DCT
4:21-cv-00258
Gravel Rating Systems LLC v. Kohl's Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gravel Rating Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Kohl’s Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 4:21-cv-00258, E.D. Tex., 03/29/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Kohl's conducts substantial business in the district and has regular and established places of business (i.e., department stores) within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, which features a system for user-submitted product ratings and reviews, infringes a patent related to a network-based "knowledge filter."
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for collecting, organizing, and displaying user-generated ratings and commentary on a network to help other users filter large amounts of information.
- 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
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-10-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,590,636 Priority Date (Provisional) |
| 2009-09-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,590,636 Issued |
| 2021-03-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,590,636 - "Knowledge Filter"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,590,636 ("the ’636 Patent"), "Knowledge Filter," issued September 15, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art network-based information systems like "threaded discussion" forums, noting that there was no reliable way to determine the usefulness of a contribution, no easy method to organize posts logically, and that systems became unwieldy and difficult to search as the volume of posts grew (Compl. ¶9; ’636 Patent, col. 1:37-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "self-organizing knowledge base" that allows a group of users to collaboratively build and filter information (’636 Patent, col. 1:15-22). The system receives information items, collects user-submitted ratings and comments on those items, and then allows other users to sort and rank the information based on various criteria derived from the collective user feedback (’636 Patent, Abstract). This is intended to allow individual users to find the "most reliable and/or valuable information" consistent with their own personal criteria (’636 Patent, Abstract). The patent uses a "Cookbook" with recipes as a descriptive example of the knowledge base structure (Compl. ¶14; ’636 Patent, col. 7:12-23).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the utility of large, user-generated datasets by creating a democratic, ratings-based filtering mechanism, moving beyond simple chronological organization or top-down moderation (Compl. ¶11; ’636 Patent, col. 3:4-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claims 4-5 and 8-9 (Compl. ¶27). These claims depend from independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A computer-implemented method comprising:
- a computer system storing items of information in a database, where the items are received from a first set of remote computer systems;
- the computer system receiving submissions (including a rating and/or a comment) regarding the stored items from a second set of remote computer systems;
- the computer system storing the received submissions in the database;
- the computer system receiving a request from a remote computer to view a listing of the stored items ordered according to a selected criterion that pertains to the stored submissions; and
- responsive to the request, the computer system providing data to the remote computer to display the listing according to the selected ordering.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its infringement analysis is described as "preliminary" (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are Defendant's website (kohls.com) and the computer systems that host it, which provide a method for collecting and storing user ratings and comments for products (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides an example product page for an air fryer (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused website performs a "network-based knowledge sharing method for collecting and storing ratings and comments associated with each item of information" and allows users to "access and sort such items of information according to selected rating criteria" (Compl. ¶28). The alleged purpose of this functionality is to "drive sales of its electronic devices and other products and services" by allowing consumers to exchange information and ratings (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "Exhibit B" containing an exemplary infringement analysis, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶29). The following chart is constructed based on the narrative allegations in the complaint and an analysis of the asserted claims against the described functionality of the accused website.
’636 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computer system storing items of information in a data-base, wherein the items are received from a first set of two or more of a plurality of remote computer systems... | Kohl's computer systems host a database of products for sale, which are "items of information" (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 13:29-34 |
| the computer system receiving, via the computer network, submissions regarding two or more particular ones of the stored items of information... | Kohl's website receives submissions from users, such as star ratings and text reviews, regarding the products offered for sale (Compl. ¶27). | ¶15, ¶27 | col. 13:35-44 |
| ...wherein each submission includes a rating and/or a comment... | The user-submitted reviews on the Kohl's website include ratings (e.g., 1-5 stars) and/or textual comments (Compl. ¶15, ¶27). | ¶15, ¶27 | col. 13:39-41 |
| the computer system storing the received submissions in the database; | Kohl's computer systems store the user-submitted ratings and comments in a database associated with the relevant product (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 13:45-46 |
| the computer system receiving a request from a given one of the plurality of remote computer systems to view a listing of the stored items... according to... a selected criterion... | A user visiting the Kohl's website can request to view product reviews and select a sorting option, such as "newest," "highest rated," or "most helpful," which constitutes a "request" based on a "selected criterion" (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 13:47-53 |
| ...that pertains to the stored submissions; and | The available sorting criteria (e.g., date of submission, rating value) directly pertain to the data contained within the stored user submissions (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 13:52-53 |
| responsive to the request, the computer system providing a first set of data to the given remote computer system... to display said listing of the stored items according to said ordering. | In response to a user's sort selection, Kohl's web servers transmit data to the user's browser that causes the product reviews to be displayed in the requested order (Compl. ¶15, ¶27). | ¶15, ¶27 | col. 13:54-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a collection of e-commerce product listings and reviews constitutes a "knowledge base" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that the patent’s repeated use of a "Cookbook" and "recipes" as its primary embodiment (’636 Patent, col. 7:12-23) limits the claims to a more collaborative, topic-oriented information-sharing context, rather than a commercial product review system.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement but does not specify which sorting criteria on the Kohl's website are accused of meeting the claim limitation "pertains to the stored submissions." The analysis will depend on the specific sorting options offered (e.g., 'most helpful,' 'highest rated') and whether they are based on the user submissions as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "knowledge base"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's title and throughout the specification but not in the asserted claims. However, its interpretation will likely influence the scope of related terms like "items of information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is central to whether a standard e-commerce product catalog falls within the patent's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes a general "method and system for sharing knowledge" and organizing "items of information" without express limitation to a specific subject matter, suggesting a broad applicability (’636 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses a "Cookbook" containing "recipes" as the "example embodiment" to describe the system's structure and function (’636 Patent, col. 7:12-23). An argument could be made that this context limits the scope of the invention to a collaboratively built, topic-specific repository rather than a commercial product-and-review database.
The Term: "a selected criterion that pertains to the stored submissions"
Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1 defines the required relationship between the user's sorting request and the underlying user-generated data. The infringement analysis for any sorting feature on the accused website will turn on whether the basis for the sort "pertains to the stored submissions."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses sorting by various criteria, including aggregate rating scores and the ratio of positive to negative comments, suggesting the criterion can be a calculated value derived from the submissions, not just a raw data point within a single submission (’636 Patent, col. 5:15-24; col. 14:1-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific language of claim 1 requires the criterion to pertain to "the stored submissions." An argument could be made that this requires the sorting to be based directly on the content of the submissions themselves (the rating, the comment text, the date) and not on metadata or subsequent user actions (like "helpfulness" votes, which could be characterized as new submissions about the original submissions).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead facts supporting willful infringement, such as alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’636 Patent. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the body of the complaint lacks a specific count or factual basis for willfulness (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's concept of a "knowledge base," which is exemplified as a collaborative "Cookbook," be construed to read on a commercial e-commerce platform where users post product reviews? The resolution will likely depend on whether the claims are limited by the specification's primary embodiment.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming the patent covers the accused system, does the specific sorting and display functionality of the Kohl's website operate in a manner that satisfies the ordering limitations of claim 1? This will require discovery into how criteria like "most helpful" or "highest rated" are calculated and whether they "pertain to the stored submissions" as required by the claim.