DCT
2:22-cv-00311
Lexos Media IP LLC v. Nike Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lexos Media IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ulta Beauty, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00311, E.D. Tex., 07/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant operating an interactive e-commerce website available to and facilitating sales to persons in Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, www.ulta.com, infringes three patents related to dynamically modifying a user's cursor to display advertising or product-related content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a method of online advertising where a website can change a user's standard cursor into a custom image, such as a brand logo or product close-up, to create a more engaging and less intrusive user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,102 and 6,118,449 survived inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by a third party in 2018. While some claims were canceled, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the core claims asserted in this complaint not unpatentable, a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-25 | Earliest Priority Date for ’102, ’449, and '241 Patents |
| 1999-11-30 | ’102 Patent Issued |
| 2000-09-12 | ’449 Patent Issued |
| 2011-07-05 | ’241 Patent Issued |
| 2016-01-01 | Alleged Infringement by Accused Instrumentality Begins (approx.) |
| 2018-01-01 | IPR Proceedings Initiated Against ’102 and ’449 Patents (approx.) |
| 2023-07-26 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 - "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102, "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image," issued November 30, 1999.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks with then-prevalent forms of online advertising. It describes banner and frame advertisements as passive and "easily ignored," while self-appearing windows are "totally interrupting and intrusive" (’102 Patent, col. 2:25–33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system that modifies a user's cursor. A server transmits a web page containing "cursor display instructions" to a user's terminal. The user's browser interprets these instructions and, in conjunction with a cursor display code, alters the appearance of the on-screen cursor to a specific image related to the web page content being displayed (’102 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25–50). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates the system architecture, including the server computer storing the instructions and the client terminal processing them.
- Technical Importance: The technology offered a method to integrate advertising directly with the user's point of interaction, shifting the advertising element from a static part of the page to the dynamic cursor itself (’102 Patent, col. 3:49–54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 72 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 72 include:
- Receiving a request at a server to provide specified content information to a user terminal.
- Providing the content information, which includes at least one cursor display instruction and an indication of cursor image data for a specific image.
- Transforming the initial cursor image on the user's display into the specific image in response to the cursor display instruction.
- The specific image includes content corresponding to a portion of the information being displayed on the user's terminal.
- The cursor display instruction indicates a cursor display code that modifies the cursor image responsive to its movement over a portion of the displayed information.
U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 - "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449, "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image," issued September 12, 2000.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’102 Patent, the ’449 patent addresses the same problem of creating online advertising that is neither easily ignored nor overly intrusive (’449 Patent, col. 1:11–2:35).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server system that transmits a web page with embedded instructions to a remote user terminal. These instructions cause the terminal to display a modified cursor image that has a specific shape and appearance and corresponds to content on the web page (’449 Patent, Abstract). The specification explains that this allows for branding and advertising to be associated with the user's cursor (’449 Patent, col. 4:52–63).
- Technical Importance: This technology builds on the parent patent's concept of making the cursor an active vehicle for advertising, thereby embedding promotional content within the user's direct interaction with a website.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1, independent method claim 38, and independent method claim 53 (Compl. ¶40).
- The essential elements of representative independent Claim 1 include:
- A server system comprising cursor image data, a cursor display code, and a first server computer.
- The server computer transmits specified content information to a remote user terminal in response to a request.
- The content information includes a cursor display instruction indicating the location of the cursor image data.
- The instruction and code are operable to cause the user terminal to display a modified cursor image in the shape and appearance of a specific image.
- The specific image includes content corresponding to at least a portion of the information displayed on the user's terminal.
- The modification is responsive to displaying at least a portion of the information on the user's display.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 5.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,975,241, "System for replacing a cursor image in connection with displaying the contents of a web page," issued July 5, 2011.
- Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technological lineage, this patent addresses the need for less intrusive online advertising (’241 Patent, col. 1:12–2:46). It claims a system where a client computer receives content from a server, including a "cursor display instruction." The client computer processes this instruction to modify the standard cursor into a "visual image" that can include promotional material and track the cursor's movement on the display (’241 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 35 (Compl. ¶56).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality is the system on Ulta's website that replaces the cursor with a new visual image (e.g., a product close-up) that follows the user's mouse movements over certain parts of the webpage (Compl. ¶57-61).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentality" is the e-commerce website www.ulta.com and its underlying server system (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that when a user moves their cursor over a product image on the Ulta website, the standard pointer is replaced by a new visual element. This element is described as a "shaded, semi-transparent box including an image of a portion of a product displayed on the web page" (Compl. ¶32). This "specific image" functions as a magnifying glass, showing an enlarged view of the product, and it moves in response to the user's cursor movement (Compl. ¶33, 61).
- The complaint provides a screenshot in Figure 2 showing the standard cursor replaced by this magnified product view. (Compl. ¶31). A screenshot in Figure 3 shows a similar magnifying effect on a different product, a curling iron. (Compl. ¶34). A screenshot in Figure 5 shows the modified cursor having tracked movement to a different position over the product image. (Compl. ¶61).
- The complaint asserts that this technology is a key part of Ulta's "multichannel strategy" to enhance its online brand and drive sales on what it calls the website of the "largest beauty retailer in the U.S." (Compl. ¶9, 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Pat. No. 5,995,102 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 72) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for modifying an initial cursor image... receiving a request at said at least one server to provide a web page to a user terminal. | Ulta Beauty's server receives a request from a user's browser to provide a web page from www.ulta.com. | ¶24 | col. 6:53-56 |
| providing said specified content information... including at least one cursor display instruction... and data corresponding to a specific image... | The Ulta server transmits a web page that includes instructions and data to modify the initial cursor image into a specific image (the magnified product view). | ¶25-26 | col. 8:56-61 |
| transforming the initial cursor image... into a specific image with a particular shape and appearance in response to Ulta Beauty's instructions. | Code on the Ulta webpage transforms the user's initial arrow cursor into the "shaded, semi-transparent box" containing a magnified product image. | ¶27, 32 | col. 7:5-15 |
| The transformed specific image... has included content corresponding to at least a portion of the information that is to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The magnified view in the new cursor contains content (a portion of the product) that is part of the larger product image displayed on the webpage. | ¶28, 33 | col. 17:53-62 |
| Ulta Beauty's instructions have indicated code... operable to process the instructions to modify the initial cursor image... responsive to movement of the cursor image over a display... | The code provided by Ulta modifies the cursor's appearance in response to its movement over the product image on the user's display. | ¶29, 36 | col. 13:55-60 |
U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,449 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A server system... comprising... a first server computer for transmitting a web page to a remote user terminal... | Ulta Beauty's server system transmits web pages from www.ulta.com to remote users. | ¶42, 45 | col. 5:46-60 |
| ...which has included one or more instructions and an indication of the location of cursor image data. | The transmitted web page includes data corresponding to the specific image (magnified view) and instructions to modify the cursor. | ¶43, 45 | col. 18:40-49 |
| ...and code which is operable to modify a cursor image on the display of the user's terminal. | The web page includes code that causes the user's terminal to display the modified cursor image. | ¶44, 46 | col. 8:50-52 |
| The specific image to be displayed... has comprised information which has included content corresponding to at least a portion of the information to be displayed... | The modified cursor (the magnified product view) is composed of content that corresponds to the underlying product image on the webpage. | ¶47, 51 | col. 18:52-62 |
| ...operable to process the instructions to modify the cursor image...in response to movement of the cursor image over a display of at least a portion of the information... | The cursor modification is triggered by and responsive to the cursor's movement over the product image displayed on the webpage. | ¶48 | col. 18:52-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the accused "magnifying glass" functionality falls within the scope of a modified "cursor image" as claimed. The patents often exemplify the invention with discrete icons (e.g., a soda bottle logo) replacing the standard arrow. The dispute may center on whether a dynamic, semi-transparent view of underlying page content constitutes a "specific image" that is a "modification of" the "initial cursor image," or if it is a different type of feature altogether, such as a zoom overlay.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system technically "transforms" or "modifies" the cursor object itself, as opposed to merely displaying a separate visual element (the zoom box) at the cursor's coordinates? The claims require modification of the cursor image, raising a technical question about how the accused functionality is implemented at the code level.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cursor image" / "modifying a cursor image"
- Context and Importance: The definition of these terms is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether Ulta's "zoom" feature is properly characterized as a modified "cursor image." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples (brand logos, icons) appear distinct from the accused functionality (a magnified view of existing page content).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes enabling cursors to "change color, shape, appearance, make sounds, display animation, etc." (’102 Patent, col. 4:51–53). This broad language could support an interpretation where any visual change at the cursor's location that replaces the default pointer qualifies as a modification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to replacing "generic cursor or pointer icons used in many networking applications, such as black arrows, hands with a pointing finger," with new images like a "corporate or a brand logo" (’102 Patent, col. 4:56–65). This could support a narrower construction limited to replacing one discrete icon with another, rather than creating a dynamic view of underlying content.
The Term: "content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed"
- Context and Importance: This term, present in claims of both lead patents, defines the required relationship between the new cursor and the webpage. Its construction will determine how closely linked the two must be.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language itself is facially broad. The accused magnifying glass literally displays "content corresponding to" the underlying product image, suggesting a direct and literal fit.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary example describes a "Fizzy Cola" bottle cursor appearing in conjunction with a "Fizzy Cola banner advertisement" (’102 Patent, col. 13:36–45). This suggests the "correspondence" may be thematic or associative (brand-to-brand) rather than a literal, pixel-for-pixel visual reproduction, potentially creating a distinction from a simple zoom feature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint primarily alleges direct infringement. It notes that Ulta "controlled each element of the system" and any functionality on the user's computer, but does not plead the specific elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as intent to cause infringing acts (Compl. ¶37, 52, 62).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "modifying a cursor image," which the patent specifications primarily illustrate with discrete, stand-alone icons like brand logos, be construed to cover the accused functionality—a dynamic, semi-transparent magnifying glass that displays an enlarged portion of the underlying webpage content?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the code on the accused website technically "transform" the operating system's "cursor image" object itself, as required by the claims, or does it operate as a distinct visual overlay that is merely positioned at the cursor's coordinates without altering the cursor object itself?
- A third question relates to the impact of the prior IPR proceedings: How will the PTAB's confirmation of the asserted claims' validity, and the Federal Circuit's affirmance, influence the district court's view of the patents' strength and the parties' litigation postures, particularly regarding invalidity defenses?