DCT

2:23-cv-00418

RavenWhite Licensing LLC v. Walmart Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00418, E.D. Tex., 09/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a continuous physical presence, solicits customers through its website, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform and its “Walmart Connect” advertising service infringe patents related to machine-to-machine authentication using browser storage and dynamic, behavior-based online advertising models.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are foundational to modern e-commerce, involving methods for identifying and tracking users across browsing sessions and for serving targeted advertisements based on complex assessments of user intent and purchase history.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-01 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,594,823
2011-11-21 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 11,562,402
2020-03-17 U.S. Patent 10,594,823 Issued
2023-01-24 U.S. Patent 11,562,402 Issued
2023-09-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,594,823 - Method and Apparatus for Storing Information in a Browser Storage Area of a Client Device, issued March 17, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the privacy issues and user-frustration associated with traditional web cookies, which can be blocked or deleted by users, thereby preventing websites from recognizing returning visitors and providing a customized experience (’823 Patent, col. 1:10-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a server to identify a client device by causing the device’s browser to store information in its local storage areas, such as the history cache or temporary internet files, creating what is termed a "cache cookie." A server directs the browser to make a specific pattern of network resource requests, and the resulting data stored in the browser's cache effectively encodes an identifier that the server can later "read" to recognize the device, even if traditional cookies are blocked (’823 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:3-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technique offered a method for persistent device identification that could potentially operate independently of, and be more resilient than, standard HTTP cookies, a significant capability for e-commerce and other online services reliant on user recognition (’823 Patent, col. 1:30-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A system with one or more processors configured to:
    • Receive a network resource request corresponding to a first cookie of a first type stored in a first client device browser storage area;
    • Wherein a second cookie of a second type was stored in a second client device browser storage area different from the first;
    • Based on the request, determine information that was encoded and stored in the client device;
    • Perform a first identification of the client/user using the first cookie;
    • Perform a second identification of the client/user using the second cookie;
    • Perform a determination based on (1) the presence of a network resource request associated with one of the cookies and (2) the absence of a request associated with the other cookie;
    • The system further comprises a memory coupled to the processors.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’823 Patent (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 11,562,402 - Advertising Model, issued January 24, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies inefficiencies in typical online advertising auction systems, which often select advertisements based simply on which advertiser is willing to pay the most money (’402 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a tiered advertising model that determines a "quality level" for a user based on their profile, search history, and purchase history. The system uses this quality level to determine if a user's "need" for a product in a first category has been met. Upon determining the need is met, the system can infer interest in a second, related category, determine a second quality level, and ultimately display an advertisement based on this sequential assessment of user interest (’402 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5; col. 5:15-41).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology enables a more sophisticated form of ad targeting that moves beyond simple keyword matching to a model that evaluates a user's journey, including the satisfaction of prior needs, to predict future interests.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 19, which is a computer program product claim (Compl. ¶60).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 19 are instructions for:
    • Determining a first quality level associated with a user profile, based on a first search or purchase, a unique identifier, and clustering;
    • Determining an indication of interest in a first category based on a second search or purchase;
    • Storing this indication of interest in a user record;
    • Determining that a need relative to the first category has been met based on a third search or purchase;
    • Based on the need being met, determining an indication of interest in a second category, creating a sequence of related interests;
    • In response to the need being met, determining a second quality level with respect to the first category;
    • Basing at least one quality level on a conversion assessment, which is in turn based on historical click behavior;
    • Displaying an advertisement based on at least one of the determined quality levels.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’402 Patent (Compl. ¶61).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Walmart system," which includes the walmart.com website and its associated servers and computer networks, as well as the "Walmart Connect" advertising platform and service (Compl. ¶¶34, 59).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Walmart system uses various cookies and tracking technologies to identify users and personalize the shopping experience across multiple sessions (Compl. ¶37). It is alleged to store different types of data in distinct browser storage locations; for example, a customer identifier ("CID") cookie is stored in the browser's "Cookies" area, while cart information ("glassCartIdMap") is stored in "Local Storage" (Compl. ¶¶41-43). The complaint includes a developer tools screenshot from the Chrome browser to show these distinct storage locations on walmart.com (Compl. ¶39, p. 15).

Walmart Connect is described as an advertising platform that runs real-time, second-price auctions to place sponsored product ads on Walmart's website (Compl. ¶¶59, 62). The complaint alleges these auctions are won based on a "relevancy score," which functions as a "quality level" derived from user data such as search and purchase history, click behavior, and inferred customer intent (Compl. ¶¶64, 72, 91). A visual from a Walmart Connect guide is referenced to describe how the platform runs a real-time auction to determine which ads appear (Compl. ¶62, p. 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'823 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receive a network resource request from a client device, wherein the network resource request corresponds to a first cookie of a first type...stored in a first client device browser storage area...wherein a second cookie of a second type...was caused to be stored...in a second client device browser storage area different from the first... The Walmart system allegedly uses a "CID" cookie (first type) stored in the browser's "Cookies" area (first storage area) and a "glassCartIdMap" data object (second type) stored in "Local Storage" (second storage area). A screenshot shows the "CID" cookie in the "Cookies" area of the browser. ¶¶38, 41-43, p. 16 col. 9:4-10
based at least in part on the network resource request...determine information that was encoded and stored in the client device; The system allegedly determines if a user has previously visited by reading the CID cookie to retrieve the user's ID and authentication status. ¶¶44-45 col. 9:30-41
perform a first identification of at least one of the client device and a user...using the first cookie of the first type... The system allegedly performs a first identification of the user and device via the CID cookie, which contains a unique user ID and is associated with the user's account through the sign-in process. ¶47 col. 15:58-65
perform a second identification of at least one of the client device and the user...using the second cookie of the second type; The system allegedly performs a second identification using the "glassCartIdMap" object stored in local storage, which also contains the user's ID, linking it to their cart. A screenshot shows the glassCartIdMap cookie in local storage. ¶49, p. 17 col. 16:1-4
perform a determination based at least in part on (1) a presence of a network resource request associated with one of the first cookie and the second cookie, and (2) an absence of a network resource request associated with the other of the first cookie and the second cookie; When a user views their cart, the system allegedly determines if the CID cookie is present but the glassCartIdMap cookie is absent. If so, it uses the CID to re-create the glassCartIdMap cookie. ¶¶50-52 col. 16:5-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the patent's term "cookie," developed in a technical context of browser cache and history files, can be construed to read on a JSON object stored via the "Local Storage" API. Likewise, a question is whether "browser storage area" covers distinct modern APIs like "Cookies" versus "Local Storage."
    • Technical Questions: Does the "glassCartIdMap" data object function as a "cookie" for "identification" in the manner required by the claim, or is its primary function data storage? The claim requires two distinct identification steps using two different cookie types.

'402 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining a first quality level associated with a user profile...based at least in part on...a first search associated with the user profile or...a first purchase...and...a unique identifier and clustering; Walmart Connect allegedly determines a "relevancy score" (first quality level) for users based on search and purchase history. It is alleged to track users via "device and online identifiers" and apply clustering algorithms to estimate user intent. ¶¶63-64, 66, 68, 71 col. 20:6-14
determining...an indication of interest in a first category...storing, in a record associated with the user, the indication of interest... The system allegedly determines "customer intent" (indication of interest) for a product category based on user search and purchase history, and stores this information in user records. ¶¶72, 75, 78 col. 20:15-20
determining...that a need relative to the first category has been met...based at least in part on...a third search...or...a third purchase... Walmart allegedly determines a need has been met based on a user's subsequent search and purchase history (e.g., a user who searched for cameras now searching for accessories) in order to recommend a next item. ¶¶80-82 col. 20:21-26
based at least in part on the determination that the need...has been met, determining an indication of interest in a second category... Upon determining a need has been met, Walmart allegedly determines interest in a second category, for example by analyzing shopping baskets to recommend "a series of items at checkout." ¶¶83-84 col. 20:27-32
wherein at least one of the first quality level or the second quality level is based at least in part on a conversion assessment...based at least in part on historical click behavior; The "relevancy score" is allegedly based on a conversion assessment, which in turn is based on historical data such as "click frequency." ¶¶91-92 col. 20:39-45
displaying an advertisement to the user based at least in part on the at least one of the first quality level or the second quality level. Ads are allegedly displayed to users based on winning a real-time auction, where the winner is determined by ad relevancy (the quality level). ¶95 col. 20:46-49
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Do Walmart's internal metrics, such as "relevancy score," map directly onto the specific, multi-step "first quality level" and "second quality level" as recited in the claim? The claim requires a precise sequence of determinations (need met, then interest in second category, then second quality level).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint cites various public sources, including other patents and academic papers, to describe the accused system's functionality. A key question will be whether these sources accurately describe the actual, current operation of the Walmart Connect platform or if they describe different or aspirational systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '823 Patent:

    • The Term: "cookie...in a...browser storage area"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on construing two different types of data ("CID" cookie and "glassCartIdMap" object) in two different locations ("Cookies" store and "Local Storage") as meeting the claim limitation of two different "cookies" in two "different...browser storage area[s]." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's priority date (2005) precedes the widespread adoption of the "Local Storage" API, creating a potential temporal mismatch between the patent's disclosure and the accused technology.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not strictly limited to HTTP cookies, introducing the term "cache cookie" and describing the use of the "history cache" and "Temporary Internet Files (TIFs) area" for storing data (’823 Patent, col. 5:11-13; col. 5:54-56). This may support a construction where "cookie" means any form of persistent data stored by a browser that a server can later access, and "browser storage area" means any logically distinct location for such storage.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to manipulating the browser's caching mechanisms, such as the "history cache 204" and "TIFs area 212" (’823 Patent, col. 9:5-8). A party could argue that the invention is limited to these specific mechanisms and does not extend to modern, structured storage APIs like Local Storage, which function differently.

  • For the '402 Patent:

    • The Term: "determining that a need relative to the first category has been met"
    • Context and Importance: This determination is the crucial trigger in the claimed method. It is the event that allows the system to pivot from assessing interest in a first category to determining interest in a second, related category. The validity of the entire sequential infringement theory rests on this step.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this concept abstractly, suggesting it can be inferred from user behavior. For instance, a user first interested in "beginner's books on painting" who later "purchases paint brushes" indicates the need for beginner books "has been met" (’402 Patent, col. 5:32-41). This could support a broad interpretation covering any algorithmic inference of purchase or interest satisfaction.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the active phrase "determining that a need...has been met," which could be argued to require a specific, affirmative finding by the system, rather than just a probabilistic inference from a change in user behavior. The specification's examples provide context but may be argued to be illustrative rather than defining the full scope of the required "determination."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Walmart induces infringement of the ’402 Patent by providing customers with instruction materials, support, and services to create and use online accounts, thereby causing them to use the Walmart system in an infringing manner (e.g., by logging in and performing searches) (Compl. ¶¶96-97). A screenshot from Walmart's help center on how to create an account is provided as an example of such instruction (Compl. ¶97, p. 56).
  • Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that may support a finding of willfulness. It states that "From at least the time Walmart received notice of the '402 patent" and "Despite its knowledge of the '402 patent," Walmart continued its allegedly infringing conduct, which suggests a claim based on post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶96, 98).

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

  • A core issue for the '823 Patent will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cookie," rooted in the patent's 2005-era disclosure focused on browser cache and history files, be construed to encompass a modern JSON object stored in the "Local Storage" API, and are these considered "different" storage areas as the claim requires?
  • A key evidentiary question for the '402 Patent will be one of functional linkage: does the accused Walmart Connect platform actually perform the specific, sequential logic recited in claim 19—affirmatively determining a "need has been met" before assessing interest in a "second category"—or has the complaint constructed this narrative by combining disparate public disclosures that do not reflect the system's integrated operation?
  • A central theme across both patents will be one of technical specificity: do the general-purpose functions of the accused Walmart e-commerce platform—user recognition and ad serving—perform the precise, multi-part logical steps required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed sequence and technical operation?