428 Patent, col. 8:38-39). This could support a simple proximity-based definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed examples where context inverts a word's meaning, such as a negation ("not good") or a qualifier ("barely enough") (’428 Patent, col. 8:40-44; col. 13:25-40). This suggests context requires more than mere proximity and involves a linguistic relationship that alters a semantic attribute.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶10). It also makes a boilerplate allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend the complaint if discovery reveals evidence of pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1-2).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Functionality: The central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused FastGrowingTrees.com website performs the specific, sophisticated text analysis recited in the claims. The complaint's general allegations will need to be substantiated with proof that the system identifies and acts upon "semantic attributes" and their surrounding "context", as opposed to merely executing keyword-based searches or simple filtering.

2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will likely involve a dispute over the meaning of core claim terms. The key question for claim construction will be how broadly the term "semantic attribute" is defined—does it cover any tag applied to text, or is it limited to the more complex examples of opinion and topic analysis described in the patent's specification? The answer will determine whether the patent's scope can reach the functions of a conventional e-commerce website.