DCT
2:24-cv-00688
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: Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP; Miller Fair Henry PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00688, E.D. Tex., 10/30/2024
- 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 national e-commerce platform and directly involved in fulfilling online orders for customers in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform and its "Orange Apron Media" advertising service infringe patents related to persistent device authentication using browser cache storage and to tiered, quality-based online advertising models.
- Technical Context: The technologies involve methods for identifying and tracking users through non-traditional browser data ("cache cookies") and for optimizing ad-spend through dynamic, multi-factor bidding systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of both patents-in-suit as a result of a previous lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the same district, RavenWhite Licensing LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00423 (E.D. Tex.), a factor relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-11-01 | ’823 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2011-11-21 | ’402 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2020-03-17 | '823 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2023-01-24 | '402 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2023 | Prior Lawsuit (2:23-cv-00423) Filed |
| 2024-10-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 addresses the limitations of traditional browser cookies, which can be easily blocked or deleted by users, leading to a loss of user identification and website customization, and creating potential privacy concerns. (’823 Patent, col. 2:11-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a technique for storing information on a client device by leveraging browser storage areas other than traditional cookie files, such as the browser's history cache and its Temporary Internet Files (TIFs) area. (’823 Patent, col. 3:1-5). A server can cause a client's browser to make a specific set of network resource requests (e.g., for unique URLs or files), and the subsequent presence of these items in the browser's cache acts as a persistent identifier, or "cache cookie," that can be detected by the server in a later session. (’823 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-56).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a more durable technique for device identification that could survive common user privacy actions (like clearing cookies), which was valuable for applications requiring persistent state, such as e-commerce and online authentication. (’823 Patent, col. 2:30-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system) and 6 (method). (Compl. ¶52).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- One or more processors configured to receive a network resource request from a client device.
- The request corresponds to a "first cookie of a first type" that was previously stored on the client by causing the client to initiate a set of network resource requests, which in turn caused representative data to be stored.
- A "second cookie of a second type" was stored during a different previous network session.
- 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."
U.S. Patent No. 11,562,402 - "Advertising Model," issued January 24, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies inefficiencies in typical online advertising models where advertisers bid a single amount for an impression or click, without accounting for the differing quality or purchase intent of the user being targeted. (’402 Patent, col. 1:19-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a tiered advertising system where bids are based on user "quality." The system determines a "quality level" for a user profile based on factors like the likelihood of a conversion. (’402 Patent, col. 3:2-13). It specifically describes a process of identifying when a user's "need" for a product in one category has been met, and then determining a new quality level based on that event, which informs the display of subsequent ads. (’402 Patent, col. 5:15-65; Fig. 3). Advertisers can place tiered bids, paying different amounts for users of different assessed quality.
- Technical Importance: This model allows advertisers to allocate their budgets more efficiently by bidding more for high-value users who are more likely to convert and less for users with lower purchase intent, creating a more sophisticated ad auction environment. (’402 Patent, col. 7:30-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 10 (system), and 19 (computer program product). (Compl. ¶62).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Determining a "first quality level" for a user profile based on an event likelihood.
- Determining an indication of interest in a first category, followed by a determination that the "need" for that category has been met.
- Based on the need being met, determining an indication of interest in a second, related category.
- In response to the need being met, determining a "second quality level" associated with the user.
- Displaying an advertisement based on at least one of the determined quality levels.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Home Depot System," which is alleged to comprise Defendant's e-commerce website (homedepot.com), mobile applications, and the "Orange Apron Media" advertising platform. (Compl. ¶¶51, 61).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused system is an integrated online and physical retail ecosystem that uses a network of servers to manage customer data, track user behavior, and facilitate online shopping and advertising. (Compl. ¶¶12, 19). The system is alleged to cause client devices to download and execute JavaScript files, such as "cookie-utils.min.js," to manage user information. (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "cookie-utils.min.js" file being loaded by a browser visiting homedepot.com. (Compl. p. 11, ¶28). The "Orange Apron Media" platform is described as a service through which advertisers can place ads within the Home Depot System. (Compl. ¶61). The complaint alleges this integrated online platform is a key part of Defendant's business strategy and a significant source of revenue. (Compl. ¶13).
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 that was caused to be stored to the client device during a first previous network session | Defendant's servers receive requests from users whose browsers have previously been caused to store data (e.g., JavaScript files, browser history entries) by the Home Depot System. | ¶21 | col. 15:34-40 |
| wherein the first cookie of the first type was caused to be stored to the client device at least in part by causing the client device to initiate a set of network resource requests determined during the first previous network session | The Home Depot System causes client devices to download specific files (e.g., "cookie-utils.min.js") and visit certain URLs, which are determined by Defendant's servers. | ¶21, ¶28 | col. 4:37-41 |
| wherein the client device initiating the set of network resource requests caused data representative of the set of network resource requests to be stored at the client device | The act of downloading the files or visiting the URLs results in data being stored in the client's browser cache or history log. A screenshot shows various assets being downloaded from assets.thdstatic.com. |
¶21, ¶28; Compl. p. 10 | col. 4:50-56 |
| wherein a second cookie of a second type different from the first type was caused to be stored at the client device during a second previous network session | The system allegedly causes a second, different type of data (e.g., a URL in the history log versus a file in the TIF cache) to be stored in a separate session. | ¶21 | col. 15:47-50 |
| 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 client device browser storage area | It is alleged that the different types of "cookies" (e.g., a cached file vs. a history entry) are stored in different browser storage areas (e.g., the TIF area vs. the history cache). | ¶21 | col. 15:50-54 |
'402 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant's in-store servers and other computers perform the step of "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" via the Orange Apron Media platform (Compl. ¶24, ¶61). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused system performs the antecedent steps of claim 1 required to generate these distinct quality levels.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions ('823 Patent): A central dispute may be whether the data allegedly stored by the Home Depot System—such as a JavaScript file in a browser's cache and a URL in its history log—can be properly construed as two different "types" of "cookies" residing in two "different" browser storage areas, as required by the claims.
- Technical Questions ('402 Patent): The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the accused system uses the claimed quality levels. A key question will be whether discovery reveals that the "Orange Apron Media" platform actually performs the specific, sequential logic of Claim 1: determining a first quality level, identifying a "need" as "met," and then determining a second quality level in response to that specific event.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term ('823 Patent): "cookie"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’823 Patent hinges on whether data stored by Defendant's website, such as JavaScript files or history entries, qualifies as a "cookie" under the patent's definition. The claim requires two different "types" of cookies, making the scope of this term critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification introduces the term "cache cookie" to refer to data stored in a browser's history cache or Temporary Internet Files (TIFs) area, explicitly distinguishing it from "traditional cookies" and suggesting the term is not limited to the standard HTTP cookie protocol. (’823 Patent, col. 5:11-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims use the word "cookie" without the "cache" modifier. A party could argue that this, combined with the specification's repeated contrast with "traditional cookies," implies a specific function or structure that is not met by any arbitrary file stored in a browser's cache. (’823 Patent, col. 5:18-24).
Term ('402 Patent): "second quality level... determined in response to determining that the need... has been met"
- Context and Importance: This phrase establishes a specific causal relationship that is the core of the asserted inventive process. Infringement requires not just two quality levels, but that the second is calculated as a direct consequence of the first "need" being fulfilled.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes quality measures as being influenced by a wide variety of "user context information," which could be argued to encompass any update to a user's profile over time. (’402 Patent, col. 4:38-61).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "in response to" suggests a specific triggering event. The specification provides a concrete example where a user's searches for cameras (the need) are followed by searches for lenses, indicating the camera need was met and a new quality assessment is required. (’402 Patent, col. 5:21-40). This may support an interpretation requiring a direct, logical link between the "need met" event and the calculation of the second quality level.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by providing customers with the Home Depot website and mobile apps and instructing them to use the system (e.g., by creating accounts), and by soliciting advertisers to use the Orange Apron Media platform. (Compl. ¶¶53-54, 63-64, 66). It alleges contributory infringement by providing software (e.g., JavaScript code) that is a material part of the patented inventions and lacks substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶58, 68).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Defendant's alleged knowledge gained from a prior lawsuit involving the same parties and patents, filed in 2023. (Compl. ¶¶57, 59, 67, 69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional and technical scope: Does the accused system's alleged use of browser cache and history log entries meet the specific claim requirements of two different "types" of "cookies" in two "different" browser storage areas, or is this an attempt to read the claims onto the general operation of modern websites?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's "Orange Apron Media" platform performs the specific, sequential logic required by the '402 patent's claims—calculating a second, distinct quality level specifically "in response to" a user's "need" being met—or does the platform use a more generic targeting algorithm that does not map to this claimed process?
- The allegation of a prior lawsuit raises a significant question regarding willfulness: The extent to which the earlier litigation placed Defendant on notice will be a central factor in determining potential liability for enhanced damages, should infringement be found.