DCT
2:19-cv-00019
Flectere LLC v. Target Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flectere LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: Flectere LLC v. Target Corporation, 2:19-cv-00019, E.D. Tex., 01/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant operating retail stores and committing alleged acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online payment processing portal infringes a patent related to computerized form processing systems that monitor and verify changes to data entries.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for creating secure, verifiable audit trails for data entered into electronic forms, particularly for industries with strict regulatory compliance requirements.
- Key Procedural History: Post-filing, the patent-in-suit was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2020-00402). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate on October 8, 2021, cancelling all claims (1-32) of the patent. While this proceeding occurred after the complaint was filed, the cancellation of all asserted claims raises a threshold question about the viability of the case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-09-12 | Patent Priority Date ('506 Patent) |
| 2001-08-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,272,506 Issues |
| 2019-01-18 | Complaint Filed |
| 2020-01-13 | IPR2020-00402 Filed against '506 Patent |
| 2021-10-08 | IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling All Claims of '506 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,272,506 - "Computerized Verification Form Processing System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,272,506, “Computerized Verification Form Processing System and Method,” issued August 7, 2001.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in then-current computerized form systems, which typically overwrite old data, thereby destroying the record of a change. (’506 Patent, col. 2:27-31). This is problematic in regulated industries, such as pharmaceuticals, where agencies like the FDA require that incorrect data entries be crossed out but remain legible, and that the change be initialed or signed to create a clear audit trail. (’506 Patent, col. 2:40-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computerized system that solves this problem by monitoring data fields for changes. When a user alters previously entered information, the system automatically flags the change, prompts the user for authorization (e.g., a signature or initials), and stores a record of the original value, the new value, the user's identity, and a timestamp. (’506 Patent, col. 3:31-45; Fig. 13). This creates a persistent, electronic audit trail analogous to the paper-based "cross out and initial" method. (’506 Patent, col. 2:50-59).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to enable the computerization of data-entry processes in regulated environments without sacrificing the integrity and auditability required by entities like the FDA. (’506 Patent, col. 1:40-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
- a database for storing at least one form including one or more fields;
- a viewer for viewing a stored form;
- a data entry device for allowing a user to enter information into the fields of the form;
- a monitoring routine configured to actively monitor whether previously entered information in a field of the form is being changed by the user; and
- a field modification verification routine configured to, on the viewer, prompt the user to sign off on any such change.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is "Target's payment processing portal," specifically the online checkout page where users provide contact and shipping information. (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused portal is an e-commerce checkout interface that allows users to input personal information (e.g., name, address, phone number) into form fields to complete a purchase. (Compl. ¶14, ¶17). The complaint alleges the system internally stores this data, allows users to view the data they have entered, and monitors for changes to that data. (Compl. ¶15-18). A key accused feature is a pop-up that appears after address entry, asking the user to choose between their "unverified address" and a "verified shipping address" suggested by the system. (Compl. ¶19; Fig. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'506 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a database for storing at least one form including one or more fields | The payment portal "internally stores data entered into the form." The complaint points to HTML source code as evidence of this storage. (Fig. 2). | ¶15 | col. 9:6-7 |
| a viewer for viewing a stored form | The portal "allows users to see the data they enter into the form." | ¶16 | col. 9:8-9 |
| a data entry device for allowing a user to enter information into the fields of the form | The portal provides form fields that allow users to enter data, such as a street address. Figure 3 in the complaint depicts a screenshot of the shipping address form with entered data. (Compl. ¶17, p. 6). | ¶17 | col. 9:10-12 |
| a monitoring routine configured to actively monitor whether previously entered information in a field of the form is being changed by the user | The portal "monitors whether previously entered information is being changed by users." The complaint cites HTML source code for the "zipCode" and "city" input fields as evidence of this monitoring. (Fig. 4). | ¶18 | col. 9:13-16 |
| a field modification verification routine configured to, on the viewer, prompt the user to sign off on any such change | The portal prompts users to choose between their manually entered address and a "verified shipping address." This prompt is alleged to be the claimed "prompt the user to sign off on any such change." Figure 5 shows the "verify your address" pop-up interface. (Compl. ¶19, p. 8). | ¶19 | col. 9:17-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the meaning of "prompt the user to sign off on any such change." The complaint alleges that a standard address verification pop-up meets this limitation. (Compl. ¶19). The defense may argue that the patent’s specification, with its focus on FDA audit trails and references to initials and signatures, requires a more formal act of authorization than merely selecting a suggested address. This raises the question of whether an address verification feature is the same as a data change authorization routine as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the portal "actively monitors" for changes but provides HTML source code as the primary evidence. (Compl. ¶18). A technical question for the court will be whether the evidence shows the system performs the specific function of actively monitoring for user edits in real-time, as opposed to simply processing the final submitted data, which is a standard function of any web form.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "sign off"
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is critical to the infringement analysis for claim 11. The core of the dispute may depend on whether Target's address verification prompt constitutes a "sign off." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality appears to be a common e-commerce feature, whereas the patent describes a system for a specific, regulated context.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 11 does not specify the form of the "sign off," which could support an argument that any user action confirming a change is sufficient.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of regulatory compliance requiring formal authorization. It describes a "sign or initial" procedure, "digital biometric signature or initial capture," and "electronic signatures." (’506 Patent, col. 2:33-37, 2:42-45). The detailed description shows embodiments where the user must enter initials into a signature block to confirm a change. (’506 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 6:61-64). This evidence may support a narrower construction requiring a formal act of user authorization beyond selecting a system-suggested correction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Target intended for its customers to use the website in an infringing manner by providing instructions and support for its use. (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: A claim for willful infringement is not separately pleaded in the counts but is requested in the prayer for relief, which seeks trebled damages. (Compl. p. 9, ¶D). The complaint does not allege specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the facts as pleaded, the litigation presents several central questions. However, these are substantially overshadowed by the post-filing cancellation of all patent claims in an IPR proceeding, which raises a dispositive validity challenge. Setting that issue aside, the key questions on the merits of the infringement claim would be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "sign off," rooted in the patent's context of formal, regulatory audit trails, be construed to cover a common e-commerce address verification feature where a user selects a system-suggested address?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the accused portal "actively monitors" for data changes and requires a "sign off" in the manner claimed, or is it merely describing the standard operation of a web-based submission form with an address validation API?