DCT
2:17-cv-00142
Tangelo IP LLC v. GameStop Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tangelo IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: GameStop Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00142, E.D. Tex., 02/21/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business in the forum, including the commission of at least a portion of the alleged infringing acts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online weekly ad system infringes a patent related to creating interactive and shoppable electronic versions of physical publications.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for linking static product images in publications, like catalogs, to interactive online systems that provide additional product information and e-commerce functions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit is part of a larger family, claiming a priority chain back to an application filed in 1999. No other procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 |
| 2013-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 Issues |
| 2017-02-15 | Date of Accused GameStop "Weekly Ad" |
| 2017-02-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 - Method for Determining Effectiveness of Display of Objects in Advertising Images
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005, Method for Determining Effectiveness of Display of Objects in Advertising Images, issued on April 23, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the frustration consumers experience when they see a product in traditional media, such as a print magazine, but cannot easily obtain more information or purchase it. This inability to link static images to actionable data is also a problem for advertisers seeking to measure the effectiveness of their product placements (’005 Patent, col. 1:53 - col. 2:28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating an "interactive electronic representation" (IER) of a visual media object, such as a magazine page. A user can access this IER, for example by entering a unique code associated with the physical page, and then interact with specific objects depicted in the image. This interaction allows the user to view additional product information, see enlarged images, and potentially initiate a purchase, thereby bridging the gap between static media and e-commerce (’005 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25 - col. 4:4).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for making passive print advertisements directly actionable and trackable in an online environment, a significant step in integrating traditional media with the growing e-commerce landscape of the time (Compl. ¶13-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of the patent generally, with the allegations most closely tracking independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Associating a page number of a physical publication page with an interactive and electronic replication of at least a portion of that page.
- The physical publication page must have at least two different products appearing on it.
- Receiving, at a host computer, an input representing the page number.
- Providing the interactive and electronic replication from the host computer in response to the input.
- The interactive replication must include "exact reproductions of the appearances" of the at least two products.
- The replication must enable a user to obtain additional information on the products.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "online catalog system," specifically as implemented in its "Weekly Ad" feature available on its website (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that GameStop provides an online version of its physical weekly advertisement circular (Compl. ¶20). This "Online Ad" is presented as an "electronic and interactive replication" of the "Print Ad" (Compl. ¶20). A visual in the complaint shows the online ad interface includes page navigation elements (Compl. p. 9).
- Users viewing the online ad can select images of products, such as video games. This selection allegedly directs the user to a separate product page that provides "additional information about the first product and enables a user to initiate an online purchase" (Compl. p. 7, ¶20). The complaint includes screenshots showing the online ad, followed by the specific product pages for "The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth +" and "1-2-Switch" that appear after a user interacts with the ad (Compl. pp. 7-8).
- The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the accused system's commercial importance beyond its function as part of Defendant's e-commerce platform.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
8,429,005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| associating a page number of a physical publication page with an interactive and electronic replication of at least a portion of a corresponding physical publication page | Defendant’s system associates a page number of a physical publication with an electronic replication. A screenshot of the accused online ad shows selectable page tabs, such as "PAGE 1," "PAGE 2," etc. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶20 | col. 33:36-40 |
| the physical publication page having at least two different products appearing on the physical publication page | The accused "Weekly Ad" displays numerous distinct products, such as different video games and accessories, on a single page (Compl. p. 6). | ¶20 | col. 33:41-43 |
| receiving by a host computer comprising at least one computer processor an input representing the page number | Defendant's web server application is alleged to provide the interactive representation "in response to receiving input representing the page number." | ¶20 | col. 33:47-49 |
| providing from the host computer the interactive and electronic replication... in response to receiving the input representing the page number | Defendant’s online catalog system provides "interactive replications of product images" that appear in a physical publication (Compl. p. 6). | ¶19-20 | col. 33:50-53 |
| the interactive and electronic replication... including duplications of the appearances of the at least two different products | The complaint alleges the "electronic catalog comprises exact duplications of the at least two different products from the physical publication" and provides a side-by-side comparison of the "Print Ad" and "Online Ad" to support this (Compl. p. 6). | ¶20 | col. 33:54-58 |
| the duplications... being an exact reproduction of the image contained within the publication page | The complaint asserts that the online ad is an "exact duplication" of the print version and includes a visual comparison as evidence (Compl. p. 6). | ¶20 | col. 33:59-62 |
| the interactive and electronic replication enabling the user to obtain additional information on the at least two different products... | The complaint alleges that "selection of the first selectable portion provides additional information about the first product and enables a user to initiate an online purchase." This is supported by a screenshot of a product detail page (Compl. p. 7). | ¶20 | col. 33:63-66 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether GameStop's online weekly ad, which has a downloadable PDF version, constitutes an interactive replication of a "physical publication page" as required by the claim. The defense may argue the system is a primarily digital catalog, whereas the patent's specification appears focused on bridging the gap from tangible, pre-existing print media like magazines to the web.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires "exact reproductions of the appearances" of the products. A potential point of dispute is how "exact" this must be. The defense could argue that any differences in layout, resolution, color rendering, or the presence of interactive elements (which are absent in a static print ad) mean the online version is not an "exact" reproduction. The complaint's own side-by-side visual comparison may be scrutinized for such differences (Compl. p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "physical publication page"
Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the accused system hinges on this term. If the term is construed to require a publication that originates and is primarily distributed in a physical, tangible format, the infringement case may be weakened if the accused GameStop "Weekly Ad" is found to be a digital-first creation that simply has a printable option.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to "magazines, newspapers, catalogs, books, mailings, billboards, signs, paintings, posters and the like" (’005 Patent, col. 1:35-39). Plaintiff may argue that a weekly circular, whether distributed physically or as a downloadable PDF intended for printing, falls squarely within the plain meaning of "catalog."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly emphasizes overcoming the limitations of "traditional print-based" media, contrasting it with the interactive capabilities of the invention (’005 Patent, col. 1:53-60). Defendant may argue this context limits the term to publications that are inherently physical, not just "printable" digital files.
The Term: "exact reproductions"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis will turn on the degree of similarity required by this term. A strict interpretation could render minor, unavoidable differences between print and digital versions fatal to the infringement claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that in the context of the patent, "exact" means substantially identical in content and overall layout, allowing for minor variations inherent in displaying a static design on an interactive digital medium. The patent claims also use the term "duplications of the appearances," which may suggest a focus on overall visual correspondence rather than pixel-for-pixel identity (’005 Patent, col. 33:54-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant will likely argue that "exact" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: identical and without difference. They could point to the complaint's own visual evidence to highlight any subtle variations in text rendering, alignment, or color between the "Print Ad" and "Online Ad" as proof that the reproduction is not "exact" (Compl. p. 6).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement or facts that would support it, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "physical publication page," which is rooted in the patent's description of making traditional print media interactive, read on an online weekly ad system that exists as a digital entity but also has a corresponding printable PDF version?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual interpretation: does the accused "Online Ad" constitute an "exact reproduction" of the "Print Ad" as required by the claim? This will involve a close comparison of the visual evidence and a judicial construction of how strictly the term "exact" must be applied.