DCT

2:25-cv-00084

DataCloud Tech LLC v. Designer Brands Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00084, E.D. Tex., 01/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates several retail outlets within the district and conducts substantial business with customers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform, including its mobile application and website infrastructure, infringes two patents related to methods for organizing digital information and for enabling anonymous communication over a network.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for managing the lifecycle of digital information for consumers and for providing enhanced privacy and anonymity during online network sessions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that by a letter dated December 14, 2020, Defendant was informed of Plaintiff's patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents. This allegation of pre-suit notice may be used to support a claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063
2000-04-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959
2003-11-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Issued
2004-02-03 Certificate of Correction for '063 Patent Issued
2007-04-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Issued
2020-12-14 Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of patents
2025-01-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - "Data Organization And Management System And Method," Issued Nov. 18, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty for consumers and businesses to collect, organize, and manage an overwhelming amount of information, such as product manuals, service guides, and warranties, which often arrive in disparate, non-digital formats ('063 Patent, col. 1:15-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where "Providers" (e.g., retailers) send pre-categorized digital "information packs" to a recipient's centralized "User Data Repository." The system automatically files the information based on a "category identifier." The user can then create "custom categories" for more personalized organization, and the system can use this feedback to automatically sort subsequent information from the same provider ('063 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-4:52).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to streamline the management of product-related information by shifting the initial organizational burden from the end-user to the information provider, creating a more structured and automated digital filing system ('063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 4 (Compl. ¶25).
  • The essential elements of Claim 4 include:
    • Storing information in an "information pack."
    • Associating the information pack with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier.
    • Communicating the information pack over a network to the user's data repository.
    • Locating the information pack in a reserved location corresponding to the category identifier.
    • A further step of creating a "custom location" in the user data repository.
    • Placing the information pack in the custom location.
    • Sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station that stores the custom category and provider identifier to automate future sorting.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement allegations are made for "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network," Issued Apr. 24, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that standard internet protocols (HTTP) expose a user's identity (e.g., IP address), creating privacy risks like unwanted solicitations and tracking via "cookies." It further notes that while proxy servers offer a solution, the proxy itself becomes a fixed alternate identity that can be tracked (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system using three main components—a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder"—to create a temporary, anonymous communication session. A client's request is intercepted by the deceiver; the controller determines the true destination and assigns a forwarder for the session; the client is then routed through the forwarder, which masks the client's IP address from the destination server, and vice versa, for the duration of the session (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-49).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide more robust user anonymity by creating a dynamic, session-specific virtual domain, preventing both the client and the destination server from being aware of each other's true network address (’959 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • In response to a client request, setting up a "forwarding session" between the client and a destination server.
    • The session employs a "forwarder" to transfer packets between the client and server.
    • The session is implemented such that "neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder."
    • A "controller" communicates with the forwarder and a domain name server (DNS) to resolve the destination website's name.
    • A "deceiver" communicates with the controller and the client, receiving the client's initial request and initiating the controller's query to the DNS.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the '959 Patent (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "DSW app," the website www.DSW.com, and the underlying "DSW systems or supporting multiple domain names on the same website infrastructure" (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the DSW app and website function as an e-commerce platform for selling shoes and accessories (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24). Figure 2 presents a screenshot of the DSW app's page on the Google Play Store, showing user interface examples (Compl. p. 6). Functionally, the complaint asserts the DSW app provides information to users in a way that creates a user-specific data repository (i.e., an account) (Compl. ¶25). The DSW website infrastructure is alleged to use a network of servers, including subdomains such as stores.dsw.com and giftcards.dsw.com, that manage client connections through a series of forwarding and control steps (Compl. ¶35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’063 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
storing information to be provided in an information pack; The DSW app stores information to be provided to a user in an information pack. ¶25 col. 6:27-35
associating with said information pack at least a user destination address associated with one of a multiplicity of user data repositories each of said user data repositories associated with at least one of said users and a category identifier; The app associates this pack with a user's destination address (e.g., user account) and a category identifier. ¶25 col. 6:55-65
associating with said information pack a provider identifier; The app associates a provider identifier with the information pack. ¶25 col. 6:30-32
communicating said information pack by means of a network to said user data repository associated with the user destination address; The app communicates the pack via a network to the user's data repository. ¶25 col. 6:22-26
locating said information pack in a location of said user data repository...reserved for information corresponding to a category to which said category identifier corresponds; The app locates the information pack in a specific location within the user's repository corresponding to the category identifier. ¶25 col. 7:1-9
creating a custom location in said user data repository; placing said information pack in said custom location; associating a custom category identifier with said information pack; The app allows for the creation of a custom location, places the pack there, and associates a custom category identifier with it. ¶25 col. 9:12-29
sending a custom category signal to a processing station...said data storage means storing together said custom category identifier and said provider identifier, and said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent...information packs...placing...in said custom location. The app sends a signal to a processing station that uses the custom category and provider ID to automatically place subsequent information packs from that provider into the custom location. ¶25 col. 24:1-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by reciting the language of Claim 4 without providing specific factual evidence for how the DSW app performs these steps (Compl. ¶25). A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that a user of the DSW app can create a "custom location" that generates a "custom category signal" to a "processing station" for the purpose of automatically sorting future information from DSW.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a standard e-commerce user account, which primarily contains order history and preferences, can be construed as a "user data repository" and "processing station" system as described in the '063 patent, which contemplates a more general-purpose hub for managing diverse information like warranties and manuals (’063 Patent, col. 1:31-43).

’959 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
setting up a forwarding session between the client...and a destination server...the forwarding session employing a forwarder disposed between the client and the destination server to forward packets... The DSW website infrastructure sets up a forwarding session, using a "front-end server switch" as the "forwarder" to handle packets between the user's device and the WWW server (Compl. ¶35). ¶35 col. 8:50-58
wherein the forwarding session is set up and implemented such that neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder; The complaint alleges this is met because the destination server has a direct TCP connection with a local IP address different from the client's IP, making both unaware of the forwarder. ¶35 col. 8:62-67
employing a controller configured to communicate with the forwarder and a domain name server, wherein the controller queries the domain name server to resolve the name of the destination website...and initiates communication with the forwarder... A "firewall" acts as the "controller," querying a DNS to resolve DSW's various subdomains (e.g., stores.dsw.com) and initiating communication with the front-end server switch. ¶35 col. 8:68-col. 9:4
employing a deceiver configured to communicate with the controller and the client, wherein the deceiver receives the request by the client to initiate communication with the destination website and initiates the controller to query the domain name server to resolve the name of the destination website... A "router" acts as the "deceiver," receiving the user's request to connect to a DSW domain and triggering the "firewall" (controller) to begin the DNS query process. ¶35 col. 9:5-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does a conventional, load-balanced web architecture, which uses routers, firewalls, and front-end switches for performance and security, meet the specific definitions of the patent's "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder"? The patent's stated purpose for this architecture is to provide client anonymity (’959 Patent, col. 2:25-29), which raises the question of whether DSW's infrastructure, likely designed for different purposes, falls within the claim scope.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that "neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder"? The infringement theory appears to rely on interpreting standard network address translation (NAT) and load-balancing techniques as meeting this specific "unawareness" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’063 Patent:

  • The Term: "custom location"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the second half of Claim 4 hinges on the DSW app providing the ability to create a "custom location" that triggers automated sorting. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no factual detail of this feature existing in the DSW app, making its definition critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a user can broadly "create custom categories in the Private Area" to modify how information is organized, without specifying a rigid mechanism (’063 Patent, col. 4:56-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed descriptions depict the creation of a custom category (e.g., "My Wheels" in Fig. 5) as an explicit user action that results in a new, named folder, which then triggers a communication back to a provider or processing station to affect future deliveries (’063 Patent, Fig. 1, elements 40, 44; col. 9:12-29).

For the ’959 Patent:

  • The Term: "deceiver"
  • Context and Importance: The "deceiver" is a unique and essential component of the claimed three-part system for providing anonymity. The complaint equates it to a "router" (Compl. ¶35). Whether a standard router performs the functions of a "deceiver" will be a central point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the deceiver "receives the request by the client...and initiates the controller to query the domain name server" (’959 Patent, col. 9:7-9). This could be argued to describe a function that a router in a modern network performs.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Summary of the Invention states the system uses "DNS Misdirection" and that the deceiver "works the same as a standard name server, except when a query is received from a client, the deceiver allows the controller to supply the information" (’959 Patent, col. 2:36-42). This suggests a more specialized function than a generic packet-forwarding router.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement, stating that Defendant "performs a method" (Compl. ¶25) and its "website infrastructure meets each and every step" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not plead facts sufficient to analyze a distinct claim for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents via a letter dated December 14, 2020 (Compl. ¶17). This allegation forms the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement, should infringement be found.

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

  • A central issue for the '063 patent will be one of functional mapping: does a standard e-commerce user account in the DSW app perform the specific, multi-step data management functions required by Claim 4—particularly the creation of a "custom location" that actively influences a "processing station" to automate future data sorting—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A core question for the '959 patent will be one of definitional scope and purpose: can the components of a conventional web hosting architecture (routers, firewalls, switches), designed for performance and security, be construed to meet the patent's specific definitions of a "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder," whose claimed purpose is to create a transient communication session for client anonymity?
  • A key evidentiary question will be what technical evidence is presented to prove the accused systems operate as alleged. The complaint's infringement allegations largely track the claim language, and the court will likely require a detailed factual showing of how the accused app and website infrastructure actually function at a technical level.