DCT
2:18-cv-00180
Recall Marketing LLC v. Home Depot Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Recall Marketing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Home Depot, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: Recall Marketing LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc., 2:18-cv-00180, E.D. Tex., 05/02/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a retail store, and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, specifically its "Recently Viewed Items" feature, infringes a patent related to methods for generating a temporary presentation of a user's browsing history to aid in re-locating previously visited pages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface and navigation enhancements for e-commerce websites, aiming to improve user experience by simplifying the process of returning to products of interest within a browsing session.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-30 | '062 Patent Priority Date (German Application) |
| 2007-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 Issues |
| 2018-05-02 | Complaint Filed |
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"
- Issued: November 13, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty for internet users to re-locate a specific web page they have previously visited, particularly when that page was reached by following a series of links from a vendor's main home page. Standard browser tools like the "back" button or history lists are identified as offering only "limited possibilities" for this task ('062 Patent, col. 2:13-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-side method where, after a user visits a vendor's home page, the server registers the user (e.g., via a cookie) and tracks the "sequence" of subsequent pages the user visits. The server then generates a "displayable presentation" of this browsing path, which allows the user to easily identify and return to a previously visited page before the presentation is deleted at the end of the session ('062 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-41).
- Technical Importance: The described method addresses a common usability issue in e-commerce by providing a navigation aid that is more context-aware than generic browser history, aiming to keep users engaged within a vendor's site ('062 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A user calls a home page of an information vendor, and the vendor server registers the user.
- The vendor server registers the information pages that the user calls directly or indirectly from the home page.
- The vendor server only temporarily generates a displayable presentation that visually identifies a sequence of the visited pages, and then deletes the presentation from the server, with no storage, when the user's session ends.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is The Home Depot website (homedepot.com) (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The specific accused functionality is the website's "Recently Viewed Items" feature. The complaint alleges that as a user browses various product pages, this section appears and is populated with the products the user has viewed during their session (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint alleges this functionality relies on the vendor server registering the user via cookies, tracking the visited product pages, and then building a presentation of those pages (Compl. ¶¶15-16). Figure 2 shows the appearance of the "Recently Viewed Items" section after a user has navigated to a second product page (Compl. p. 4).
- This feature is common in e-commerce and is designed to increase user engagement and sales by reminding shoppers of products in which they have previously expressed interest.
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; | Home Depot's website allows users to visit its home page, and the server registers the user via 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 Home Depot server is alleged to temporarily store visited product pages and analyze a "Recently Viewed Cookie" to build a new page that includes the "Recently Viewed" section. | ¶16 | col. 5:5-9 |
| at said vendor server only temporarily generating a displayable presentation... which visually identifies a sequence of said information pages... and deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage... when said user exits an information session... | The "Recently Viewed" dialog box is alleged to be temporary because it is no longer shown if a user clears cookies or browses in incognito mode. Figure 4 is presented as evidence that the accused "Recently Viewed" list is temporary, as it allegedly does not show products from a prior session if cookies are cleared (Compl. p. 6). | ¶17 | col. 6:2-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "Recently Viewed Items" feature, which appears to be a list of products, meets the claim requirement of a presentation that "visually identifies a sequence." The patent's specification and figures suggest a more explicit, graphical representation of the user's navigation path, including arrows and numbered steps ('062 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 5:35-44), which may differ from a simple list of viewed items.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's evidence for the "deleting... with no storage" limitation relies on client-side actions (clearing cookies, using incognito mode) (Compl. ¶17). This raises the evidentiary question of whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's server actually deletes the presentation data "with no storage," as required by the claim, or if the data is merely disassociated from the user's session cookie while being retained on the server for other purposes, such as analytics.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a displayable presentation which visually identifies a sequence"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears critical. The outcome may depend on whether the accused "Recently Viewed Items" list is found to be a "presentation" that shows a "sequence" in the manner claimed by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "sequence" could be argued to broadly cover any ordered list where the order reflects the passage of time, such as the order in which items were viewed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the presentation as showing the user's path or route ('062 Patent, col. 5:58). The patent's own figures depict a graphical, tree-like site map with arrows and numbered steps to explicitly show the user's navigation path from one page to another ('062 Patent, FIG. 3), which could support a narrower construction requiring more than just a list of visited pages.
The Term: "deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage"
Context and Importance: This is a negative limitation that imposes a specific technical requirement on the server's behavior. Infringement requires proof that Home Depot's system not only generates the list temporarily but also deletes it from its server without storing it. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving a negative action (non-storage) on a defendant's server can be an evidentiary challenge.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's potential argument): This could be argued to mean that the data is not stored in a way that persists for the user's next session, which would align with the complaint's evidence regarding clearing cookies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's potential argument): The plain language suggests a complete erasure of the data from the server itself. The patent describes the presentation as "a type of temporarily generated bookmark that is deleted after the user has ended his information session" ('062 Patent, col. 6:2-5), framing it as an affirmative server-side action, not merely a client-side session expiration.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Home Depot provides "support for, training and instructions for, its website" that enables customers to infringe (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not, however, point to specific instructions or manuals that direct users to perform the claimed steps.
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 8, ¶D). The body of the complaint, however, does not plead specific facts to support this claim, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or its infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the accused "Recently Viewed Items" feature—a list of products—be construed to meet the claim requirement for a "presentation which visually identifies a sequence," particularly when the patent's own examples show a graphical, path-based site map?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Defendant’s system performs the negative limitation of "deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage," or will the Plaintiff’s evidence of client-side cookie behavior be deemed insufficient to prove the required server-side action?