DCT

4:23-cv-00930

Push Data LLC v. Planet Fitness Franchising LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00930, E.D. Tex., 10/18/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple places of business in the district, including physical locations in Frisco and Allen, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Planet Fitness mobile application infringes three expired patents related to geographical web browsing and location-based push notifications.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational methods for using a mobile device's geographic location to trigger the delivery of relevant digital content from a server, a core feature of many modern mobile applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit all claim priority to an application filed in 1998 and expired in 2018. As such, this action is for the recovery of past damages only. The complaint also incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239 to bolster the disclosure of concepts related to virtual sessions and push services.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 Issues
2007-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 Issues
2007-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 Issues
2015-02-01 Accused Planet Fitness App first developed and copyrighted (approximate)
2018-11-17 All Patents-in-Suit expire (approximate)
2023-10-18 Complaint Filed

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued June 6, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, technology did not exist to "automatically control a network application such as a web browser by selectively filtering broadcast information using a packet filter" based on a user's location (Compl. ¶14; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-62). Existing methods required users to manually select an icon or navigate to access information specific to a local area (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes systems and methods for a mobile device to maintain a primary network connection to a server while using information received on an auxiliary channel (e.g., local broadcast packets or GPS data) to control information flow on that primary connection (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). A mobile unit receives locally broadcast packets, uses a "packet filter" to determine if they are of interest, and if so, automatically accesses a web page or related information from the server, effectively allowing a user to "surf the web" by physically moving through different geographic areas (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:31-44).
  • Technical Importance: The invention proposed a shift from manual, user-initiated navigation to an automated, context-aware system where a device’s physical presence triggers access to relevant network-based information (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 22 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶82).
  • Independent Claim 22 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Identifying an information item that comports with a user interest indication.
    • Causing a wireless "communication push message" to be sent to a mobile unit, where the message contains information about "further content available for downloading" in response to a user selection.
    • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit after the user makes a selection, which indicates a request to download the further content.
    • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the client-request packet.
    • The push message itself acts as a notification, allowing the user to selectively download the content only if interested.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶84).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued November 6, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’395 Patent, the invention addresses the lack of systems for automatically providing location-relevant network content to a mobile user (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-64). The background highlights the coarseness of using cellular "cell data" for positioning and the need for more granular, automated control based on a user's specific location and interests (’844 Patent, col. 3:23-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a client-server system where a mobile unit can receive location-specific push notifications. The invention contemplates using dual-mode devices (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi) and routing pushed messages to specific applications on the device (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 40). A key aspect is the ability to resume a "virtual session" between an application and its server to download content after a push notification is received (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-15).
  • Technical Importance: The invention outlines an architecture for targeted, app-specific push notifications that trigger client-server synchronization, a model that became foundational to modern mobile application ecosystems (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 25, and 37, along with dependent claims 32 and 46 (Compl. ¶103).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Causing a wireless "communication push message" to be sent to a mobile unit.
    • The message includes an "application-program identifying field" to identify the target application.
    • The message also contains information about "further content available for downloading" in response to a user selection.
    • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit after the user makes a selection.
    • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the request.
    • The push message acts as a notification, and is explicitly not a server response sent via an interactive client-server session.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶105).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued May 1, 2007.

Technology Synopsis

The patent shares a common specification with the other patents-in-suit. It addresses the problem of delivering location-relevant information to mobile devices by describing methods where a device's geographical position, determined via GPS or local broadcasts, controls the flow of information from a network server (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 18; ’811 Patent, Abstract). The solution enables a "geographical web browser" functionality where moving through physical space triggers the display of corresponding digital content (’811 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶124).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method where a remote server receives requests from a mobile device, responds with the availability of content, receives a second automatically generated request, and then delivers the content, all within an environment having both cellular and Wi-Fi networks (Compl. ¶¶ 122-123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the Planet Fitness mobile application available on platforms such as Apple's App Store and Google Play (Compl. ¶66).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused functionality in general client-server terms. It alleges that at relevant times, the Planet Fitness app operated via a method where a remote server receives a first request from the mobile device, responds that content is available, receives a second, automatically generated request from the device, and then couples the available content to the device (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 101, 122).
  • This alleged method is performed in an environment with at least two wireless network types, such as cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 102, 123). The complaint alleges that original versions of the app were developed around February 2015 and that the accused features began to be commonly used in the industry by 2014 (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 100, 121).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint refers to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, and F) that were not included in the publicly filed document. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

  • Summary of Infringement Theory for '395 and '844 Patents:
    The complaint presents a nearly identical infringement theory for all asserted patents. The core allegation is that the Planet Fitness app, in conjunction with its servers, performs a multi-step data synchronization method (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 101, 122). This process is alleged to begin with a first request from the mobile app to a server. The server then responds, indicating that new or updated content is available. In response to this notification, the app allegedly generates a second request automatically, without user interaction, to pull the content. Finally, the server is alleged to respond to this second request by providing the available content to the app (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 101, 122). This entire sequence is alleged to occur in an environment where the mobile device can connect to at least two types of wireless networks, such as a cellular network and a Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 102, 123).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "request," as used in the claims, can be read on the various background communications initiated by a modern mobile application for routine data synchronization. Further, it raises the question of whether a standard push notification from a service like Apple's or Google's constitutes a "response that there is content available" as required by the plaintiff's infringement narrative.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's description of a two-request sequence is highly generalized. A key technical question will be what specific process in the Planet Fitness app's operation corresponds to this alleged sequence. Does the complaint provide evidence that the app’s background data refresh or push notification handling performs this specific multi-step exchange, or is there a functional difference between the app's actual operation and the claimed method?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "application-program identifying field" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the claims read on modern push notification systems. The infringement theory depends on routing a push message to the correct application. Practitioners may focus on this term because the mechanism for app identification in 1998-era technology may differ fundamentally from the OS-mediated routing used in modern iOS and Android systems.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification, via incorporation of the '239 patent, discloses using such a field so a handset can determine "to which one of a plurality of installed applications the push message should be directed," suggesting a functional definition (Compl. ¶40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments described in the incorporated '239 patent, which detail a "Virtual Session," might be used to argue that the "field" must be part of a specific packet structure within that disclosed architecture, potentially narrowing its scope to exclude the distinct packet structures used by modern, OS-level push notification services.

  • The Term: "communication push message ... [that] is not a server response message sent via a user-interactive client-server session" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to distinguishing the claimed invention from a simple, interactive request-response exchange. The case may turn on whether the accused notifications are truly "pushed" in the manner claimed or are functionally part of an ongoing, albeit asynchronous, client-server session.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes pushing messages "without the need to maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer at all times," which could support construing any non-interactive, server-initiated message as meeting the limitation (Compl. ¶19; ’395 Patent, col. 23:11-14).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus on "virtual sessions" that can be resumed could suggest that the "push message" has a specific role in reactivating a suspended session (’844 Patent, col. 2:7-15). A defendant may argue that modern push notifications, which often deliver self-contained data or simply trigger a generic background refresh, do not perform this specific session-resumption function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate language for infringement by "causing to be used" products, but it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 78, 99, 120).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶65). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit willfulness only, not pre-suit willfulness. Plaintiff also requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 25).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can Plaintiff provide evidence that the Planet Fitness app's standard background data refresh and push notification functionalities perform the specific, multi-step sequence of (1) a first client request, (2) a server response indicating content availability, (3) a second, automatically generated client request, and (4) the final delivery of content, as recited in the complaint’s narrative and arguably required by the claims?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope in the modern context: Can claim terms drafted for 1998-era mobile technology, such as "application-program identifying field," be construed broadly enough to encompass the architectures of modern mobile operating systems, where the OS itself acts as a mandatory intermediary for routing notifications to applications?
  • A final evidentiary question will be one of causation and damages: Given that the patents expired in 2018, the dispute centers entirely on past conduct. The analysis will focus on the functionality of app versions that existed between 2015 and 2018 and what, if any, value this specific patented functionality contributed to the overall Planet Fitness service.