DCT
2:23-cv-00423
RavenWhite Licensing LLC v. Home Depot Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RavenWhite Licensing LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Dacus Firm, P.C.; Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00423, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas due to Defendant’s operation of physical retail stores and fulfillment centers within the district, which are integrated with its e-commerce platform that targets and serves customers residing in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform and its "Retail Media+" advertising system infringe two patents related to machine-to-machine authentication using browser storage and to behavioral-based online advertising models.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve methods for identifying and tracking users via information stored in a web browser for authentication, and for analyzing a user's online behavior to enable more sophisticated, intent-based advertising.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-11-01 | Earliest Priority Date for '823 Patent |
| 2011-11-21 | Earliest Priority Date for '402 Patent |
| 2020-03-17 | '823 Patent Issued |
| 2023-01-24 | '402 Patent Issued |
| 2023-12-06 | 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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,594,823 ("the ’823 Patent"), titled "Method and Apparatus for Storing Information in a Browser Storage Area of a Client Device," issued on March 17, 2020. (Compl. ¶41).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the privacy drawbacks of traditional website cookies, which are often stored and shared without a user's full consent, and the functional limitations that arise when users block or delete these cookies, such as the loss of site customization and a layer of user authentication. (’823 Patent, col. 1:46-2:45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for storing information on a client device by using its browser storage areas, such as the history cache or temporary internet files, as a form of "cache cookie." A server causes the client's browser to make a specific series of network resource requests (e.g., for specific URLs or files), which creates a unique, readable "footprint" in the browser's storage. This allows the server to later identify the device by checking for the presence or absence of this footprint, providing a persistent identifier that may bypass conventional cookie-blocking tools. (’823 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-4:55).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for device identification and tracking that could potentially persist even when users employed privacy tools to block or clear standard HTTP cookies, a significant capability for web platforms reliant on user recognition. (’823 Patent, col. 2:26-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 6 (a method claim). (Compl. ¶53).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a system with processors configured to:
- Receive a network resource request corresponding to a "first cookie of a first type" and involving a "second cookie of a second type," where the cookies were stored during previous network sessions.
- The first cookie was stored by causing the client to initiate a "set of network resource requests."
- The two cookies are stored in different browser storage areas.
- Based on the request, determine information that was encoded and stored on the client device.
- Perform a first identification of the client/user using the first cookie and a second identification using the second cookie.
- Perform a determination based on the presence of a request associated with one cookie and the absence of a request associated with the other.
- The complaint’s pleading of "one or more claims...including at least claims 1 and 6" suggests Plaintiff may assert dependent claims later. (Compl. ¶53).
U.S. Patent No. 11,562,402 - "Advertising Model"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,562,402 ("the ’402 Patent"), titled "Advertising Model," issued on January 24, 2023. (Compl. ¶45).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies "inefficiencies" in existing online advertising models, which typically rely on simple pricing schemes where the highest bidder for a keyword wins the ad placement, without a deeper understanding of the user's context or intent. (’402 Patent, col. 1:20-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for tiered and targeted advertising based on a dynamic "quality level" assigned to a user profile. The system analyzes user behavior (e.g., searches, purchases) to infer an "indication of interest" in a product category. Crucially, it determines if a user's "need" in that first category has been met, and then uses that determination to infer a "sequence of related indications of interest" in a second category. This enables more nuanced advertising, such as cross-selling, based on the user's journey. (’402 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:15-6:20).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from simple, keyword-based ad auctions to a more sophisticated, sequence-aware model of user intent, which is foundational to modern retail media networks that leverage first-party customer data for highly targeted advertising. (’402 Patent, col. 5:25-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 19 (a computer program product claim). (Compl. ¶81).
- Independent Claim 19 requires a computer program product with instructions for:
- Determining a "first quality level" for a user profile based on a first search or purchase, using a unique identifier and clustering.
- Determining an "indication of interest in a first category" based on a second search or purchase.
- Storing that indication of interest.
- 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," where the first and second interests form a "sequence of related indications of interest."
- Determining a "second quality level" in response to the need being met.
- Basing at least one quality level on a "conversion assessment" derived from "historical click behavior."
- Displaying an advertisement based on one of the quality levels.
- The complaint’s pleading of "one or more claims...including at least claims 1 and 19" suggests Plaintiff may assert dependent claims later. (Compl. ¶81).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are The Home Depot's e-commerce system, which includes the www.homedepot.com website and the Home Depot mobile application, and its "Retail Media+" advertising and media network solution. (Compl. ¶7, ¶26, ¶51, ¶79).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that The Home Depot's online platform is deeply integrated with its physical stores, providing customers with localized information such as in-store product location and inventory levels. (Compl. ¶13, ¶17-19).
- The infringement allegations focus on two main areas of functionality. First, the platform allegedly uses a combination of different types of data objects—a base64-encoded "THD_USER" cookie and a JSON-formatted "THD_CART" object in Local Storage—to identify, authenticate, and track users across sessions. (Compl. ¶58-62).
- Second, the "Retail Media+" platform allegedly tracks user searches, clicks, and purchases to build user profiles, determine user interests, and display targeted advertisements and sponsored products from third-party vendors on its website and app. (Compl. ¶82, ¶84, ¶86). The screenshot in paragraph 18 shows the website informing a customer of a product's specific in-store aisle and bay location (Aisle 14, Bay 012). (Compl. ¶18).
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... wherein a second cookie of a second type... and wherein the first cookie... is stored in a first client device browser storage area and the second cookie... is stored in a second client device browser storage area different from the first... | The Home Depot system receives requests involving two different types of data objects: the "THD_USER" cookie (a base64 encoded string) stored in the browser's "Cookies" area, and the "THD_CART" object (a JSON data structure) stored in the "Local Storage" area. | ¶55, ¶58, ¶61-62 | col. 15:35-50 |
| based at least in part on the network resource request... determine information that was encoded and stored in the client device; | Home Depot servers receive the "THD_USER" cookie and decode its base64 string to determine information encoded within it, such as the "userId" and "logonId". A screenshot shows the decoded cookie data. (Compl. ¶60). | ¶63-64 | col. 16:1-6 |
| 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 uses the persistent "THD_USER" cookie to identify a returning user and display a "Welcome Back!" message, bypassing a full sign-in process. A screenshot shows this welcome message. (Compl. ¶67). | ¶66-67 | col. 16:7-14 |
| 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 uses the "THD_CART" object stored in Local Storage to perform a second identification, as it also contains the user's "userId". A screenshot shows the "userId" within the THD_CART data structure. (Compl. ¶29). | ¶68 | col. 16:15-18 |
| 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... | If a user's "THD_CART" (second cookie) is absent but the "THD_USER" (first cookie) is present, the system uses the "userId" from the first cookie to authorize a network request to re-create the second cookie (the user's cart). | ¶69-73 | col. 16:19-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for claim construction may be whether the term "cookie" as used in the patent can be interpreted to cover a JSON object stored in browser "Local Storage" (the alleged "second cookie"). The patent's specification focuses on data stored in the browser's history cache and Temporary Internet Files (’823 Patent, col. 5:4-8), raising the question of whether "Local Storage" falls within the claimed scope.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the first cookie to have been stored by "causing the client device to initiate a set of network resource requests" that "encode" information. The complaint alleges the "THD_USER" cookie is stored after a standard user login (Compl. ¶58). A key technical question is whether a standard login process qualifies as the specific, potentially non-obvious encoding method described in the patent's specification, which involves techniques like URL redirects. (’823 Patent, col. 4:37-55).
'402 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining a first quality level... based at least in part on... a first search associated with the user profile or... a first purchase... and... on a unique identifier and clustering; | Home Depot's system allegedly determines a quality level based on user interactions like "clicks and add-to-cart events," which are associated with a unique user identifier (e.g., "userId" from a cookie). A screenshot shows the capture of a user ID token after login. (Compl. ¶99). | ¶89-90, ¶98, ¶101 | col. 20:6-14 |
| determining... an indication of interest in a first category, wherein the indication of interest... is determined based at least in part on... a second search... or a second purchase... | The system determines customer intent or interest in a product category based on analysis of the user's past search and purchase history, which Home Depot's privacy policy states it collects. A screenshot from the privacy policy details collection of "purchasing history." (Compl. ¶49). | ¶102-104 | col. 20:15-19 |
| subsequent to determining the indication of interest... 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...; | The complaint alleges that the system determines a user's need has been met, for example, by recognizing that after a user searches for a "faucet," they may have a need for related products, implying the initial need for the faucet itself is being addressed. | ¶109, ¶111 | col. 20:23-27 |
| based at least in part on the determination that the need... has been met, determining an indication of interest in a second category... [comprising] a sequence of related indications of interest; | The system allegedly determines a sequential interest, such as inferring an interest in "outdoor ceiling fans" after a user's actions indicate a "patio renovation" need has been met. | ¶113-114 | col. 20:28-33 |
| 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 complaint alleges quality levels are based on a conversion assessment that tracks "website clickstream data" and "the items a user interacted within that session." A screenshot from a Home Depot presentation depicts a knowledge graph based on user clicks. (Compl. ¶61). | ¶117, ¶121 | col. 20:38-42 |
| displaying an advertisement to the user based at least in part on at least one of the first quality level or the second quality level. | Home Depot's "Retail Media+" platform displays sponsored product advertisements to users in formats such as "in-grid" search results and "in carousel" displays. A screenshot shows these different ad unit types. (Compl. ¶83). | ¶123-124 | col. 20:43-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A core issue will be whether the accused system's general analysis of "customer intent" (Compl. ¶103) and its use of a "vector search engine" (Compl. ¶94) perform the specific, ordered, multi-step logical process required by the claims. The infringement theory relies heavily on high-level marketing articles, and the court will need to determine if these map to the claim's specific sequence of determining a need is met and then identifying a related interest.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system's algorithms perform "clustering" as required by Claim 19. The complaint alleges the use of recommender systems (Compl. ¶101), but it does not provide specific evidence that these systems employ clustering to determine the first quality level.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "cookie" (’823 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites a "first cookie" and a "second cookie" stored in different browser storage areas. The infringement allegation relies on equating a traditional HTTP cookie with the "first cookie" and a JSON object in "Local Storage" with the "second cookie." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether modern, non-cookie-based browser storage objects fall within the patent's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the term "cache cookie" to describe its invention, defining it as a form of "persistent state" that is explicitly distinguished from a traditional cookie. (’823 Patent, col. 5:10-24). This language may support an argument that "cookie" in the claim was intended to encompass any form of client-side data storage used for tracking.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section extensively discusses and defines "cookies" in the traditional sense before introducing its "cache cookie" invention. (’823 Patent, col. 1:46-2:25). This could support an argument that when the patentee used the unqualified term "cookie" in the claims, it was referring to the conventional definition, not the specialized "cache cookie" described in the specification.
Term: "a sequence of related indications of interest" (’402 Patent, Claim 19)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the patent's core concept of sequential, intent-based targeting. The claim requires determining an interest in a first category, confirming the need is met, and then identifying an interest in a second category, where the two interests form this "sequence." The viability of the cross-selling infringement theory depends on the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes inferring user needs from a wide range of behaviors and contexts, suggesting that any logical connection between user actions over time could constitute a "sequence." For example, it discusses inferring a camera purchase from a subsequent search for a lens cap. (’402 Patent, col. 5:25-46).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires that the indications of interest themselves "comprise a sequence." A defendant may argue this requires a more structured, formally defined relationship between the two interests, rather than a general, ad-hoc inference drawn from user behavior. The complaint's evidence is based on high-level examples (e.g., "patio renovation" leading to "ceiling fans") that may not demonstrate the specific structured sequence required by the claim. (Compl. ¶113).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Home Depot induces infringement of at least claims 1 and 19 of the ’402 Patent. The factual basis for this allegation is that Home Depot provides its website and mobile app and actively encourages and instructs customers and end users to perform infringing acts, such as by creating accounts and submitting search queries, thereby putting the infringing system into use. (Compl. ¶128-129).
- Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint lays the foundation for a willfulness claim regarding the ’402 Patent. It alleges infringement has occurred "with specific intent or willful blindness" and has continued from "at least the time Home Depot received notice of the '402 Patent." (Compl. ¶128, ¶130).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "cookie," as used in the ’823 Patent claims, be construed to cover modern browser storage mechanisms like JSON objects in "Local Storage," when the patent's specification primarily describes techniques involving the browser's history cache and temporary internet files?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: Does the accused system's standard user login procedure perform the specific function of "causing the client device to initiate a set of network resource requests" for the purpose of "encoding" information, as the ’823 Patent describes, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the alleged infringement and the patented method?
- A second central evidentiary question will be one of proof of process: Can the high-level marketing materials and technical articles cited in the complaint provide sufficient evidence to prove that the "Retail Media+" platform performs the specific, multi-step logical sequence of the ’402 Patent claims—particularly the determination that a "need... has been met" before identifying a "sequence of related indications of interest"—or will the court require more direct, code-level evidence of the accused algorithm's operation?