DCT
4:21-cv-00962
Implicit LLC v. Lowes Companies Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Implicit, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 4:21-cv-00962, E.D. Tex., 05/02/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, specifically citing retail store locations.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website and associated computer systems infringe a patent related to methods for managing and organizing data objects within a computer namespace using flexible hierarchies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns database management systems that allow for data to be organized and presented in multiple, different hierarchical views based on dynamic queries, a technique relevant to e-commerce product filtering and categorization.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the patented technology stems from development efforts in 2002. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-12-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,856,185 |
| 2014-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,856,185 Issued |
| 2022-05-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,856,185, “Method and system for attribute management in a namespace,” issued October 7, 2014.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional computer namespaces, where data objects have predefined attributes and the logical view of the data is inflexibly tied to its physical organization (Compl. ¶9; ’185 Patent, col. 1:56-65). This constrains how users can find and organize information.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system that allows for more flexible data management by enabling attributes to be dynamically defined after an object is created and, crucially, by allowing for the generation of different hierarchical "views" of the data based on varying query specifications (’185 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:66-2:14). For example, a collection of video objects could be organized by "genre/director" in one view and by a different hierarchy in another, all based on attributes of the same underlying objects.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a more powerful and customizable way to query and present large collections of data objects, a functionality central to modern information retrieval systems like e-commerce catalogs (Compl. ¶9, 11).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Storing information implementing a namespace of objects with attribute values.
- Receiving and adding an object associated with a user-defined attribute value.
- Receiving first and second queries that each indicate attribute values and a hierarchical organization for the results.
- Generating first and second sets of access data organized according to the respective first and second hierarchies.
- Transmitting the sets of access data.
- A final limitation requires that the second hierarchy organizes a given attribute at a different level than the first hierarchy.
- The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions to assert other claims (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's website, specifically its e-commerce platform, and the underlying computer systems that operate it (Compl. ¶20).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method for storing and managing information for a plurality of objects within a namespace (Compl. ¶21). It does not provide specific technical details on the architecture or operation of the Lowe's platform.
- The complaint alleges the commercial importance of the accused website by citing its global traffic ranking on Alexa.com (Compl. ¶11).
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. ¶21). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint and the language of claim 1.
- ’185 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing, at a computer system, information that implements a namespace having a plurality of objects... | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities store information for a namespace of objects, but does not detail the specific storage mechanism or data structure. | ¶21 | col. 8:32-37 |
| receiving, by the computer system, an object associated with a user-defined attribute value; | The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding how the accused system receives objects with user-defined attribute values. | ¶10 | col. 8:38-40 |
| adding, by the computer system, the object associated with the user-defined attribute value to the namespace; | The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding how the accused system adds objects to its namespace. | ¶10 | col. 8:41-43 |
| receiving, by the computer system, first and second queries... wherein the first query indicates relative levels of object attributes within a first hierarchy... and wherein the second query indicates relative levels of object attributes within a second hierarchy... | The complaint does not provide specific examples of "first and second queries" or the "hierarchies" they allegedly define within the accused system. | ¶10 | col. 8:44-52 |
| generating, by the computer system... respective first and second sets of access data usable to access objects... that have one or more attribute values that match... | The complaint alleges this function is performed but offers no specific examples of the "first and second sets of access data" generated by the accused system. | ¶10 | col. 8:53-59 |
| transmitting, by the computer system, the first and second sets of access data to one or more second computer systems... | The complaint does not specify how or to which "second computer systems" (e.g., end-user browsers) the accused system allegedly transmits distinct sets of access data. | ¶10 | col. 8:60-63 |
| wherein the first and second sets of access data are organized using the respective first and second hierarchies, and wherein the second hierarchy includes a given attribute at a level that is different from a level of the given attribute in the first hierarchy. | The complaint does not provide facts or evidence demonstrating that the accused system organizes data in two different hierarchies where an attribute's level changes between them. | ¶10 | col. 8:64-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: A central issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce through discovery to show that the accused e-commerce platform performs each specific step of the claimed method. The complaint's allegations are general and lack specific, publicly available evidence mapping the accused system's functions to the claim limitations.
- Technical Questions: The case raises the question of whether the functionality of a typical e-commerce filtering system (e.g., allowing a user to sequentially apply filters for "brand," then "price," then "rating") meets the claim requirement of receiving "first and second queries" that each define a complete "hierarchy."
- Scope Questions: The final "wherein" clause, requiring an attribute to be at a different level in a second hierarchy compared to a first, presents a significant interpretive and factual hurdle. The litigation may turn on whether the accused system's operation can be shown to generate two such distinct, structured, and organized data sets. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hierarchy" / "first hierarchy" / "second hierarchy"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purported novelty of creating multiple, different organizational views of the same data. Its construction will determine whether the output of a standard e-commerce filtering system can be considered a "hierarchy" as claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that objects "may be organized hierarchically based on values of certain attributes," which could be argued to encompass any organization based on attributes, such as a filtered list. (’185 Patent, col. 3:8-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses creating a "view namespace" with a "root object," and figures like Figure 8 depict explicit, tree-like structures. This suggests "hierarchy" may require a more formal data structure than a simple, transient list of search results (’185 Patent, col. 6:49-52; Fig. 8).
The Term: "user-defined attribute value"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is critical to determining what action constitutes the "receiving" and "adding" steps. The dispute will likely be whether this requires the creation of a new attribute category or merely the input of a value into a pre-existing one.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself simply recites receiving an object "associated with a user-defined attribute value," which could be read to mean any value supplied by a user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background emphasizes overcoming the limitations of "predefined attributes," and the specification describes allowing an "additional attribute, such as title, to be dynamically added to the object." This may support an interpretation that "user-defined" refers to attributes that were not part of the object's original schema (’185 Patent, col. 1:50-52, 1:56-57).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement by Defendant's "using its website" (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it does request a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," seeking an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and interpretation: Can the term "hierarchy," as used and described in the ’185 patent, be construed to read on the dynamic, user-driven filtering and sorting functionalities of a modern e-commerce website, or is it limited by the specification to more formal, persistent, and distinct "view namespace" data structures?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Assuming a favorable claim construction, what evidence will emerge from discovery to demonstrate that the Lowe's platform actually performs the complete, multi-step method of Claim 1, particularly the complex final limitation requiring the generation of two different hierarchical data sets where a specific attribute changes its organizational level between them?