DCT

2:19-cv-00162

New Life Ventures v. Darrian L Campbell

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: New Life Ventures, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Locke Lord, LLP (Texas), et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
Case Identification: 1:18-cv-24551, S.D. Fla., 02/13/2019
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the collective wrongful acts of Defendants occurred, in substantial part, in the Southern District of Florida.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in malicious prosecution by filing and pursuing a baseless patent infringement lawsuit against it, knowing the asserted patents were invalid and not infringed.
Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to systems and methods for applying "multi-parameter digital labels" to websites to create structured, searchable databases intended to improve upon conventional internet search engines.
Key Procedural History: The complaint describes a prior patent infringement lawsuit filed by Defendant Gonzalez (represented by Defendant Locke Lord) against Plaintiff New Life in the Eastern District of Texas. In that prior case, the district court granted summary judgment of invalidity against all asserted patents. That judgment was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the judgment became final and unappealable.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-10-04	Earliest Priority Date for all Gonzalez Patents
2009-07-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,558,807 Issues
2010-01-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,647,339 Issues
2011-01-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,873,665 Issues
2011-11-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,065,333 Issues
2012-10-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,296,325 Issues
2014-09-23	Underlying patent infringement complaint filed against New Life
2016-04-26	District court grants summary judgment of invalidity of the Gonzalez Patents
2017-08-21	Federal Circuit affirms the district court's judgment of invalidity
2017-11-20	Underlying judgment becomes final and unappealable
2019-02-13	First Amended Complaint for malicious prosecution filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,558,807 - “Host Website for Digitally Labeled Websites and Method”

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional internet search engines, which rely on "word-match technology," are poorly suited for finding commonplace commercial information, leading to search results with many irrelevant matches and making it difficult for businesses to be found by their intended audiences (’807 Patent, col. 1:41-64).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specialized "Host Website" that functions as a structured library for other websites or subscribers (’807 Patent, col. 2:51-54). Subscribers answer a series of questions to label their services with "hierarchical multi-parameter labels," which are then stored in a common, searchable database, allowing for more precise, qualitative searches beyond simple keyword matching (’807 Patent, col. 3:12-24; Abstract).
Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create order on the internet by establishing discrete, subject-specific databases where information could be categorized and codified, making commercial transactions more discoverable and efficient (’807 Patent, col. 2:32-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A host website apparatus for listing subscribers comprising: a computer system.
- The computer system includes a digital label database for providing a listing subscriber digital labels representing different specific qualities and a subscriber database for storing a listing of subscribers' digital labels.
- The computer system is configured to respond to a subscriber's request for listing and guiding the subscriber via the Host Website display to enter information.
- [The system is further configured for] converting the information to digital labels by accessing said digital label database and storing the subscriber's digital labels in said subscriber database.
- The computer system is further configured to enable users to search the subscriber database for subscriber digital labels identifying subscriber qualities.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,339 - “Method for Digitally Labeling Websites”

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same deficiencies of word-match search engines as the ’807 Patent, noting that they give "clues as to a site’s nature, not unambiguous information" (’339 Patent, col. 1:56-58).
The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for labeling websites, rather than an apparatus. The method involves a creator of a website creating and encoding data about the site's content according to a "universally-agreed convention" to produce a plurality of labels, which are then stored on a search engine's computer and made accessible to the public for searching (’339 Patent, col. 19:1-20:10). This creates a structured information layer on top of the existing web.
Technical Importance: This method sought to improve internet search by having website creators, rather than automated web crawlers, provide the structured, qualitative data necessary for precise searching (’339 Patent, col. 2:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims were asserted (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A method for labeling of Internet websites comprising: creating and encoding data about the searchable content of a website by a creator of said website... according to a universally-agreed convention, so as to produce a plurality of labels for each website.
- ...each label representing a particular item of said data, and the incorporation of these labels in a file resident on the website.
- copying and storing the labels on a search engine's own computer.
- providing public access to the search engine's computer through the Internet for purposes of facilitating searches based on the labels.

U.S. Patent No. 7,873,665 - “Method for Digitally Labelling Websites”

Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the ’339 Patent and covers similar subject matter. It claims methods for multi-parameter digital labeling of websites, focusing on gathering qualitative data from a website's creator and domiciling the resulting digital labels on a computer network for manipulation and searching by the public (’665 Patent, col. 23:27-58).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified in the complaint (Compl. ¶13).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that New Life's website was accused of infringement in the underlying case (Compl. ¶¶13, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,065,333 - “Method for Digitally Labelling Websites”

Technology Synopsis: This patent is a division of the application that led to the ’665 Patent. It claims methods for labeling websites and records, with a focus on a system where an online interface facilitates the creation of records and labels, and access to those records is controlled for different authorized parties based on defined scopes (’333 Patent, col. 23:28-46).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified in the complaint (Compl. ¶13).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that New Life's website was accused of infringement in the underlying case (Compl. ¶¶13, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,296,325 - “Method for Digitally Labelling Websites”

Technology Synopsis: This patent is a division of the application that led to the ’333 Patent. It claims systems and methods for applying "personal preference digital labels" to websites, which denote the nature of the content (e.g., sexual, political, or religious orientation) to allow for filtering and controlled access by end-users (’325 Patent, col. 24:1-26).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified in the complaint (Compl. ¶13).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that New Life's website was accused of infringement in the underlying case (Compl. ¶¶13, 32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint states that in the underlying infringement action, the accused infringer (New Life) "operated a website from a server in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida" (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details about the functionality of the New Life website that was accused of infringement. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or specific allegations mapping patent claims to the accused website. As this is a complaint for malicious prosecution, its focus is on demonstrating that the prior infringement lawsuit was filed without probable cause. The central narrative is that the asserted patents were clearly invalid and/or not infringed, and that the original patent plaintiff and its attorneys knew or should have known this.

Plaintiff's Theory of Baselessness: The complaint alleges that the core inventive concept of all the Gonzalez Patents, "multi-parameter digital labeling," is a fundamental concept in computer databases dating back as early as 1946 and was publicly used by websites such as eBay since at least April 29, 1999, long before the patents' priority date of October 4, 2000 (Compl. ¶¶19-22).
Inventor Testimony: The complaint alleges that the inventor, Emmanuel Gonzalez, admitted in a deposition that common features on eBay, such as selecting a "Location" or entering an "Asking Price," would each constitute a "digital label," and that combining three such parameters would be "multi-parameter digital labeling" (Compl. ¶38). This testimony is presented as evidence that the inventor's own understanding of his invention reads directly onto prior art.
Judicial Outcome: The complaint notes that the district court in the underlying case granted summary judgment of invalidity, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, terminating the case in New Life's favor (Compl. ¶¶39-40). This outcome is presented as confirmation that the infringement suit lacked merit.
Identified Points of Contention: The analysis of the underlying infringement case, as framed by this complaint, raises questions primarily of validity rather than claim construction or technical operation.
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the claimed "multi-parameter digital labeling" can be distinguished from conventional database filtering and search functionalities that were widespread on the internet (e.g., on eBay) prior to the patent's priority date (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 38).
- Evidentiary Questions: The malicious prosecution claim may turn on what evidence shows the defendants knew about the prior art, and when they knew it, relative to their decision to file and continue pursuing the infringement lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶26, 28).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "digital label" / "multi-parameter digital labeling"
Context and Importance: This concept is identified as the "inventive concept disclosed in all the Gonzalez Patents" (Compl. ¶19). The definition of this term is critical to determining the scope of the claims and assessing their validity in light of prior art. Practitioners may focus on this term because the inventor's own deposition testimony appears to support a very broad definition that encompasses common e-commerce features, potentially rendering the claims invalid as anticipated or obvious (Compl. ¶38).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "label" as "something which identifies contents, or provides information about the subscriber or his website" and states that a plurality of such labels conveying "unambiguous qualitative data" constitutes multi-parameter digital labels (’807 Patent, col. 4:55-61). This broad, functional language could support an interpretation that includes any data field used for categorization or searching.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of two-parameter labeling where gender is encoded as "0" or "1" and college graduate status is encoded as "0" or a null entry (’807 Patent, col. 4:63-col. 5:3). This example, along with descriptions of a "Host Website" that provides a structured, guided process for creating these labels, could support a narrower construction limited to a specific system of pre-defined, symbolic codes rather than any generic data field.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement allegations from the underlying case.
Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willfulness allegations from the underlying case. The current action is for malicious prosecution, which requires a showing of malice.
Malicious Prosecution: The complaint alleges the underlying infringement lawsuit was filed "with malice and/or without probable cause" (Compl. ¶28). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendant Gonzalez and his attorneys were aware of prior art that disclosed the claimed invention and were aware that New Life did not infringe the patents before filing the complaint (Compl. ¶¶26-27). It is further alleged that Gonzalez made "false and knowingly false" statements to the USPTO during prosecution to overcome a prior art rejection (Compl. ¶¶30-31).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case is not a direct patent dispute but a malicious prosecution action arising from one. The key questions will therefore focus on the state of mind and objective reasonableness of the defendants (the original patentee and his lawyers) when they pursued the underlying infringement case.

A core issue will be one of objective baselessness: Did the defendants' infringement claims in the prior litigation rise to the level of being so meritless that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits? This will likely involve a "case-within-a-case" analysis of the validity of the Gonzalez patents in light of prior art like the functionality of eBay in the late 1990s.
A second critical question will be one of subjective malice: Can the plaintiff prove that the defendants brought the prior suit for an improper purpose, rather than a good-faith effort to enforce patent rights? Evidence regarding what the defendants knew about the prior art, the inventor's deposition testimony, and statements made to the USPTO will be central to this inquiry.