DCT
2:26-cv-00013
Stratacor LLC v. Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stratacor LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (Cayman Islands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rubino IP
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00013, E.D. Tex., 01/08/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce websites and associated applications infringe a patent related to providing relevant digital content or advertising based on an analysis of a user's viewing activity on a webpage.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves monitoring user interaction with specific regions of digital media to infer interest and deliver targeted content, a foundational technique in the modern digital advertising and e-commerce industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-02 | ’115 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-02-22 | ’115 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-12-19 | Date of snapshot of accused Alibaba.com website provided in complaint |
| 2026-01-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,257,115 - "Providing Additional Digital Content or Advertising Based on Analysis of Specific Interest in the Digital Content Being Viewed"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,257,115, "Providing Additional Digital Content or Advertising Based on Analysis of Specific Interest in the Digital Content Being Viewed," issued on February 22, 2022 (’115 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the challenge of providing targeted follow-on content or advertising to a user viewing complex web pages with varied information, noting a need to know precisely what content a user is looking at and what holds their primary interest (’115 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to solve this by first dividing an internet page into distinct "regions." It then tracks a user's interaction with each region, such as how long a pointing device (e.g., a mouse cursor) remains in a location. Based on this activity, the system compiles textural information like frequently used words and phrases. This information is then "semantically" compared to a database of available content, and content with a high degree of similarity is selected and displayed to the user as a targeted ad, link, or popup (’115 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aims to refine content targeting by analyzing user behavior within specific page sections, moving beyond simple page-level keyword analysis to a more granular, interaction-based model of user interest (’115 Patent, col. 2:37-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- dividing one or more internet pages into regions using a processing unit, where the regions are defined by a form of the content;
- monitoring and tracking the frequency and duration of a viewer's viewing of each region using input devices;
- wherein the tracking comprises monitoring the location and duration of a pointing device within a region, and where intervals of the pointing device not moving for longer than a pre-defined threshold are not recorded;
- compiling textural information for each region;
- for each region: sorting out words or phrases of no value for determining user interest and compiling a list of the most frequently used words and phrases from the remainder;
- for regions viewed above a specified threshold, semantically comparing the most frequently used words and phrases to those of other internet content that can be supplied; and
- selecting and providing relevant internet-based content with semantic similarity above a pre-specified threshold value.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities include Alibaba.com, AliExpress.com, Taobao.com, Tmall.com, 1688.com, Lazada.com, Daraz.com, Youku.com, Youku.tv, and all associated applications (Compl. ¶16). The complaint's specific allegations focus on the Alibaba.com website.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused websites are e-commerce platforms that perform a method of supplying relevant internet-based content to viewers (Compl. ¶17). This functionality is alleged to include dividing webpages into regions corresponding to products for sale, monitoring user viewing activity through tools like "cursor Event Listeners," compiling lists of frequently used words and phrases based on this activity, and using this information to provide targeted advertisements (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint provides a screenshot of the Alibaba.com homepage, depicting a marketplace with numerous product listings, to illustrate the accused environment (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
'115 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| dividing the one or more internet pages into regions using a processing unit, wherein the regions are defined by a form of the content of the one or more internet pages | Alibaba.com divides internet pages into regions, such as "sections of the webpages that relate to a for sale product." | ¶17 | col. 9:52-54 |
| monitoring and tracking the frequency and duration of viewing by the at least one viewer of each region using input devices functionally connected to the processing unit | Alibaba.com monitors and tracks the frequency and duration of viewing of each region using input devices. The complaint provides a screenshot showing various product listings in distinct regions. | ¶18; Compl. p. 5 | col. 9:55-58 |
| wherein the tracking of the frequency and duration of viewing by the viewer comprises at least one of monitoring the location and duration time of a pointing device within the confines of each region, and intervals where the pointing device does not move for periods longer than a pre-defined threshold time period are not recorded | Alibaba.com monitors the location and duration of a pointing device (cursor) using "cursor Event Listeners," and alleges that periods where the cursor does not move are not recorded. A screenshot of developer tools lists various event listeners, including "mousemove." | ¶18; Compl. p. 6 | col. 9:58-64 |
| compiling the textural information for each region using the processing unit | Alibaba.com performs the step of compiling textural information for each region. | ¶19 | col. 9:65-66 |
| for each region: sorting out words or phrases that are pre-determined to be of no value for determining user interest; compiling a list of the most frequently used words and phrases from words that were not sorted out | Alibaba.com sorts out words of no value and compiles a list of the most frequently used words and phrases that were not sorted out. | ¶19 | col. 10:1-5 |
| for regions viewed by the viewer above a specified threshold viewing frequency and duration, semantically comparing the most frequently used words and phrases to the most frequently used words and phrases of internet based content that can be supplied to the viewer | For regions viewed above a threshold, Alibaba.com semantically compares the most frequently used words and phrases from the viewed content to other internet-based content. | ¶19 | col. 10:6-11 |
| selecting and providing relevant internet based content with semantic similarity above a pre-specified threshold value to the at least one viewer on a display screen as one of: a display of one of the relevant content and a link... a new page, and a popup | Alibaba.com selects and provides relevant content, such as targeted advertisements, to the user via popups or other display methods. | ¶19 | col. 10:12-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "semantically comparing." The question will be whether the accused system's alleged method of "compiling a list using monitored mouse activity" and comparing it to other content meets the definition of "semantic" comparison, or if a more sophisticated natural language processing-based comparison is required by the patent (’115 Patent, col. 6:21-27).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the complaint can substantiate the negative limitation that "intervals where the pointing device does not move for periods longer than a pre-defined threshold time period are not recorded." The complaint's reference to "cursor Event Listeners" (Compl. ¶18) alleges the monitoring function, but does not directly provide evidence for the non-recording aspect of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "semantically comparing"
Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the invention's logic for matching viewed content with new content. Its construction will determine the technical threshold for infringement, defining whether simple keyword or topic matching suffices or if a more advanced, meaning-based analysis is required.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the comparison can be based on the "frequency of words and phrases" and their correlation between the viewed page and the additional content, which may support a less complex, statistical interpretation (’115 Patent, col. 4:11-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 6, a dependent claim, details a specific method for semantic comparison involving "statistical tokenizing and parsing," an "associative database," and "conceptual graph formalism" (’115 Patent, col. 10:30-44). The specification also incorporates by reference a PhD dissertation on "NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING" (’115 Patent, col. 1:26-30), which could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring sophisticated linguistic analysis.
The Term: "regions... defined by a form of the content"
Context and Importance: This term defines the units into which a webpage is divided for analysis. Its scope will determine what constitutes a valid "region" and whether the accused product's page structure (e.g., product listing blocks) meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that regions could be based on "a particular element of html, for example a title or a frame" or simply "a rectangular region of the content" (’115 Patent, col. 3:61-64). This language supports a flexible definition encompassing various logical or visual divisions of a page.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as subsections of a news feed (e.g., a "sports news" button versus a "world news" button), which might be argued to require functionally distinct and pre-defined sections rather than merely repetitive content blocks (’115 Patent, col. 4:33-42).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by supplying its products to customers and end-users with instructions on how to operate the infringing technology via its website and product literature (Compl. ¶23). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused components are material to the invention, not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’115 Patent at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶22). The complaint also asserts a theory of pre-suit willful blindness, alleging that Defendant adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others to avoid knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "semantically comparing," which is tied in the specification to advanced natural language processing concepts, be construed to cover the alleged functionality of compiling and comparing lists of words based on mouse activity?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be required to prove the negative limitation that the accused system does not record periods of pointing device inactivity, as claimed, and is the mere presence of "mousemove" event listeners sufficient to meet the broader "monitoring" requirement?
- The case may also hinge on the causal link between the alleged user monitoring and the content selection: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the specific user viewing behavior tracked by Alibaba's system is the direct input for compiling and comparing keywords to select the targeted advertisements, as the patent requires?