DCT
2:15-cv-01019
Data Carriers LLC v. Helmerich & Payne Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Data Carriers, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Austin Hansley P.L.L.C.
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-01019, E.D. Tex., 06/12/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district and has directly committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes a patent related to proactively monitoring a user's computer interactions to suggest automated software features.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns intelligent user interfaces that learn from or recognize repetitive user actions and suggest more efficient, pre-programmed methods for achieving the same result.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992-04-16 | U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 1995-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 Issued |
| 2015-06-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 - Proactive Presentation of Automating Features to a Computer User
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in conventional computer help systems, which require a user to initiate a request for help and often fail to explain the appropriate context for using a feature. (’198 Patent, col. 1:19-32). Users may perform tasks in a repetitive, inefficient manner without realizing a more automated feature exists within the software. (’198 Patent, col. 1:59-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that continuously and automatically monitors a user's inputs (e.g., keystrokes, mouse clicks) and the "context" of the application (e.g., which menus are open). (’198 Patent, col. 2:5-12). It compares this sequence of actions and context against a stored set of "feature templates," which represent common tasks that could be automated. (’198 Patent, col. 2:30-38). If a match is found, the system proactively presents the user with an option to use the more efficient, automated feature. (’198 Patent, col. 2:38-43). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, which shows the interrelation of the input monitoring means (24), context monitoring means (22), and feature templates (20).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents an early approach to context-aware, proactive user assistance, moving beyond passive, user-initiated help systems to a model where the computer anticipates user needs based on observed behavior. (’198 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint quotes independent claims 1 and 5, and alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶10, ¶11).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- An input monitoring means for continuously detecting and recording user manipulations of an input device.
- A context monitoring means for continuously detecting and recording a state of an application program during the user's manipulations.
- A plurality of feature templates, each including input information representing manipulations and an application state for identifying a desired result.
- Feature presentation routines for controlling a CPU to display automating features that achieve a result with greater generality or persistence.
- Independent Claim 5 (Method):
- Continuously monitoring for the user's manipulations of the input device.
- Continuously monitoring a context of an application program.
- Comparing the monitored manipulations and application state to a plurality of feature templates to identify a desired result.
- Presenting an automating feature if the comparison produces a match.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "products and services" offered on Defendant's website, http://www.hpinc.com. (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused services "automatically intervene in the use of a computer system to suggest or present features based on information on the use of the system." (Compl. ¶11). The only specific example provided is "automatic drop down menus containing executable code i.e. links which were used on Defendant's website." (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges these services "continuously monitor and compare user manipulations and program context with feature templates stored in memory, and present automating features if a match is found." (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how these website features operate or any information on their market context.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead independent claims based on the narrative in the complaint.
’198 Patent Infringement Allegations (System Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an input monitoring means coupled to the CPU and the input device for continuously detecting and recording the user's manipulations of the input device to achieve a desired result | Defendant's website services "continuously monitor... user manipulations." | ¶11 | col. 4:29-36 |
| a context monitoring means coupled to the CPU for continuously detecting and recording a state of an application program during the user's manipulation of the input device | Defendant's website services monitor "program context." | ¶11 | col. 4:42-49 |
| a plurality of feature templates, each feature template including input information representing manipulations of the input device and a state of the application, program for identifying the desired result | Defendant's website services utilize "feature templates stored in memory." | ¶11 | col. 4:10-24 |
| wherein said memory further comprises feature presentation routines... for controlling the CPU to display automating features on the display device that achieve a result having greater generality or persistence than the identified desired result | Defendant's website services "suggest or present features," specifically "automatic drop down menus containing executable code i.e. links." | ¶11 | col. 4:65-68 |
’198 Patent Infringement Allegations (Method Claim 5)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| continuously monitoring for the user's manipulations of the input device | The accused services "continuously monitor... user manipulations." | ¶11 | col. 6:58-60 |
| continuously monitoring a context of an application program in which the input device is manipulated by the user | The accused services monitor "program context." | ¶11 | col. 6:61-63 |
| comparing the monitored user's manipulations... and state of the application program to input information in the plurality of feature templates stored in memory... to identify a result desired by the user | The accused services "compare user manipulations and program context with feature templates stored in memory." | ¶11 | col. 6:64-68 |
| presenting an automating feature corresponding to a feature template... that achieves a result having greater generality or persistence than the identified desired result if said step of comparing produces a match | The accused services "present automating features if a match is found," such as "automatic drop down menus." | ¶11 | col. 7:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "automatic drop down menus" on a website perform the functions required by the claims. The complaint does not explain how these menus are tied to monitoring a sequence of user inputs and context, comparing them to templates, and then proactively suggesting a feature. The defense may argue that these are standard navigation menus, not the proactive, context-aware system described in the patent.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the general operation of a website's navigation system falls within the scope of the claims. For example, can a hyperlink in a drop-down menu be considered an "automating feature" that has "greater generality or persistence" than the user's actions (e.g., mouse movements) leading to its appearance? The lack of specificity in the complaint leaves the precise nature of the alleged infringement open to interpretation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "feature templates"
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's "intelligence." Its definition will determine what kind of data structure and matching logic the accused system must possess to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation that "feature templates" are used is conclusory, and the defense will likely argue for a narrow definition that the accused website menus cannot meet.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines it as "input information representing manipulations of the input device and a state of the application, program for identifying the desired result." (’198 Patent, col. 9:36-39). This could be argued to cover any data structure that links a user action and context to a suggested outcome.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes templates as "sequences of specific user manipulations" and "lists of direct manipulation steps that can be more efficiently performed by using an existing feature." (’198 Patent, col. 4:14-15; col. 2:55-58). This suggests a more complex structure that records a multi-step user workflow, not just a single input.
The Term: "context monitoring means"
Context and Importance: The scope of "context" is critical for determining what the accused system must monitor beyond simple user input. The infringement allegation hinges on whether a standard website can be said to monitor "program context" in the manner claimed by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only the recording of "a state of an application program." (’198 Patent, col. 9:32-33). This could arguably be as simple as knowing which page a user is on.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific examples, stating the means "identifies state or level the application program was in" and advantageously identifies "the menus that were activated, the position of the mouse, the windows that were open, etc." (’198 Patent, col. 4:47-60). This suggests a detailed awareness of the application's UI state, potentially beyond what a typical website's drop-down menu logic involves.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. It does make a conclusory statement regarding compliance with marking requirements. (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case, as pleaded, presents several fundamental questions stemming from the complaint's lack of technical specificity.
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the accused "automatic drop down menus" on Defendant's website are the result of a system that actively monitors, records, and compares sequences of user manipulations and application context against "feature templates," as opposed to being standard, pre-programmed navigational UI elements?
- The outcome will also likely depend on definitional scope: Can the term "feature template," which the patent specification describes as a sequence of user actions that can be automated, be construed broadly enough to read on the underlying logic of a website's navigation menu?
- A third key question relates to functionality: Does the accused website functionality actually "present an automating feature... that achieves a result having greater generality or persistence," or does it simply provide a hyperlink, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation required by the claims versus the functionality offered by the accused website.