Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. GameStop Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: GameStop, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00389, E.D. Tex., 08/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple regular and established places of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the automated promotional slideshow feature on Defendant’s e-commerce website, GameStop.com, infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying customizable sequences of web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the automated presentation of a series of web pages or web content, commonly seen in features like homepage carousels, to enhance user engagement without requiring constant manual navigation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629. It also references the '707 patent's prosecution history, stating that the examiner allowed the claims over prior art that composed slideshows manually, finding the claimed automatic extraction of web page details to be a distinguishing feature.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629, issued January 30, 2007. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and cost of prior methods for presenting web content, which were described as either "monolithic (not granular and customized to the user's particular situation) or tedious and labor-intensive" (Compl. ¶16). The specification notes a need for a system that allows automated presentations without "the costs of reprogramming site content or installing development tools." (’629 Patent, col. 7:60-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-side system comprising a "composer" and a "performer" (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). The composer is used to create a "presentation"—a list of URLs with a defined display sequence and duration. The performer then automatically displays this sequence of URLs as a slideshow in a user's browser. This replaces the "passive site and active visitor clicking through pages" model with an "adaptive presentation model of active site and active visitor," aiming to increase user satisfaction and engagement. (’629 Patent, col. 13:36-40).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the web user experience by retaining visitor attention and providing a more seamless way to navigate content without fundamentally re-architecting underlying web technology. (Compl. ¶19, 22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server;
  • creating a presentation in the composer by establishing a list of URLs, determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration;
  • remotely invoking a performer on the host server to present the created presentation; and
  • automatically locally displaying the presentation in a slide show format, wherein each URL comprises a slide that is automatically displayed for a pre-determined duration.
• The prayer for relief reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. p. 17, ¶a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707, issued September 23, 2008. (Compl. ¶40).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '707 Patent shares an identical specification with the '629 Patent and thus addresses the same problems of creating automated web presentations efficiently. (Compl. ¶44).
• The Patented Solution: While sharing the '629 Patent's core architecture, the invention claimed in the '707 Patent focuses on "an auto-composing system with automatic extraction of web page details from a desired web page" (Compl. ¶44). The system automatically composes a slideshow by extracting hyperlinks, presentation files, or meta tags directly from a target webpage, distinguishing it from prior art that required manual composition. (’707 Patent, col. 10:36-49; Compl. ¶45).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method to dynamically and automatically generate a web content tour from an existing webpage's structure, further reducing the manual effort required to create such presentations. (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent method claim 7. (Compl. ¶46).
• The essential elements of claim 7 include:
  • composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs;
  • wherein the composing step comprises automatically extracting the URLs from either (a) hyperlinks, (b) a presentation/rendition text file, or (c) a meta tag found within the desired web page; and
  • automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The prayer for relief reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. p. 17, ¶b).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Defendant's website, www.gamestop.com, and specifically the method for customizing access to it via its automated web slideshow feature. (Compl. ¶¶26, 46).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the GameStop.com homepage features an automated, rotating slideshow of promotional images. (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). This feature is alleged to be created using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, with the complaint identifying a "
  " element as part of the slideshow's structure. (Compl. ¶28). Exhibit E in the complaint provides a screen capture of the GameStop homepage showing this web slideshow in the upper portion. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges that when a user navigates to the homepage, code operating on a host server establishes a list of URLs for the slideshow images, determines their sequence and duration, and presents them automatically in the user's browser. (Compl. ¶¶28, 31-34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "list of URLs", which the patent's examples depict as URLs for distinct web pages (’629 Patent, Figs. 5, 7), can be construed to read on a list of URLs for image assets displayed within a single component on one webpage.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a distinct "composer" and "performer" on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶28, 33). A point of contention may be whether the accused system's architecture, likely a standard web application stack, contains separate components that map onto the specific "composer" and "performer" architecture disclosed in the patent (’629 Patent, Fig. 1).

'707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The key dispute will likely focus on the "automatically extracting" limitation. The complaint alleges the system "automatically extracts web page details" (Compl. ¶48). However, it is possible the accused system operates by injecting a pre-configured list of image URLs from a content management system into a webpage template, rather than extracting hyperlinks from a finished webpage as the claim language may require. The sequence of operations will be a critical factual question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '629 Patent

• The Term: "composer"
• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed architecture. The infringement analysis depends on whether the server-side functionality of the GameStop.com website can be characterized as a "composer" as defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused system may not have a discretely identifiable software module with this name or specific structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the composer functionally as a "software program" or a "portion" thereof that is "used to create a presentation." (’629 Patent, col. 8:7-9). This could support an interpretation covering any server-side logic that assembles slideshow parameters.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "composer 12" as a distinct architectural block on the "Host Server 16", separate from the "performer 14". The detailed description also notes it can be invoked by a "site owner/developer" or a "query system," suggesting a specific tool rather than general server processes. (’629 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:12-21).

For the '707 Patent

• The Term: "automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page"
• Context and Importance: This is the central limitation of asserted claim 7 and the key feature distinguished during prosecution. The viability of the infringement allegation for the '707 patent hinges on the meaning of "extracting... from" the webpage.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to automate slideshow creation. An interpretation that covers any automated server-side process that gathers URLs associated with a page to build a slideshow could be seen as consistent with this goal. The complaint alleges "Dynamic server-side components... automatically extracts web page details." (Compl. ¶48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "extracting... from the desired web page" may imply a sequence where a webpage is first defined or rendered, and then parsed to find hyperlinks. This is textually different from a system that builds a webpage by combining a template with a list of assets (like image URLs) from a separate data source. Figure 12 of the patent shows a flow where the system explicitly performs "Extract Hyperlinks (hrefs) from Default Page," suggesting a parsing action. (’707 Patent, Fig. 12, block 904).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include formal counts for indirect or contributory infringement. It does allege that to the extent end-users perform some of the claimed method steps, their performance is "attributable to Defendant, because... Defendant directs or controls performance." (Compl. ¶¶33, 34). This appears to be a direct infringement theory based on joint infringement principles.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does GameStop's standard e-commerce web platform, which displays a promotional image carousel, embody the specific two-part "composer" and "performer" architecture disclosed and claimed in the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch?
• A key evidentiary question for the '707 patent will be one of operational sequence: Does the accused system "automatically extract" hyperlinks from a webpage, as the claim requires, or does it inject a pre-configured list of image URLs into a webpage template? The distinction between extracting from a finished product versus assembling from components will be central to the infringement analysis for this patent.
• A final question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "list of URLs", which the patent specification primarily illustrates with examples of separate, navigable web pages, be construed to cover a list of image file URLs intended for display within a single, non-navigable slideshow component?