DCT
2:24-cv-00970
Droplets Inc v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Droplets, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00970, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Walmart conducts continuous and systematic business in the district, including operating retail stores, distribution centers, and fulfillment centers, and because the accused www.walmart.com website is used by and directed to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, www.walmart.com, infringes a patent related to delivering interactive graphical user interfaces over low-bandwidth connections.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for updating parts of a webpage with new information from a server without requiring a full page reload, a foundational technique for modern dynamic web applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent survived an inter partes reexamination that concluded in 2011, confirming the patentability of all original claims and adding new claims. The complaint also highlights prior successful jury verdicts for infringement of the same patent against retailers Sears, Overstock, and Kmart in 2015, and against Yahoo! Inc. in 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-14 | ’745 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2004-02-03 | ’745 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2007-08-03 | Inter partes reexamination of ’745 Patent filed |
| 2011-03-01 | ’745 Patent - Reexamination Certificate C1 issued |
| 2015-XX-XX | Favorable jury verdict against Sears, Overstock, and Kmart |
| 2021-11-17 | Date of access for accused product screenshots in complaint |
| 2021-11-20 | ’745 Patent - Expiration Date |
| 2022-03-29 | Favorable jury verdict against Yahoo! Inc. |
| 2025-05-01 | 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: In the late 1990s, web pages were largely static; to update any information (like a stock price), the entire page had to be reloaded, which was slow and inefficient over dial-up connections (Compl. ¶¶11-12). This made it difficult to create dynamic, real-time applications like stock trading tools, as the data would be outdated by the time the page refreshed (’745 Patent, col. 3:18-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system where a small piece of code (a "droplet") is sent to a user's computer. This code establishes a persistent connection to an application server, allowing for small amounts of data to be sent to update specific parts of a user interface without reloading the entire webpage (’745 Patent, col. 8:5-15, FIG. 1). The system also allows for an "interactive link" to be saved on the user's computer, which can re-establish the connection to the application server and restore the application's previous state on demand (’745 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the development of rich internet applications (RIAs) that feel as responsive as desktop software, a significant departure from the static web pages of the era (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more method claims, with a specific focus on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26, 27).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- Retrieving first information with embedded code over a first connection and executing that code to establish a second connection to a host computer.
- Sending second information about the client's operating environment to the host computer.
- Retrieving third information (presentation information for an application) and fourth information over the second connection.
- Presenting the application and fourth information on the client computer.
- Storing an "interactive link" on the client computer to selectively re-establish the second connection.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Walmart Website (www.walmart.com) and its associated subdomains and webpages, referred to collectively as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies numerous interactive features of the Walmart website, including "Search Suggest," "Recent Searches," "Filter," "Lists," "Item Options," "Menu," "Location/Store Selection," "Sign In," and "Checkout" (Compl. ¶24).
- These features are alleged to provide dynamic functionality, such as offering search suggestions as a user types or updating product filters, without requiring a full page reload (Compl. ¶13, ¶24). One screenshot provided in the complaint shows search suggestions appearing in a dropdown as the user types "car" into the search bar (Compl. p. 9).
- The complaint alleges that Walmart is the world's largest retailer and its website receives up to 120 million unique visitors a month, incorporating the accused technology without authorization (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
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 and executing the embedded computer program code for establishing a second communication connection to a second host computer | A user's web browser requests the Walmart website, which returns information including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code. This code is automatically executed by the browser to establish connections with Walmart's servers. | ¶28 | col. 29:3-9 |
| sending second information relating to the operating environment of the client computer, from the client computer to the second host computer | The user's browser automatically sends information about its operating environment (e.g., browser type, settings) to Walmart's servers via HTTP commands. | ¶28 | col. 29:10-12 |
| retrieving, over the second communication connection, third information including presentation information for an application and fourth information... | The browser retrieves data from Walmart's servers to present interactive features like the "Search Suggest" or "Filter" functions. A screenshot shows a filter menu being presented to a user. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶29 | col. 29:13-18 |
| presenting, at the client computer, the application and the fourth information based upon the presentational information | The browser displays the interactive website features, such as the list of user-created "Lists" shown in a screenshot provided in the complaint. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶29 | col. 29:19-22 |
| storing, on the client computer, an interactive link for selectively re-establishing the second communication connection... | The complaint's theory for this element is not explicitly detailed with a specific corresponding feature, but it is encompassed in the general allegation that all steps of claim 1 are performed. | ¶27 | col. 29:23-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint appears to equate various dynamic website components (e.g., search, filters, lists) with the term "application" as used in the patent. A potential issue is whether these discrete features collectively or individually meet the definition of "an application" as contemplated by the patent, which provides a stock-trading tool as a primary example (’745 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Questions: A key question will concern divided infringement. The method claims require actions by both Walmart's servers ("retrieving," "sending") and the end-user's client computer ("presenting," "storing"). The complaint preemptively argues that Walmart "directs or controls" the user's system through the code it provides, and conditions the benefit of using the website on the user's system performing the claimed steps (Compl. ¶29). The degree of "control" Walmart exerts over the client computer will be a central factual and legal issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "interactive link"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the final step of Claim 1 and is central to the patent's concept of creating a persistent, restorable application state. The definition is critical because infringement requires storing a link that does more than a standard browser bookmark; it must be capable of "selectively re-establishing the second communication connection" to retrieve specific information and present the application. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the claimed invention from conventional web technologies.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the link as being downloadable via a "drag and drop" operation and represented by a graphical icon on the user's desktop, suggesting it could be a file or shortcut created by the browser (’745 Patent, col. 14:35-50).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifies that the file associated with the link contains information for "re-establishing the communication connection 54 to the application server 40," including details of the client's operating environment and the server's network address, which may imply more than a simple URL (’745 Patent, col. 16:38-41, col. 16:56-64).
The Term: "presenting an application"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that features like "Search Suggest" and "Filter" constitute the claimed "application" (Compl. ¶24). The scope of this term will determine whether dynamically updating a portion of a webpage is equivalent to "presenting an application" in the context of the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "applications" can be invoked within a web page to provide functionality, and refers to them in the plural (e.g., "applications 41"), which could support the idea that multiple, smaller functions on a single webpage are distinct "applications" (’745 Patent, col. 8:12-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a self-contained "Stock Watcher" tool with multiple tabs ("Quotes," "Portfolio," "Trade"), suggesting a more complex, integrated set of functions than a simple filter or auto-complete feature (’745 Patent, FIG. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead indirect infringement, focusing instead on a "direction and control" theory for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶29).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement, though it does request enhanced damages in the prayer for relief, which requires a finding of egregious infringement (Compl. p. 16, ¶C). The complaint's recitation of prior successful lawsuits against other major technology and retail companies could be used to argue that Walmart was aware of the patent and the risk of infringement (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of divided infringement: can Droplets prove that Walmart's servers "direct or control" the actions of an end-user's web browser to such a degree that Walmart is liable for performing all steps of the claimed method, even those that technically occur on the user's computer?
- A second key question will be one of definitional scope: does a collection of modern, dynamic website features (like auto-suggest, filtering, and interactive lists) meet the patent's claim limitation of "presenting an application," a term whose primary example in the patent is a full-featured stock-trading tool?
- An evidentiary question will be whether the functionality of the Walmart website includes the storing of an "interactive link" that performs the specific functions required by Claim 1—namely, re-establishing a specific communication connection to restore a prior application state—or if it relies on standard web technologies like cookies and bookmarks that may fall outside the claim's scope.