Push Data LLC v. Exxon Mobile Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: ExxonMobil Corporation (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01120, E.D. Tex., 12/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant ExxonMobil maintains multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Exxon Mobil mobile application for consumer rewards and payments infringes three patents related to location-aware services and methods for delivering targeted information to mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The patents address early methods for enabling "geographical web browsing," where a mobile device's location is used to automatically trigger the display of relevant local information, a foundational concept for modern location-based mobile applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all patents-in-suit descend from a common patent application filed in November 1998. No prior litigation or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

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 that at the time of invention, mobile users had to manually navigate applications or select icons to access information specific to a local area. No technology existed to "automatically control a network application" by using a "packet filter" to selectively process local broadcast information (’395 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a mobile unit that maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) and uses a secondary, "auxiliary channel" (e.g., a local low-power broadcast) to control information flow on the primary connection (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). As depicted in Figure 2 of the patent, a "Packet Filter and Control Module" (225) on the mobile device processes incoming local broadcast data and, if it matches a user's interest, triggers the device to access or download related information from a remote server over the primary network (’395 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 10:35-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for surfacing geographically relevant digital content to mobile users automatically, based on their physical presence, rather than requiring explicit manual searches (Compl. ¶55-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 22 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶82).
• The essential elements of independent claim 22, a method performed by a remote server, include:
  • Receiving a first request from a handheld or mobile device.
  • Sending a server response to the device indicating availability of content related to the first request.
  • Receiving a second request from the device, which is "automatically generated" by the device in response to the server response.
  • Coupling the available content to the device.
  • Performing this method in an environment with "at least two wireless packet network access stations."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’395 Patent, Claim 22).

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

Issued November 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’844 Patent shares a common specification with the ’395 Patent and thus addresses the same technical problem of enabling automatic access to location-relevant information on mobile devices (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1; ’844 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims methods for a network server to deliver targeted information based on both a user's stated interests and the user's geographical location. The server identifies an "information item" that matches both criteria and causes it to be transmitted to the user's device via "unsolicited pushed messages," without needing to maintain a continuous, active client-server session (’844 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a server-side method for proactively pushing relevant content to users based on a combination of their preferences and real-world location, improving on systems that relied solely on coarse "cell data" for positioning (Compl. ¶16, ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶103).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method for use in a mobile data network, include:
  • Receiving a user interest indication.
  • Receiving a location indication identifying the approximate geographical location of a user's mobile unit.
  • Identifying an information item that comports with both the user interest and the location.
  • Causing information about that item to be transmitted to the mobile unit via "one or more unsolicited pushed messages" without the need to "continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’844 Patent, Claim 1).

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

Issued May 1, 2007

Technology Synopsis

The ’811 Patent, part of the same patent family, claims methods related to client-server interactions for location-based services. The technology allows a mobile device to initiate a request, receive a notification of content availability from a server, and then automatically generate a second request to retrieve that content, all within an environment of multiple wireless network types like cellular and WiFi (Compl. ¶122-123).

Asserted Claims

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

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the Exxon Mobil App's client-server architecture, alleging it performs a two-step data synchronization method that mirrors the steps of claim 5 (Compl. ¶122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "at least the Exxon Mobil application as developed for mobile electronic devices" available on Apple and Android platforms, including the "Exxon Mobil Rewards+" and "Esso" apps (Compl. ¶66; p. 18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused applications operate via a client-server architecture where the mobile device app communicates with Defendant’s remote servers (Compl. ¶66). A screenshot in the complaint indicates the "Exxon Mobil Rewards+" app was first released on July 30, 2013 (Compl. ¶79, p. 18).
• The complaint alleges a specific infringing functionality: a remote server receives a first request from a user's device, the server responds that content is available, the device then automatically generates a second request for that content, and the server then provides it (Compl. ¶80, 101, 122). This process is alleged to occur in an environment where both cellular and WiFi networks are available to the device (Compl. ¶81, 102, 123).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary infringement analysis in Exhibits D, E, and F, which were not attached to the publicly filed document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

'395 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform the method of at least claim 22 (Compl. ¶86). The narrative theory maps the app's functionality to the claim steps: (1) a user's device running the Exxon Mobil app sends a "first request" to Defendant's server; (2) the server sends a "server response" indicating content is available; (3) the app on the device "automatically" generates a "second request" to retrieve that content; and (4) the server "couples the available content" to the device (Compl. ¶80). The complaint further alleges that this method is performed in an environment with at least two wireless networks, such as cellular and WiFi, meeting the final limitation of the claim (Compl. ¶81). A screenshot from an app store shows the "Exxon Mobil Rewards+" app was released in 2013, which is used to allege that infringement occurred during the patent's term (Compl. ¶79, p. 18).

'844 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint's narrative theory for the ’844 Patent is more general. It alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claims 1 and 25 (Compl. ¶107). The underlying theory appears to be that the app's provision of location-based services (e.g., finding nearby gas stations or receiving localized promotions) constitutes the claimed method. In this context, a user's action or presence would serve as the "user interest indication" and the device's GPS or network data as the "location indication." The resulting station information or promotion sent to the app would allegedly constitute the "unsolicited pushed message" delivered without a continuously active session, as required by claim 1 (Compl. ¶19, 42-43). The complaint does not, however, explicitly map these specific app features to the claim elements.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central factual question may be whether the accused app's data synchronization protocol actually employs the specific two-step sequence described in the ’395 and ’811 patents (a response indicating availability, followed by a separate, automatically generated client request). Evidence regarding the app's network traffic and API calls will be critical.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’844 Patent raises the question of whether standard push notifications and data refreshes in a modern mobile app constitute "unsolicited pushed messages" delivered "without the need to continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session" as those terms are used in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "second request... automatically generated by the handheld or mobile device in response to the server response" (’395 Patent, Claim 22)

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the infringement theory for the ’395 and ’811 patents. The dispute will likely focus on whether the app's communication is a standard, single client request-and-response, or if it truly performs this specific two-request sequence where the client's second request is an autonomous software action triggered by the server's initial metadata response.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general discussion of client-server synchronization to download updated content could be cited to argue that any software-driven data retrieval that follows an initial handshake qualifies as "automatically generated" (Compl. ¶36).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description may disclose specific embodiments or protocols that show two distinct and separate network transactions, which could support an argument that the claim requires more than a standard HTTP request that receives data in a single response.

The Term: "unsolicited pushed messages" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional client-pull technologies. Infringement will depend on whether notifications or background data sent to the accused app qualify. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern push notifications did not exist in their current form when the patent was filed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint suggests this covers modern push notifications that trigger background data refreshes (Compl. ¶37, 39). Language in the specification about sending information to a user "without the need to maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer" could support a broad reading that covers any server-initiated communication (’844 Patent, Claim 1).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently discusses receiving information on an "auxiliary channel" to control a primary connection, or using local broadcast domains (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). This context might be used to argue that "unsolicited pushed messages" refers to a specific technical architecture, not general-purpose push notifications over a single TCP/IP connection.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶78, 99, 120).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not include a specific count for willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶65). This allegation supports only post-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief asks for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not explicitly request enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ C).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:

• Claim Scope and Technological Change: Can the claims of patents from the late 1990s, directed to "geographical web browsers" and early client-server models, be construed to cover the architecture and communication protocols of a modern, cloud-connected smartphone application for consumer rewards and payments? The interpretation of terms like "unsolicited pushed messages" and "automatically generated" requests in the context of current technology will be a primary issue.
• Factual Correspondence: As a key evidentiary question, does the accused ExxonMobil application's software architecture actually perform the specific, multi-step communication sequence required by the asserted method claims—particularly the two-step "request-availability-request-content" flow—or does it use a more conventional single request-response protocol for data synchronization?