Push Data LLC v. Hennes & Mauritz Ab

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hennes & Mauritz AB (dba H&M) (Swedish Corporation)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00929, E.D. Tex., 10/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant H&M maintains online places of business accessible within the district, such as its mobile applications on the Apple App Store and Google Play, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s H&M mobile application infringes three expired patents related to location-based web browsing and push notification technologies.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for using a mobile device's geographical location to automatically control and deliver relevant network information, a foundational concept for modern location-aware applications.
• Key Procedural History: All three patents-in-suit expired in November 2018, before the complaint was filed. Consequently, Plaintiff’s potential remedies are limited to damages for past infringement. The complaint also notes a prior patent case in the same district involving H&M as a defendant, suggesting the company has experience with litigation in this venue.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 - GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, technologies for obtaining location-specific information required a user to manually select an icon or navigate a browser application to access data for a local area (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64). Existing systems lacked the ability to use precise location data, such as from GPS, to automatically control the flow of information on a network connection like the internet (’395 Patent, col. 2:65-3:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a mobile unit maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular data) and uses information from an auxiliary channel (e.g., a local radio broadcast or a GPS receiver) to control the data it receives over that primary connection (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-30). As depicted in Figure 1, the mobile unit's physical movement into different geographical locations can trigger the automatic retrieval of relevant web pages or other data, effectively allowing a user to "surf the web" by navigating geographically.
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for automated, location-aware content delivery without requiring constant user interaction, presaging modern geo-fenced marketing and location-based services (Compl. ¶63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 22 as exemplary of its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶82).
• Essential elements of Claim 22:
  • A method that includes identifying an information item that comports with a user interest indication and is associated with the mobile unit's location.
  • Causing a "communication push message" to be sent to the mobile unit, which acts as a notification and contains information about further content available for download.
  • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit "in response to the user selection," where the request is to download the further content.
  • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the client-request packet.

U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 - GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit share the same substantive written description (Compl. ¶10, n.1). The problem is therefore consistent with that described for the ’395 Patent: existing technologies required manual user navigation to obtain local information and lacked automated control of network applications based on location (Compl. ¶14; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution, as described in the shared specification, involves a system that receives user preferences and location data to identify and transmit relevant information to a user's mobile device via a push message (Compl. ¶19; ’395 Patent, col. 4:25-42). This enables functionality like a "geographical web browser" that updates content as the user moves.
• Technical Importance: The invention helped pioneer location-based services and targeted data dissemination to mobile devices, improving upon prior art that relied on coarse cell-tower location data or manual user navigation (Compl. ¶12, ¶16-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25, among others (Compl. ¶103).
• The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims of the ’844 Patent, as its referenced infringement exhibit was not attached. Therefore, a detailed breakdown of the claim elements is not possible based on the provided documents.

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 - GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS

• Technology Synopsis: Consistent with the other patents-in-suit, the ’811 Patent addresses methods for delivering geographically relevant information to mobile devices. It solves the problem of prior art systems requiring manual navigation for local content by using a device's location to automatically trigger the delivery of relevant data, such as via push notifications (Compl. ¶14-15; ’811 Patent, col. 2:62-3:2).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶124).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the H&M App of infringement based on its alleged use of client-server communications over cellular and WiFi networks to perform location-based push notifications and deliver targeted content to users (Compl. ¶120, ¶122-123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the H&M mobile application developed for electronic devices, as available on the Apple App Store and Google Play, operating in conjunction with Defendant's servers (Compl. ¶66, ¶78).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the H&M app performs a method involving a multi-step client-server exchange. This process allegedly includes a remote server receiving a first request from a mobile device, the server responding with the availability of content, the server receiving a second, automatically generated request from the device, and the server then coupling the available content to the device (Compl. ¶80, ¶101, ¶122). This functionality is alleged to operate over at least two wireless networks, such as cellular and WiFi (Compl. ¶81, ¶102, ¶123). The complaint asserts that the patented technology presents significant commercial value for companies like H&M but provides no further market context (Compl. ¶62).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement analysis in Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not attached to the pleading. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint body for the ’395 Patent. An analysis for the ’844 Patent is not possible, as the claim text was not provided.

’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central dispute may arise from the "user selection" limitation. Claim 22 requires a client-request packet to be sent "in response to the user selection." However, the complaint alleges that the corresponding second request from the accused H&M app is "automatically generated" (Compl. ¶80). This raises the question of whether an automated background process satisfies a claim limitation that, on its face, suggests an affirmative user action.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory describes a general client-server data exchange. A point of contention may be whether this general process meets the specific, ordered steps of the claim. For instance, questions may be raised as to whether the server's initial response is a "communication push message" in the sense required by the claim or simply a standard response within an active data session.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "in response to the user selection" (from claim 22 of the ’395 Patent)
• Context and Importance: This term's construction appears central to the infringement dispute. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether an "automatically generated" request (Compl. ¶80) can be considered a response to a "user selection." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a direct, contemporaneous user action (e.g., tapping on a notification), the complaint's allegation of an automated process may fail to meet the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that a user's initial action, such as navigating to a specific type of website (e.g., for restaurants), can cause a "packet filter mask" to be downloaded that controls later, automatic filtering of local broadcast data (’395 Patent, col. 10:40-50). A party could argue this shows that an initial "user selection" can set parameters for subsequent automated actions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides examples of direct user interaction, such as when a "user clicks a mouse upon a hyperlink" (’395 Patent, col. 12:60-62). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, affirmative action by the user to trigger the download of content after a notification is received.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit only "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶65). This allegation supports only a claim for post-filing infringement and does not provide a factual basis for pre-suit willfulness. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body lacks specific factual allegations of egregious conduct that would typically support such a finding (Compl. p. 25).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused H&M App's alleged "automatically generated" content request (Compl. ¶80) satisfy Claim 22's requirement for a request made "in response to the user selection," or does this represent a fundamental mismatch between the claimed user-driven process and the accused automated process?
• A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can adduce to map the general client-server interactions described in the complaint to the specific, ordered steps of the asserted claims, particularly given the absence of claim charts or technical diagrams in the pleading.
• A central remedy-related question will be the calculation of past damages. Given that the patents expired in November 2018 and the accused app was allegedly released in or about 2017, the infringement window for each patent is narrow—less than two years for the earliest-issued patent—which may raise questions regarding the scope of any potential damages award.