Joto Inc v. Euromarket Designs Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Joto Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Euromarket Designs, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00754, E.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to a computer-implemented method for matching event recommendations to users based on their interests and social data.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the domain of social networking and recommendation engines, which aim to provide users with relevant suggestions for offline activities and events.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,639,608, "Comprehensive user/event matching or recommendations based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, location," issued May 2, 2017.

U.S. Patent No. 9,639,608 - "Comprehensive user/event matching or recommendations based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, location"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a problem in social networking where users are "inundated with advertisements for products unrelated to the context of what the members are currently viewing," a phenomenon referred to as "ad blindness." (’608 Patent, col. 1:40-47). Existing methods were seen as generating a large amount of "non-relevant information" and failing to effectively promote "real-world (offline) interactions." (’608 Patent, col. 1:50-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a recommendation system that collects user data, event data, and social data from various sources. (’608 Patent, Abstract). It processes this information using a "recommendation engine" that analyzes user interests, including those of "ghost users" (e.g., friends not on the service), and applies a "significance analysis" to generate and rank relevant recommendations for real-world events. (’608 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:26-36). The system aims to create "a real-world social network promoting the connection of people in meaningful interactions." (’608 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
• Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to improve recommendation relevance by contextualizing disparate data sources and focusing specifically on fostering offline connections, a stated limitation of prior art systems. (’608 Patent, col. 1:53-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’608 Patent, identifying "Exemplary ’608 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 12 are the broadest claims in the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a multi-step method comprising:
  • Receiving or collecting user, event, or social data via a network environment.
  • Identifying portions of this data from users or third-party sources.
  • Determining recommendations by calculating a "relevancy score" for the data, where the determination is based on a "significance analysis" that ranks data based on user interests, location, etc.
  • Categorizing the recommendations by applying a "relevancy popularity analysis."
  • Matching the identified data based on the relevancy score.
  • Determining and transmitting recommendation results to the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products in its main body, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context, as these details are allegedly contained within an external exhibit not attached to the pleading itself. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on Plaintiff's specific theories is not possible. The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’608 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’608 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

Based on the language of Claim 1 of the '608 Patent, the core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's products perform a computer-implemented method that: collects data about users and events; calculates a "relevancy score" for potential recommendations through a "significance analysis"; categorizes these recommendations; and ultimately displays matched recommendations to users. (Compl. ¶11; ’608 Patent, col. 10:8-51).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "significance analysis." The question for the court could be whether the accused products' general ranking or filtering algorithms perform the specific ranking function "based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, or location" as required by the claim. (’608 Patent, col. 10:27-33).
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the distinct claimed steps of "calculating a relevancy score," then "categorizing said recommendations by applying a relevancy popularity analysis," and then "matching" based on that score. The analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant's system architecture separates these functions or performs them in a way that maps onto the claim language. (’608 Patent, col. 10:21-44).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "significance analysis"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claims 1 and 12 and describes the core method for determining recommendations. Its construction will be critical, as it may distinguish the claimed invention from conventional recommendation algorithms. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether Defendant's method of ranking content falls within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the analysis ranks data "to be of interest to one or more users based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, or location," which could be argued to encompass a wide range of ranking factors common in the art. (’608 Patent, col. 10:27-33).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the analysis is part of a multi-step process that considers specific inputs, such as "user location, significance to each of the users of the overlapping interests," and other thresholds, potentially narrowing its scope beyond a generic ranking function. (’608 Patent, col. 5:57-62).

• The Term: "ghost users"

• Context and Importance: This term, while appearing in dependent claim 3, is a prominent feature described in the specification and may be relevant to the overall infringement theory. Its construction is important for defining the scope of "social data" used by the system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One might argue the term covers any data about non-users that is inferred from a primary user's social connections or activities.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific definition, describing a "ghost" user 103a as "a friend who has not subscribed or directly provided information to network environment 104, but whose data was obtained because of user 103's engagement with the network environment 104 or social data provider 105." (’608 Patent, col. 4:30-36). This suggests a specific mechanism of data acquisition that could limit the term's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’608 Patent." (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is predicated on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement at least since being served with the complaint and corresponding claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "significance analysis," as claimed in the ’608 Patent, be construed to read on the specific algorithms used by Defendant’s products for ranking and recommending content, or does the patent’s specification impose narrower functional requirements that the accused products do not meet?
2. A second central question will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint itself lacks specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, the case may turn on whether discovery uncovers evidence that Defendant's system architecture performs the discrete, sequential method steps recited in Claim 1—calculating a "relevancy score," separately "categorizing" recommendations via a "relevancy popularity analysis," and then "matching" based on that score.