DCT
2:15-cv-01354
Data Carriers LLC v. Cardinal Health 108 LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Data Carriers, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Cardinal Health 108, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Austin Hansley P.L.L.C.
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-01354, E.D. Tex., 07/24/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant has transacted business, solicited customers, and committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes a patent related to proactively suggesting automated software features to a user based on monitoring the user's actions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface (UI) systems that observe repetitive or inefficient user inputs and suggest more advanced, built-in features to accomplish the same task more efficiently.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992-04-16 | U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 1995-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 5,388,198 Issues |
| 2015-07-24 | 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, issued February 7, 1995
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue that conventional software help and tutorial systems are reactive, requiring a user to know what feature to ask for help with. These systems typically fail to teach users about powerful, underutilized features in the context of their actual workflow (’198 Patent, col. 1:21-30, 1:50-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that "proactively" monitors a user's manipulations of an input device (like a mouse or keyboard) and the "context" of the application (e.g., which menus are open). It compares this pattern of user activity to a stored database of "feature templates," which represent inefficient workflows that could be replaced by a single, more powerful command. If a match is found, the system intervenes to suggest the more efficient, automating feature to the user (’198 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-44). Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, showing the "Input Monitoring Means" (24) and "Context Monitoring Means" (22) feeding data to a CPU that compares it against "Feature Templates" (20) to trigger "Feature Presentation Routines" (26) (’198 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents an early approach to creating "intelligent" or "context-aware" user interfaces that learn from user behavior to improve efficiency and reduce the learning curve for complex software (’198 Patent, col. 1:61-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," and specifically quotes independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 5 (Compl. ¶10, 11).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
- An "input monitoring means" for continuously detecting and recording user manipulations of an input device.
- A "context monitoring means" for continuously detecting and recording the state of an application program during the user's manipulations.
- A plurality of "feature templates", each including input information 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" than the user's identified actions.
- Independent Claim 5 (Method Claim) requires the steps of:
- Continuously monitoring for the user's manipulations of the input device.
- Continuously monitoring a context of an application program.
- Comparing the monitored manipulations and context to a plurality of stored feature templates.
- Presenting an automating feature that achieves a result with "greater generality or persistence" if the comparison produces a match.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "products and/or services" provided on Defendant's website, http://www.cardinal.com (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant's website provides services that "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 of infringing functionality provided is "automatic drop down menus containing executable code i.e. links" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint asserts 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). No further technical details about the operation of the website or its menus are provided. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a conclusory infringement theory without detailed element-by-element mapping. The following chart summarizes the allegations for the lead system claim based on the limited information provided.
'198 Patent Infringement Allegations
| 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 allegedly provides services that continuously monitor user manipulations (Compl. ¶11). | ¶11 | col. 9:28-31 |
| 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 allegedly provides services that continuously monitor the program context (Compl. ¶11). | ¶11 | col. 9:32-35 |
| 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 allegedly uses "feature templates stored in memory" to compare against user actions and context (Compl. ¶11). | ¶11 | col. 9:36-40 |
| wherein said memory further comprises feature presentation routines corresponding to each feature template, 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 allegedly presents "automating features if a match is found," such as through "automatic drop down menus containing executable code i.e. links" (Compl. ¶11). | ¶11 | col. 9:40-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a standard web-based "automatic drop down menu" can be considered an "automating feature" that is "proactively" presented in response to monitored user behavior, as opposed to a standard, pre-programmed UI element. Does the term "application program" as used in the patent, which appears to contemplate desktop software, read on a website served to a browser?
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A key question is what evidence exists that the accused website performs the specific functions of "continuously detecting and recording the user's manipulations" and "continuously detecting and recording a state of an application program" and then "comparing" that data to "feature templates." The complaint does not specify what user actions are monitored or what "context" is recorded.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "feature templates"
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's logic. Infringement hinges on whether the accused website uses structures that meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the website uses "feature templates" (Compl. ¶11) but provides no evidence of what they are, while the patent provides specific examples.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define a template as including "input information representing manipulations of the input device and a state of the application, program for identifying the desired result" (’198 Patent, col. 9:37-40). This is functional language that could be argued to cover any stored logic that maps user input and application state to a particular outcome.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes templates more concretely as "sequences of specific user manipulations" or "lists of direct manipulation steps" that can be replaced by a more efficient feature (’198 Patent, col. 4:13-16; col. 2:55-59). Embodiments describe templates for spreadsheet sum functions and project management dependencies, suggesting they are tied to specific, recognizable, multi-step user tasks (’198 Patent, col. 8:28-55).
The Term: "proactively automating"
Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent title captures the essence of the invention: the system must intervene to suggest a better way, not just react to a direct command. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused "automatic drop down menus" are truly proactive suggestions based on a pattern of inefficient user behavior, or are simply standard UI components.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not use the word "proactively," but speaks of "automatically intervening" to present features (’198 Patent, col. 10:2-4). This could be argued to cover any system that presents an option without a direct, explicit user command for that specific option.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" repeatedly states the system "automatically intervenes to suggest or present features" based on monitoring (’198 Patent, col. 2:10-13). The entire patent is framed as a solution to reactive help systems, suggesting the invention requires more than just presenting a menu; it must identify an inefficient action and present a specific, more efficient alternative (’198 Patent, col. 1:18-24).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement or specific allegations of pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. It makes a general reference to 35 U.S.C. § 284, but does not provide a factual basis to support a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶4, 14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary Question of Operation: The complaint's pre-Iqbal "notice pleading" style presents a significant evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff. A core question will be whether discovery can produce evidence that the accused website's "automatic drop down menus" are the result of a system that actively monitors, records, and compares discrete user manipulations and application context against a set of predefined rules, as required by the claims, or if they are simply standard, event-triggered UI elements.
- A Definitional Question of Scope: The case may turn on whether the term "feature templates", described in the 1992-filed patent in the context of desktop applications, can be construed to encompass the server-side logic and client-side scripting that govern dynamic menus on a modern commercial website.
- A Functional Question of "Proactivity": A key issue will be one of function: do the accused menus merely provide options, or do they "proactively" present a feature that achieves a result with "greater generality or persistence" as a direct, intelligent alternative to a less efficient series of actions just performed by the user?