DCT

2:24-cv-00694

H2 Intellect LLC v. Home Depot Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00694, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district and have committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application and related infrastructure for in-store navigation and curbside pickup infringe a patent related to the exclusive delivery of content within defined geographic areas.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using geofencing to deliver location-specific content or functionality to mobile devices, a central component of modern retail strategies aiming to bridge digital and physical shopping experiences.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or patent office proceedings, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-05-01 ’296 Patent Priority Date
2013-04-30 ’296 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-28 Date of article describing Home Depot's mobile app geofencing
2025-01-09 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,433,296 - "Exclusive Delivery of Content within Geographic Areas"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,433,296, "Exclusive Delivery of Content within Geographic Areas", issued April 30, 2013 (’296 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the state of the art as delivering content either via a broad broadcast to all devices in an area or in direct response to a user request, methods described as "less than perfect" for targeted content delivery. (’296 Patent, col. 1:22-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized content delivery platform where "sponsors" can reserve exclusive or semi-exclusive rights to deliver content within specific, defined geographic areas. (’296 Patent, col. 2:45-54). When a mobile device running a registered application enters a reserved area, the platform selects and provides content from the corresponding sponsor, effectively creating a system for location-aware, targeted digital content delivery. (’296 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this patented approach provides a technical solution for customizable, near-real-time content delivery and for resolving competing claims for exclusivity in a given geographic area, a problem unique to the mobile environment. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶32).
  • Independent Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions to perform a method, the essential elements of which include:
    • Registering a plurality of application programs for use with a content delivery platform.
    • Establishing a plurality of perimeters defining geographic areas.
    • Maintaining records of "content delivery reservations" that associate sponsors with specific geographic areas and application types.
    • Receiving and processing requests from sponsors to reserve interests in geographic areas.
    • Receiving content from sponsors to be delivered.
    • Receiving a request for content from a registered application.
    • Selecting and providing content from a sponsor to the application based on the content delivery reservations.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the Home Depot mobile application, its supporting infrastructure (including its "Store Mode" and "Curbside Pickup" features), and mobile devices used by Home Depot employees (the "hdPhone"). (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Home Depot mobile application uses geofencing to automatically switch to an "in-store mode" when a customer enters a retail location. (Compl. ¶36, p. 15). This mode provides functionalities such as in-store maps and a "Product Locator" to guide shoppers to specific aisles and bays. (Compl. p. 13, Example Image 1.2). The complaint also describes a curbside pickup feature that uses location sharing to alert store associates of a customer's arrival in the parking lot. (Compl. p. 17, Example Image 1.10).
  • The complaint alleges these features are part of a "common compute environment" with a "common API" designed to integrate the customer's online and in-store experience. (Compl. p. 18, Example Image 1.11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 11. The allegations in paragraphs 35-44 correspond to the elements of this system claim.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
at least one instruction to register a plurality of application programs for use with a content delivery platform... Defendants' system allegedly provides for the registration of application programs, such as the Home Depot app, for use with a content delivery platform. ¶35 col. 14:41-46
at least one instruction to establish a plurality of perimeters defining respective geographic areas... The system allegedly uses geofencing to establish perimeters around Home Depot stores and parking lots for features like "Store Mode" and curbside pickup. ¶36 col. 14:47-49
at least one instruction to maintain at least one record indicating content delivery reservations associating each of a plurality of sponsors with specific registered application program types and at least one of the plurality of geographic areas... Defendants' system allegedly maintains records associating a sponsor (Home Depot) with specific geographic areas (its stores) for the delivery of location-based services and content via its app. ¶37 col. 14:50-56
at least one instruction to receive, from the sponsor, content to be delivered to registered application programs having target locations contained within the selected one of the plurality of geographic areas... The system allegedly receives content, such as in-store maps and product location data, to be delivered to the mobile app when a user is within a store's perimeter. ¶41 col. 14:60-64
at least one instruction to receive a request from a registered application program for content to be used within the registered application program... The Home Depot app allegedly requests content or services from the backend system upon detecting that the user has entered a geofenced area. ¶42 col. 15:23-26
at least one instruction to select content associated with at least one of the plurality of sponsors to be delivered to the registered application program... The system allegedly selects location-specific content (e.g., the map for that particular store) to deliver to the app based on the user's location. ¶43 col. 15:27-35
at least one instruction to provide the selected content to the registered application program. The backend system allegedly provides the selected in-store map, product locations, or curbside pickup status to the user's mobile app. ¶44 col. 15:36-39

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint's theory appears to treat The Home Depot as the "sponsor" of content for its own application. This raises the question of whether a single retailer acting as its own sponsor for its own stores falls within the scope of a patent that describes a system for managing a "plurality of sponsors" and resolving their competing interests. (’296 Patent, col. 5:46-59).
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of dispute is whether the in-store maps and product location data provided by the accused "Store Mode" function as the "content" described in the patent. A court may need to determine if this functional, navigational information is technically equivalent to the advertising and promotional content used as a primary example in the ’296 Patent specification. (’296 Patent, col. 1:13-17).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "sponsor"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether Home Depot, as the owner of the app and the retail stores, can be considered a "sponsor" under the patent's terms. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification frequently describes a system managing multiple, potentially competing, third-party sponsors, which may not align with the accused single-entity ecosystem.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "sponsor" in a way that excludes a first party. The term is used generally to refer to an entity that wishes to provide content based on a reserved geographic area. (’296 Patent, col. 2:22-25).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's repeated discussion of resolving competing claims, time-sharing access, and providing a platform for multiple sponsors (as depicted in Figure 1 with Sponsors A, B, and C) could support an interpretation that "sponsor" refers to third-party entities utilizing a common platform, not the platform owner itself. (’296 Patent, col. 5:46-59).

The Term: "content"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "content" is critical to determining whether the accused functionality infringes. The dispute may turn on whether functional, navigational data like an in-store map qualifies as "content" in the context of the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that sponsors can provide "advertisements or other content," suggesting the term is not strictly limited to advertising. (Compl. ¶24; ’296 Patent, col. 3:30-31).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and numerous examples are heavily focused on the delivery of "advertisements." A party could argue that the term, read in light of the specification, should be construed to mean promotional material rather than functional application data like a map or location status. (’296 Patent, col. 1:13-17, col. 3:55-58).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Defendants provide the accused application and supporting infrastructure while directing and instructing customers and employees to use the location-based features in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint pleads willfulness based on notice of the ’296 Patent occurring, at the latest, upon the filing of the complaint. (Compl. ¶33). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the patent's framework, which describes a platform managing a "plurality of sponsors" with potentially competing interests, read on a closed ecosystem where a single company (Home Depot) acts as its own "sponsor" to provide content within its own application and for its own retail locations?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical scope: does the functional, navigational data provided by the accused application's "Store Mode" and "Curbside Pickup" features constitute the "delivery of content" as contemplated by the patent, or is the term "content" limited by the patent's specification to promotional or advertising material?