Linfo IP LLC v. Levi Strauss & Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Levi Strauss & Co. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00038, E.D. Tex., 01/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for presenting information in text content infringes a patent related to discovering, analyzing, and presenting information based on the semantic attributes of words or phrases.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves natural language processing and user interface design to help users navigate and understand large volumes of text, such as product reviews, by allowing them to filter, highlight, or extract content based on attributes like topic or sentiment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "data overload" or "information overload," where finding specific, needed information within large volumes of unstructured text (e.g., online product reviews, news articles) is difficult and time-consuming using conventional search methods (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-21). For example, a user may want to find all negative comments about a specific feature, like a hotel's "room service," which can be a laborious task when browsing hundreds of reviews (’428 Patent, col. 1:20-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to associate "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes" with words and phrases (’428 Patent, col. 3:19-22). It then provides a user interface with objects that allow a user to select a desired attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and perform an action (e.g., "highlight," "extract") on all text segments matching that attribute (’428 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows users to filter, organize, and digest information more efficiently.
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a more efficient tool for users to locate specific information quickly and accurately, thereby saving them "a considerable amount of time in gathering, organizing and digesting the information that would otherwise be difficult to handle" (’428 Patent, col. 3:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is a method claim and independent claim 14 is a system claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method): The essential elements include:
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Selecting a first and second "semantic attribute" for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected semantic attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" associated with the attributes.
  • Allowing a user to select one of the attributes via the user interface object.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify a specific product or service by name. It generally accuses a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that is maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant *Linfo IP LLC v. Levi Strauss & Co*. (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused instrumentality provides users with "interface objects to act on the discovered information, such as extracting, displaying or hiding, or highlighting or un-highlighting words or phrases in a text content" (Compl. ¶8). Based on the nature of Defendant's business, this likely refers to features on its e-commerce website, such as those related to sorting, filtering, or analyzing customer product reviews. However, the complaint does not provide specific details about the operation of any particular feature.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a preliminary table attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶10). As Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations in the body of the complaint.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant operates a system that allows users to interact with text content in a manner that practices the claimed invention (Compl. ¶8-9). This system allegedly discovers information within text and then provides interface objects that permit users to perform actions like extracting or highlighting that information, which mirrors the functionality described in the ’428 patent claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be what the accused system actually does. The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing the mechanism by which Defendant's system allegedly identifies "semantic attributes" and performs "actions" based on user selections. The court will require evidence showing that the accused system performs a technical process that maps to the claim limitations, rather than, for example, a simple pre-computed tagging or keyword filtering system.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the functionality of Defendant's system falls within the scope of the patent's claims. For instance, does a user interface that allows sorting reviews by "highest rating" or "lowest rating" constitute "selecting a first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute" and performing an "action" as required by claim 1? The breadth of the claim terms will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the cornerstone of claim 1, as it defines the very basis upon which information is identified and acted upon. The plaintiff's ability to prove infringement will depend on a construction broad enough to read on the features of the accused system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether simple filters (e.g., star ratings) qualify, or if a more sophisticated linguistic analysis is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "semantic attribute" can encompass various concepts, stating that meanings of words can be "named as 'connotation' or 'semantic attributes'" and provides examples like "drug" as a type of semantic attribute, not just an opinion (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent heavily focuses on the semantic attribute of "opinion," which can be "positive or negative" (’428 Patent, col. 9:1-5). Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, specifies the semantic category of "sentiment or opinion." A defendant may argue that the invention is primarily directed at this positive/negative opinion analysis, potentially limiting the term's scope.

• The Term: "actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism through which a user interacts with the system to trigger the claimed "action." The infringement analysis will question whether the user interface elements on Defendant's platform meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification illustrates this element with common UI components, including selectable buttons labeled "extract top 10 important terms" (’428 Patent, Fig. 3, element 320) and a dropdown menu to "Extract all opinions" (’428 Patent, Fig. 7), suggesting the term covers conventional interface designs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term requires an object that is directly and dynamically tied to the results of the semantic identification step, not just a static, pre-programmed filter button. The connection between the "identifying" step and the "displaying an actionable user interface object" step could be argued to require a tighter, consequential link.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it asserts Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). For contributory infringement, it makes similar allegations (Compl. ¶12). The factual support for these allegations is not detailed beyond these general statements.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11). This allegation appears to be directed at potential post-filing enhancement of damages. The complaint includes a footnote reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central challenge for the plaintiff will be to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. With the complaint lacking specific product identification and the referenced "Exhibit B" claim chart, a key question is whether the plaintiff can produce discovery evidence that clearly maps the technical operation of a specific Levi Strauss system to the elements of the asserted patent claims.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on claim construction, particularly for the term "semantic attribute." A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "semantic attribute," as defined by the patent, be construed to cover the filtering and sorting functionalities (e.g., based on star ratings or keywords) commonly found on e-commerce websites, or is it limited to a more complex, context-aware linguistic analysis as detailed in the patent's specific embodiments?
3. The Dividing Line of Infringement: A key question will be one of functional distinction: does the accused system merely provide static filters on pre-categorized data, or does it perform the dynamic, multi-step process required by the patent—identifying attributes in raw text, presenting a user with choices based on those attributes, and then performing a distinct action based on a subsequent user selection? Proving the latter will be critical for the plaintiff's case.