Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Mattress Firm Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Mattress Firm, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00442, E.D. Tex., 09/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the automated image slideshow functionality on Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to systems for creating and displaying customizable, automated sequences of web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for presenting a series of web pages or web content as a guided tour or slideshow, using a server-side architecture to avoid the need for client-side software installation.
• 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 prosecution history of the '707 patent, stating that the examiner found the claims allowable over prior art because it did not disclose the automatic extraction of web page details to compose a slideshow.

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 ("the ’629 Patent"), titled “Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore,” issued January 30, 2007. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for viewing web content as inefficient, requiring "costly reprogramming" or the installation of "development tools" to create automated or sequenced presentations for users. (Compl. ¶17; ’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67). This approach was seen as either too rigid or too labor-intensive for both developers and users. (Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a web access system comprising two main software components, a "composer" and a "performer," which preferably operate on a host server. (’629 Patent, col. 9:11-18). A developer uses the composer to create a "presentation" by defining a list of URLs, their display sequence, and display duration. (’629 Patent, col. 9:15-24). The performer then automatically displays this presentation to a web user as a "slide show," providing a guided tour of web content without requiring the user to install special software. (Compl. ¶21).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to increase visitor engagement and information absorption by replacing "random paths through web sites one click at a time" with pre-established, guided presentations. (’629 Patent, col. 13:30-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts 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, which includes establishing a list of URLs (via manual entry or a query-based system), determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration;
  • remotely invoking a performer operating on the host server to present the presentation; and
  • automatically locally displaying the created presentation in a slide show format.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 ("the ’707 Patent"), titled “Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore,” issued September 23, 2008. (Compl. ¶40).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares its specification with the ’629 Patent, addresses the unconventional nature of automatically composing a slideshow by extracting details directly from a web page. (Compl. ¶44, ¶45). Prior art methods allegedly required manual composition and storage of slideshows in separate, standard HTML files. (Compl. ¶45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an "auto-composing system" that creates a web slideshow by automatically extracting the necessary URLs from a desired web page. (’707 Patent, Abstract). This extraction can be performed by finding a plurality of hyperlinks on the page, reading a dedicated presentation/rendition text file, or parsing a specific meta tag within the page's code. (’707 Patent, col. 10:8-14).
• Technical Importance: This solution automates the curation process for creating guided web tours, allowing a slideshow to be generated from a page’s existing content without separate, manual definition by a developer. (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts 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) a plurality of hyperlinks from the web page, (b) a presentation/rendition text file from the web page, or (c) a meta tag from the web page; and
  • automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the website www.mattressfirm.com, and specifically the method for customizing access to websites performed by its image slideshow feature. (Compl. ¶26, ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

The Mattress Firm website homepage features an automated web slideshow, described as a carousel section element in the website's code, that presents a rotating sequence of images. (Compl. ¶27, ¶29). This slideshow is used to display "featured promotional offerings" to website visitors. (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges this functionality is implemented using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS operating on Defendant's host servers and the user's web browser. (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the slideshow as a prominent banner at the top of the homepage. (Compl. Exhibit E).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’629 Patent Infringement Allegations

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the ’629 Patent will be whether the terms "composer" and "performer", described in the patent as distinct software components, can be construed to read on the integrated functions of a standard web server and browser delivering a pre-coded JavaScript image carousel. Similarly, for the ’707 Patent, a key dispute may arise over the scope of "automatically extracting... from the desired web page." Does this require parsing the rendered HTML of the page itself, or can it be read to cover a server-side script that retrieves a pre-configured list of image URLs from a database to populate the page?
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’707 Patent will be whether the accused system actually performs an "extraction" to "compose" the slideshow on the fly. The complaint alleges this occurs, but the defense may argue the slideshow's content and sequence are pre-determined and simply delivered as part of the page code, rather than being dynamically composed through an extraction process as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "composer" (’629 Patent, Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: The existence of a "composer" is a predicate for infringement of claim 11. The case may turn on whether the server-side functionality of the accused website qualifies as this claimed component. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent depicts the composer with a specific user interface for creating a presentation, which may differ from how modern, CMS-driven websites are managed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the system includes "a composer to create a presentation," which could be argued to encompass any server-side software that assembles the elements of the slideshow. (e.g., ’629 Patent, col. 14:60-61).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a figure (FIG. 3) showing a specific data entry screen for the composer where a user manually enters URLs and sets parameters like duration and replay order. This may support an argument that a "composer" requires such an interactive creation interface, not just the execution of pre-written code. (e.g., ’629 Patent, col. 11:11-24).

Term: "automatically extracting" (’707 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the asserted ’707 claim, distinguishing it from manual composition. Infringement requires proof that the accused system performs this specific action.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites extracting from one of three sources (hyperlinks, a text file, or a meta tag) "from the desired web page." (e.g., ’707 Patent, col. 10:33-41). Plaintiff may argue this covers any automated process where a server script gathers URLs associated with a given page before sending it to the browser.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes an "auto-composing system" where extraction happens from "web page details." (’707 Patent, Abstract). This, combined with the claim's "from the desired web page" language, could support a narrower construction requiring the system to parse the page content itself (its HTML, a linked text file, or its meta tags) rather than retrieving a list of assets from a separate backend database that is merely used to generate the page.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes allegations that could support a theory of direct infringement under a "directs or controls" standard for divided infringement. For the ’629 Patent, it alleges that to the extent end-users are involved in performing steps of the claimed method (e.g., by remotely invoking the performer), that performance is "attributable to Defendant" because Defendant "directs or controls performance" by, for example, conditioning benefits on the performance. (Compl. ¶33, ¶34). The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the standard client-server architecture used by the accused website, which delivers a pre-scripted image carousel, meet the ’629 Patent’s claimed method of "remotely invoking a composer" to "create" a presentation that is then presented by a "performer"? Or is there a fundamental mismatch between the integrated nature of the accused system and the distinct software components described in the patent?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused system performs the "automatic extraction" of URLs from the web page itself, as required by the ’707 Patent? The dispute will likely focus on whether the slideshow is dynamically composed by parsing the page for content, or if its URL list is simply pre-configured in a backend system and delivered to the browser, which may not satisfy the claim's "extracting from" limitation.