Push Data LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01119, E.D. Tex., 12/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business in the district, including a specific Costco warehouse location in Plano, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Costco mobile application infringes three expired patents related to geographical web browsing and location-based push notification technologies.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using a mobile device's geographical location to automatically filter and deliver relevant digital content, a foundational concept in modern location-aware mobile applications.
• Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit share a common specification and claim priority to an application filed in 1998. The complaint notes that all asserted patents expired on or about November 17, 2018, indicating the suit is for past damages only.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Issued: June 6, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a deficiency in prior art mobile technology where users had to manually navigate applications or select icons to find information specific to their local area (Compl. ¶14; ’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64). Existing systems lacked the ability to automatically control a network application, such as a web browser, by using locally broadcast information that was selectively filtered (Compl. ¶14; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes systems and methods that allow a mobile device to maintain a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) while using information received on an auxiliary channel (e.g., local Wi-Fi or GPS) to control the flow of information on that primary connection (’395 Patent, Abstract; ’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). This enables the device to automatically receive and display geographically relevant content—creating a "geographical web browser"—by filtering information based on the user's physical location rather than manual input (Compl. ¶18).
• Technical Importance: The invention represented a method for shifting from coarse, manual location-based interactions to more precise, automated, and context-aware content delivery for mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 4 and 22 (Compl. ¶¶82, 86).
• Independent Claim 4 Elements:
  • Causing a wireless "communication push message" to be transmitted to a mobile unit.
  • The push message includes an "application-program identifying field" and information about "further content available for downloading".
  • The push message is distinct from a standard server response in an interactive client-server session.
  • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit in response to a user selection, requesting to download the further content.
  • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the request.
  • The push message functions as a notification, allowing the user to selectively download the content.
• Independent Claim 22 Elements:
  • Identifying an information item that comports with a "user interest indication".
  • Causing a "communication push message" related to that item to be transmitted to a mobile unit, with the message containing information about further content.
  • The push message is distinct from a standard server response in an interactive client-server session.
  • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit in response to a user selection, requesting to download the further content.
  • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the request.
  • The push message functions as a notification, allowing the user to selectively download the content.

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

• Issued: November 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As the ’844 Patent shares its specification with the ’395 Patent, it addresses the same technical problem: the lack of automated, location-aware content filtering and delivery for mobile network applications (Compl. ¶14; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a system for using a mobile device's location, derived from sources like GPS or local broadcast domains, to control information flow from a central server (’395 Patent, Abstract). The specification contemplates the mobile unit using two different wireless interfaces, such as cellular and Wi-Fi, to roam between access types while maintaining the service (Compl. ¶¶38, 53; ’395 Patent, col. 4:26-5:42).
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for enabling more dynamic and automated location-based services that could function across different network types, a precursor to modern mobile application behavior (Compl. ¶¶16-17, 39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶¶103, 107).
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A remote server system receiving a "first request" from a handheld device via a "first wireless packet network access station".
  • The remote server transmitting a "server response" indicating content availability.
  • The remote server receiving a "second request" from the device, which is "automatically generated" by the device in response to the server response, without user action.
  • The second request is coupled via a "second wireless packet network access station".
  • The remote server couples the available content to the device via the second wireless packet network access station.

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

• Issued: May 1, 2007 (Compl. ¶110)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a common specification with the other asserted patents, discloses technology to overcome the limitations of manual, location-unaware mobile browsing (Compl. ¶14). The patented solution describes methods for using a mobile device's location to automatically trigger the delivery of relevant information from a server, enabling a "geographical web browser" functionality where content is filtered and presented based on the user's physical presence in a location (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶¶124, 128).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Costco App, operating with its backend servers, performs a method where a server receives a first request from a device, responds with content availability, receives a second automatically generated request from the device, and then delivers the content, all within an environment of at least two wireless networks (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi) (Compl. ¶¶122-123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Costco App," a mobile device application for Apple and Android platforms, operating in conjunction with Defendant's servers (Compl. ¶¶66, 78).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused system performs a multi-step client-server communication method (Compl. ¶¶80, 101, 122). This method is broadly described as a remote server receiving a first request from a mobile device, the server responding with a notification of available content, the server then receiving a second, automatically generated request from the device, and finally, the server coupling the content to the device (Compl. ¶¶80, 101, 122). The complaint provides a screenshot from an app store indicating the Costco App was first released on or about June 21, 2012 (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Exhibits D, E, and F) but does not attach them to the public filing. The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

• '395 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 4 and 22 but does not provide the referenced claim chart exhibit (Exhibit D) (Compl. ¶82). The narrative theory suggests that the Costco App's use of push notification technology infringes these claims (Compl. ¶79). The asserted claims are directed to a method where a server sends a "communication push message" that serves as a notification, contains an application identifier, and refers to further downloadable content. A subsequent "client-request packet" from the mobile unit, triggered by user selection, prompts the server to send the content (’395 Patent, cl. 4, 22). The complaint's general allegations regarding push technologies suggest this sequence is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶78-79).

• '844 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 but does not provide the referenced claim chart exhibit (Exhibit E) (Compl. ¶103). The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the Costco App and its associated servers perform a method involving a "first request" from the device, a "server response" indicating content availability, and a second, "automatically generated" request from the device that triggers the final delivery of content (Compl. ¶101). This alleged sequence is claimed to occur in an environment with at least two wireless access points, like cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶102). The asserted claims recite this specific client-server interaction protocol (’844 Patent, cl. 1).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the general client-server communications and push notifications allegedly used by the Costco App meet the specific, ordered steps required by the asserted claims. For example, does the Costco App's operation map to the distinct "first request", "server response", and "second request" sequence of '844 Patent Claim 1, or does it use a more conventional data synchronization method?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, "upon information and belief," that the accused method involves a second request that is "automatically generated by the handheld device" (Compl. ¶101). A key question will be what technical evidence exists to support this characterization, distinguishing it from a standard user-initiated action or a pre-scheduled background refresh.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically generated" ('844 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’844 Patent hinges on a two-request sequence where the second request is "automatically generated" by the device in response to the server's notification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between an event-triggered, automatic request and other non-user-initiated requests (e.g., timed background syncs) could be dispositive.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for this term. A party may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any request generated by the device's software without direct, contemporaneous user input for that specific request.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the second request to be generated "in response to the server response." A party may argue this language imposes a direct causal link, requiring the device software to generate the second request specifically because it received the server's availability notification. The specification's description of a web page being accessed when a packet passes through a filter may support an interpretation of a direct, event-driven action (’395 Patent, col. 10:45-64).

• The Term: "communication push message" ('395 Patent, cl. 4, 22)

• Context and Importance: This term is central because the claims assign it specific characteristics, such as containing an "application-program identifying field" and being distinct from a response in a "user-interactive client-server session". The case may turn on whether modern, platform-mediated push notifications (e.g., from Apple or Google) fall within the scope of this term as claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses concepts like "unsolicited pushed messages" that can trigger application downloads, aligning with the general function of modern push notifications (Compl. ¶17; ’395 Patent, col. 23:28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 4 requires the push message to contain "information related to the further content available for downloading." A party may argue this requires more than a simple alert or badge update, and instead necessitates a specific address or data reference for the content. The specification supports this by describing pushed information that could "include an address or reference to server-side content" (’395 Patent, col. 7:34-36).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the plaintiff substantiate its "information and belief" allegations with technical evidence, such as network traffic analysis, that demonstrates the Costco App's client-server architecture performs the specific, multi-step request-and-response sequences recited in claims like Claim 1 of the '844 patent?
• A key question will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can the term "communication push message", as claimed in the '395 patent with specific functional requirements, be construed to cover modern push notifications that are mediated by third-party platforms like Apple and Google, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and the information conveyed?