DCT
2:24-cv-00968
Droplets Inc v. Ford Motor Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Droplets, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ford Motor Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00968, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Defendant maintaining a "principal office of Ford in the State of Texas" in Plano, as well as regular and established places of business through its authorized and ratified dealerships within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s public-facing website and its interactive features infringe a patent related to methods for delivering dynamic graphical user interfaces from remote applications over low-bandwidth connections.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses challenges from the early internet era, enabling parts of a webpage to be updated with fresh data without requiring a full page reload, a foundational concept for modern interactive web applications.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff highlights prior successful litigations involving the same patent, including jury verdicts against retailers Sears, Overstock, and Kmart in the Eastern District of Texas (2015) and a $15 million verdict against Yahoo! Inc. in the Northern District of California (2022). The complaint also notes that the patent-in-suit survived an inter partes reexamination, which concluded in 2011 with the issuance of a certificate confirming the patentability of all original claims and adding new claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-14 | ’745 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-02-03 | ’745 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007-08-03 | Inter Partes Reexamination of ’745 Patent Filed |
| 2011-03-01 | Reexamination Certificate for ’745 Patent Issued |
| 2021-11-18 | Access Date for Accused Product Screenshots |
| 2021-11-20 | ’745 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2025-05-01 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745 - System and method for delivering a graphical user interface of remote applications over a thin bandwidth connection, Issued February 3, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of early web technology, particularly over slow "dial-up" connections where any change to a webpage, such as updating a stock price, required a time-consuming full-page reload (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). This made it difficult to create responsive, interactive applications and maintain the application's state if a user navigated away from a page (’745 Patent, col. 3:20-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a client computer retrieves initial content from a server that includes embedded program code. This code establishes a separate connection to an application server, which then delivers "presentational information" to update portions of the user interface without reloading the entire page. The system also describes storing an "interactive link" on the client computer, allowing a user to re-launch the remote application and restore its previous operating state at a later time (’745 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-67).
- Technical Importance: This client-server architecture enabled the creation of dynamic and interactive web applications that felt responsive even over low-bandwidth connections, a key step toward the rich internet applications common today (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more method claims, focusing on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’745 Patent recites a method with the following key steps:
- retrieving, in response to a request of a client computer, over a first communication connection first information having computer program code embedded therein from a first host computer.
- executing the embedded computer program code for establishing a second communication connection to a second host computer.
- sending second information relating to the operating environment of the client computer, from the client computer to the second host computer.
- retrieving, over the second communication connection, third information including presentation information for presenting an application and fourth information.
- presenting, at the client computer, the application and the fourth information based upon the presentational information.
- storing, on the client computer, an interactive link for selectively re-establishing the second communication connection to the second host computer for retrieving the third information and presenting the application and the fourth information.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as the Ford Website (www.ford.com) and its associated interactive features, including "Search Suggest, Recent Searches/Search History, Menu, Location Selection, Dealership Selection, Builder, Find Charger, and Sign In features" (Compl. ¶ 28).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these features provide dynamic interactivity that constitutes infringement. For example, a screenshot of the "Location Selection" feature shows a modal dialog box for zip code entry that overlays the existing page content, suggesting a partial page update rather than a full reload (Compl. p. 10). Another screenshot of the "Find Charger" tool shows auto-complete suggestions appearing as a user types, another example of dynamic functionality (Compl. p. 13). The complaint asserts that Ford is a major global vehicle manufacturer and that www.ford.com is its largest website, operating in a market where such interactive features are critical for customer engagement (Compl. ¶ 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’745 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| retrieving, in response to a request of a client computer, over a first communication connection first information having computer program code embedded therein... | Performed automatically by the execution of Ford's HTTP commands and code when a user's browser requests a webpage from Ford's servers. | ¶32 | col. 4:50-54 |
| executing the embedded computer program code for establishing a second communication connection to a second host computer | The user's browser executes Ford's code (e.g., HTML, CSS, JavaScript) to establish communication with Ford's servers for receiving dynamic content. | ¶31; ¶32, fn. 2 | col. 4:55-60 |
| sending second information relating to the operating environment of the client computer, from the client computer to the second host computer | Caused automatically by the execution of Ford's HTTP commands and code, which transmit information about the client environment to Ford's servers. | ¶32 | col. 8:62-67 |
| retrieving... third information including presentation information... and presenting... the application and the fourth information... | Ford's servers send interactive links and other information to the client computer, which are then used to present dynamic applications and content. | ¶31, ¶33 | col. 4:60-65 |
| storing, on the client computer, an interactive link for selectively re-establishing the second communication connection... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 5:5-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Divided Infringement: The complaint anticipates a divided infringement defense, as some method steps are performed by the user's browser while others are performed by Ford's servers. Plaintiff argues that Ford is liable for the entire method because the steps performed by the client computer are done at Ford's "direction or control" and because Ford "conditioned the benefit" of using the website on the client computer's performance of those steps (Compl. ¶ 33). This raises the question of whether Ford's control over the user's browser meets the legal standard for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the architecture of the accused Ford website, which likely relies on modern technologies like AJAX and distributed content delivery networks, maps onto the patent's structure of distinct "first" and "second" host computers.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "interactive link"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis, particularly for the "storing" limitation of Claim 1. Whether the accused system "stores" an "interactive link" as claimed will be a central dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could determine whether modern web session management techniques fall within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the link's function as being for "selectively re-establishing the second communication connection," which could arguably encompass any client-side data (e.g., a cookie, session token, or JavaScript object) that enables a subsequent connection to an application server to restore state (’745 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment where the "interactive link" is a downloadable "graphical representation" (e.g., an icon) associated with a file containing connection information (’745 Patent, Fig. 4D; col. 16:4-14). A defendant might argue the term should be limited to such a user-visible, downloadable object.
The Term: "a first host computer" and "a second host computer"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires retrieving information from two distinct host computers. The infringement case depends on mapping this claimed two-server architecture to Ford's system. Practitioners may focus on this distinction to argue a technical mismatch between the claims and modern, highly distributed web architectures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The terms could be interpreted functionally, where the "first host computer" is any server or system that delivers the initial webpage, and the "second host computer" is any server or system that provides subsequent dynamic data or application logic via APIs or other remote calls.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts a "Content Provider" (30) and a separate "Application Server" (40) as distinct entities (’745 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant could argue that the claims require two physically or logically separate server systems as depicted, a structure potentially not present in Ford's integrated web platform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including under a "direction or control" theory to attribute the actions of end-users' browsers to Ford (Compl. ¶ 33). It does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’745 Patent. The complaint alleges this knowledge arises from Droplets' prominent prior litigations and from Ford's membership in the defensive patent aggregator RPX, which in 2013 allegedly acquired sub-license rights to Droplets' patents and provides updates on relevant patents to its members (Compl. ¶ 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central legal issue will be one of attribution in divided infringement: Can Plaintiff prove that Ford "directs or controls" the actions of its users' web browsers to the degree necessary to be held liable for performing every step of the claimed method, or will the infringement theory fail because the actions are divided between two separate actors?
- A key technical and legal issue will be one of claim scope and technological evolution: Can the term "interactive link," as described in a patent from the dial-up era, be construed to cover the modern session management and state-persistence mechanisms used by the accused Ford website? Similarly, does Ford's distributed web architecture embody the distinct "first host computer" and "second host computer" required by the claims?