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: Nike, Inc. (Oregon)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00311, E.D. Tex., 02/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper and notes Defendant Nike operates its retail and digital platforms, including the Nike Website, in an integrated manner, providing infringing features and functionality to individuals in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nike Website, specifically its product image zoom functionality, infringes three patents related to dynamically modifying a computer cursor image to display content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a method of online advertising and user interaction where a standard on-screen cursor is replaced with a custom image that relates to the content of a webpage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,995,102 and 6,118,449 were subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Ralph Lauren in 2018. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found certain claims unpatentable but confirmed the patentability of the specific claims now asserted in this litigation, a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This history may inform the court's validity analysis.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-25 | '102 and '449 Patents Priority Date |
| 1999-11-30 | '102 Patent Issue Date |
| 2000-09-12 | '449 Patent Issue Date |
| 2005-01-21 | '241 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-07-05 | '241 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016 (at least) | Alleged Infringement by Nike Website Begins |
| 2018 | IPR Proceedings Initiated Against '102 and '449 Patents |
| 2023-02-14 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
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, titled "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image," issued on November 30, 1999 (Compl. ¶11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional online advertising, such as banner ads and frames, as being passive and easily ignored, while other methods like self-appearing screens are overly "interrupting and intrusive" (’102 Patent, col. 2:26-33; Compl. ¶16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server system that delivers a webpage containing "cursor display instructions." These instructions cause the web browser on a user's terminal to modify the standard cursor image to a "specific image," such as a brand logo or product icon, that is related to the webpage's content (’102 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-15). This allows the server to remotely manage the cursor's appearance to deliver an advertising message in a less obtrusive manner (Compl. ¶19).
- Technical Importance: This technology offered a method to integrate advertising directly into a user's interactive experience, aiming to capture user attention without halting their browsing activity as a pop-up ad would (’102 Patent, col. 2:26-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 72 (Compl. ¶23).
- 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 into the specific image, where the specific image includes content corresponding to a portion of the information being displayed on the webpage.
- The transformation is responsive to the movement of the cursor image 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, titled "Server system and method for modifying a cursor image," issued on September 12, 2000 (Compl. ¶12).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '102 Patent, the '449 Patent addresses the same technical problem of ineffective and/or intrusive online advertising methods ('449 Patent, col. 1:26-35; Compl. ¶16).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server system and method for modifying a cursor. The server transmits information to a remote terminal, including a "cursor display instruction" and "cursor image data," which causes the terminal to display a modified cursor image that corresponds to the content being viewed by the user ('449 Patent, Abstract; col.4:24-49).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides a technical framework for remotely defining and managing the appearance of a cursor to enhance online advertising and branding in a way that is integrated with the user's navigation of a website ('449 Patent, col. 2:26-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claims 38 and 53 (Compl. ¶44).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 (system) include:
- Cursor image data corresponding to a specific image.
- A cursor display code operable to modify the cursor image.
- A server computer for transmitting content information that includes a cursor display instruction, causing the user terminal to display a modified cursor image that relates to the information being displayed.
- Essential elements of Claim 53 (method) are substantively similar to those of claim 72 of the '102 Patent, including receiving a request, providing content with a cursor instruction, and transforming the cursor image responsive to its movement over displayed information.
U.S. Patent No. 7,975,241 - "System for replacing a cursor image in connection with displaying the contents of a web page"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,975,241, titled "System for replacing a cursor image in connection with displaying the contents of a web page," issued on July 5, 2011 (Compl. ¶13).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for modifying a cursor image where a client computer receives content information (e.g., a web page) from a server controlled by a website provider. This content includes a "cursor display instruction" that, when processed by the client computer, modifies the cursor to include a "visual image" that tracks the cursor's movement (Compl. ¶61-63, 65).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 35 (Compl. ¶60).
- Accused Features: The Nike Website is accused of being a system for modifying a cursor image where Nike, as the website provider, is in control of including cursor display instructions in the web page transmitted to the user and in control of the processing of those instructions on the user's computer (Compl. ¶62-63).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "cursor modification technology" implemented on the Nike Website, located at www.nike.com (Compl. ¶8, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Nike Website incorporates a feature where a user's cursor is transformed when moved over a product image (Compl. ¶34-35). This transformation is alleged to be a "consequence of the user moving the cursor image over the display of the product" (Compl. ¶34).
- The transformed cursor is described as a "slightly shaded and transparent rectangle including an image of a portion of a product displayed on the web page" (Compl. ¶31). Figure 2A of the complaint provides a screenshot showing this alleged transformed cursor over a shoe image (Compl. ¶31, p. 8).
- This functionality is further described as a zoom or magnification feature, where an enlarged view of the product portion under the cursor is displayed elsewhere on the page (Compl. ¶32, ¶36).
- The complaint characterizes this technology as an "innovation" that Nike has used to build the "popularity and profitability" of its website (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent 5,995,102 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 72) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a request at said at least one server to provide specified content information to said user terminal; | Nike's server receives a request for a web page from a user's terminal. | ¶25 | col. 22:11-14 |
| providing said specified content information to said user terminal in response to said request, said specified content information including at least one cursor display instruction... | Nike's server transmits a web page to the user terminal, which contains instructions to modify the cursor image. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 22:15-20 |
| transforming said initial cursor image displayed on said display of said user terminal into the shape and appearance of said specific image in response to said cursor display instruction... | Nike's code transforms the user's initial cursor into a specific image, described as a shaded rectangle containing a portion of the product image. The complaint provides Figure 1 as an example of the display before transformation (Compl. ¶30). | ¶28, ¶31 | col. 22:21-25 |
| ...wherein said specific image includes content corresponding to at least a portion of said information that is to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal... | The transformed cursor image (the rectangle) contains content (the shoe portion) from the information being displayed on the webpage. Figure 2A in the complaint illustrates this alleged functionality (Compl. ¶31). | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 22:26-29 |
| ...and wherein said cursor display instruction...[is] responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The modification of the cursor is alleged to be a consequence of the user moving the cursor over the product display on the terminal. Figure 2B illustrates an enlargement resulting from this process (Compl. ¶32). | ¶34, ¶35 | col. 22:34-38 |
U.S. Patent 6,118,449 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor image data corresponding to said specific image; | The Nike Website is alleged to provide data for the specific image (the modified cursor) to be displayed on the user's terminal. | ¶47 | col. 18:36-37 |
| cursor display code, said cursor display code operable to modify said cursor image; and | The Nike Website provides code that is operable to modify the cursor image on the user's display. | ¶48 | col. 18:38-39 |
| a first server computer for transmitting specified content information to said remote user terminal...operable to cause said user terminal to display a modified cursor image... | Nike's server system transmits web pages with instructions that cause the user's terminal to display the modified cursor. | ¶45, ¶46, ¶49 | col. 18:40-46 |
| ...wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed...said specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed... | The modified cursor image (the zoom box) contains a portion of the product information being displayed on the page. Figure 3 provides another example of this modification (Compl. ¶33). | ¶51, ¶53 | col. 19:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the "specific image" recited in the patents, which are described in the context of advertising logos and brand icons ('102 Patent, col. 17:7-14), can be interpreted to cover the functional "magnifying glass" or zoom-box feature that the complaint alleges is used by Nike (Compl. ¶36). The complaint preemptively argues the feature is not a "generic cursor" but an image that "highlights and draws attention" (Compl. ¶36).
- Technical Questions: The claims require the cursor transformation to be "responsive to movement" of the cursor. This raises the technical question of whether the accused Nike system, which may be triggered by a simple hover event (a change in location), meets this limitation. The patent specifications disclose more complex implementations where the cursor shape changes based on its "velocity" or "trajectory" ('102 Patent, col. 9:52-56), which could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "specific image" (e.g., '102 Patent, cl. 72)
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the scope of infringement. A narrow construction limited to purely promotional or branding icons could exclude the accused functionality, whereas a broad construction covering any non-standard image related to webpage content would favor the plaintiff's theory. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused feature is a functional tool (a zoom box) rather than a traditional advertisement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the '102 Patent states that a modified cursor can represent a company's "logo, its corporate mascot, images of its products or services, slogans, icons, brand images, advertising messages..., [or] abstract suggestions (such as a straw or glass)" ('102 Patent, col. 17:7-14). The inclusion of "images of its products" and "abstract suggestions" may support a construction that is not limited to brand logos.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section focuses heavily on solving problems with traditional online advertising, like banner ads ('102 Patent, col. 1:11-37). The examples provided, such as a "Fizzy Cola" bottle or a "baseball bat" cursor for a sports site ('102 Patent, col. 17:1-33), suggest a primarily thematic or promotional purpose, which a party could argue does not cover a functional user-interface tool like a magnifying glass.
The Term: "responsive to movement of said cursor image" (e.g., '102 Patent, cl. 72)
Context and Importance: The definition of this phrase will determine the required technical mechanism for triggering the cursor change. If any location-based change (i.e., a hover event) meets the limitation, infringement may be easier to prove. If it requires a more dynamic analysis of the cursor's motion, the infringement case could be more difficult.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a cursor modification that occurs because the user moved the cursor into a specific zone is, by definition, "responsive to movement."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses embodiments where the cursor's shape changes based on its "velocity" or its "trajectory" path ('102 Patent, col. 9:52-56). This could support an argument that "responsive to movement" requires a system to react to the dynamic properties of the movement itself, not just its resulting location.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement by Nike. However, it alleges that Nike "initiated and controlled the performance" of steps that occur on a third party's (the user's) device (Compl. ¶37) and has "controlled each element of Nike Website systems and the system as a whole" (Compl. ¶55). These allegations may be intended to address potential divided infringement issues, where different actors perform different steps of a claimed method.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "specific image," which the patents frame in the context of replacing banner advertising with brand-related icons, be construed to cover the functional product-magnification feature implemented on the Nike Website?
- Technical Infringement: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused website's hover-to-zoom feature meet the "responsive to movement" limitation of the asserted claims, or does that claim language require a more sophisticated implementation that reacts to the dynamics of cursor motion (e.g., velocity or trajectory) as described in the patent specifications?
- Validity in Light of IPR: Given the explicit reference to prior, partially successful IPR challenges (Compl. ¶21), a central issue will be the validity of the surviving asserted claims. The analysis will likely focus on whether any new prior art or invalidity arguments raised by Nike are substantively different from those already considered and rejected by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.