Push Data LLC v. Rent A Center Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01124, E.D. Tex., 12/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for consumers infringes three expired patents related to delivering location-based information and push notifications to mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for mobile applications, specifically methods for a central server to communicate with a mobile device based on the device's geographical location and user preferences.
• Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit share a common specification and claim priority to an application filed in 1998. All three patents expired in November 2018, confining the dispute to a claim for past damages. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving the patents.

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: The patent’s background section describes that prior art systems for providing local information to mobile users were inefficient. They either required manual user navigation to find local content or relied on coarse "cell data" for positioning, which limited the relevance of the information provided (Compl. ¶14, 16; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-64, 3:23-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a mobile device maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) with a central server, but the information flow on that connection is controlled by data received on an "auxiliary channel," such as from a local broadcast (e.g., Wi-Fi) or a GPS receiver (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). As illustrated in Figure 1, this allows the system to push geographically relevant information to the device based on its precise location without the user needing to actively browse or the device needing to maintain a constant, interactive session with the server (Compl. ¶18-19; ’395 Patent, fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach is described as a "pioneering" effort to enable services like geolocation-based push notifications and targeted data dissemination to mobile devices, which are now common features of modern mobile applications (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 4 and 22, with Claim 22 being independent (Compl. ¶86).
• Essential elements of independent Claim 22 include:
  • 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 transmitted to the mobile unit containing information about further available content.
  • The push message acts as a notification, allowing the user to "selectively download" the content.
  • Receiving a "client-request packet" from the mobile unit "in response to the user selection."
  • Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the client-request packet.
• 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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a member of the same patent family, the ’844 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’395 Patent: the inefficiency of prior art methods for delivering location-specific content to mobile users (Compl. p. 3, fn. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is conceptually similar to that of the ’395 Patent, involving a client-server architecture to provide geographically relevant information. The claims of the ’844 patent focus on a specific multi-step communication protocol between the client device and a remote server to achieve this result (Compl. ¶46).
• Technical Importance: The technology contributes to the framework for modern location-aware mobile applications that can receive relevant data based on a user's context without constant manual interaction (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46, with claims 1, 25, 32, and 46 being independent (Compl. ¶107).
• Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A remote server receiving a first request from a handheld device via a first wireless access station.
  • The server transmitting a response indicating the availability of content.
  • The server receiving a second request from the device, which is "automatically generated by the handheld device in response to the server response, without requiring user action."
  • The second request is coupled to the server via a second wireless access station.
  • The server coupling the available content to the device in response to the second request.
• 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”

Technology Synopsis

This patent is from the same family and shares the same specification as the ’395 and ’844 patents (Compl. p. 3, fn. 1). The technology provides systems and methods for mobile devices to receive geographically relevant information through client-server interactions, which can be triggered by the device’s location and user preferences, and may involve push notifications and automated data requests.

Asserted Claims

At least claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶128).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement based on the Rent-A-Center app performing a method where its remote server receives an initial request, responds with the availability of content, receives a second, automatically generated request from the app, and then provides the content to the app (Compl. ¶122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Rent-A-Center application" for mobile devices, available on Apple and Android platforms (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶66).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Instrumentality is a consumer-facing mobile application that allows users to manage their accounts, make payments, find stores, and receive promotional messages (Compl. p. 18). A screenshot provided in the complaint indicates the app can "Get notifications to hear about our latest deals and offers" (Compl. p. 18). The complaint alleges that the app's operation relies on a specific client-server communication method where the app sends a first request, a remote server responds with content availability, the app automatically generates a second request, and the server then delivers the content (Compl. ¶80, 101, 122). The complaint alleges the app was first released on January 2, 2018 (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'395 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit D which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶82). The following table is constructed based on the narrative infringement theory for all asserted patents, which alleges a method where a server receives a first request, responds with content availability, receives a second automatically generated request, and couples content to the device (Compl. ¶80).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 22 requires the client-request packet to be sent "in response to the user selection." However, the complaint's narrative infringement theory explicitly alleges the second request is "automatically generated" (Compl. ¶80). This apparent contradiction between the claim language and the infringement allegation raises a significant question about whether the accused method falls within the scope of this claim.
  • Technical Questions: Does the server's response to an initial client request, as described in the complaint, constitute a "communication push message" as that term is used in the patent? A court may need to determine if a "push message" must be unsolicited or if it can be a response within an existing client-initiated communication sequence.

'844 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit E which was not provided (Compl. ¶103). The following table is constructed based on the complaint's narrative infringement allegations (Compl. ¶101).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether routine background data synchronization or content refresh processes common in mobile applications perform the specific, ordered, three-part handshake required by Claim 1, or if the claim requires a more particularized technical implementation.
  • Technical Questions: What is the specific technical mechanism by which the Accused Instrumentality's second request is "automatically generated," and does this mechanism operate "in response to the server response" as claimed? The analysis will likely require evidence detailing the precise communication protocol used by the application.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’395 Patent

• The Term: "in response to the user selection" (Claim 22)
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's infringement theory alleges the corresponding step is "automatically generated" (Compl. ¶80). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to encompass an automated process that was pre-authorized by a user, or if it requires a direct, contemporaneous user action for each download.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses scenarios where a user sets preferences, and the system then acts on those preferences to present information, which could be argued as an initial "user selection" that authorizes later automated steps (’395 Patent, col. 3:51-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language distinguishes between the "push message" (notification) and the subsequent "user selection" (action), suggesting two distinct events. The specification also describes embodiments where a user is presented with a "pick list" or a "next" button, implying a direct manual interaction is contemplated (’395 Patent, col. 11:15-18).

For the ’844 Patent

• The Term: "automatically generated by the handheld device in response to the server response, without requiring user action" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical step that distinguishes the claimed method from a simple request-response or a manual refresh. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether common background app refresh functionalities fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses automated background refresh operations and client-server sync operations, suggesting the inventors contemplated processes that occur without direct user intervention (Compl. ¶36, 39, 53).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the automatic request to be "in response to the server response." This may be construed to require a specific causal link where the server's notification directly triggers the client's automatic request, potentially excluding routine, time-based background syncs that are not directly triggered by a specific server message.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. It seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in its prayer for relief but asserts knowledge of the patents only from the date of the complaint's filing (Compl. ¶65, ¶D).

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

The resolution of this dispute, which is limited to past damages for a period in 2018, appears to center on the following questions for the court:

• A primary issue will be one of factual and definitional contradiction: Can the infringement allegation against Claim 22 of the ’395 Patent survive, given that the complaint alleges the accused method involves an "automatically generated" request while the claim explicitly requires an action "in response to the user selection"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the Rent-A-Center application’s method for delivering notifications and content perform the specific, ordered, three-part communication protocol recited in Claim 1 of the ’844 Patent, or does it use a more conventional background refresh mechanism that operates differently?