Push Data LLC v. PGA Tour Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: PGA Tour, Inc. (Maryland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00124, E.D. Tex., 02/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including specific PGA Tour locations in Plano and Frisco.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PGA Tour mobile application infringes four patents related to geographical web browsing and location-based push notifications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using a mobile device's geographical location to automatically filter and deliver relevant network-based information, a foundational concept for modern location-aware applications.
• Key Procedural History: All four patents-in-suit stem from an initial patent application filed in 1998 and expired in November 2018, limiting the action to past damages. The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit incorporate by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239.

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 (Compl. ¶68)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, technologies for providing location-specific information to mobile users were manual and imprecise, requiring users to select icons or navigate to local information, while location data from cell towers was coarse (Compl. ¶¶14, 16; ’395 Patent, col. 2:57-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for a mobile device to automatically receive location-relevant information from a network. The patent describes using a device's position, obtained from sources like GPS or local broadcast domains (e.g., Wi-Fi), to control the flow of information on a primary network connection (e.g., cellular), creating a "geographical web browser" where a user's physical movement can trigger information updates (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-30). This architecture is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows a mobile unit (105) communicating with servers (120, 125, 135) via a cellular network (112) and a local broadcast domain entity (150) (’395 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach automated the discovery and presentation of geographically relevant content, representing a technological step beyond manual navigation for location-based services (Compl. ¶¶55-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 22, and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶¶82, 86).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements:
  • receiving a first request from a handheld or mobile device at a remote server;
  • responding from the remote server that there is content available related to the request;
  • receiving a second request at the remote server from the handheld device, which is automatically generated by the handheld device;
  • coupling the available content related to the first request to the handheld or mobile device;
  • wherein the method is performed in an environment where there are at least two wireless packet network access stations.
• The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis to include other claims (Compl. ¶84).

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

• Issued: November 6, 2007 (Compl. ¶89)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related patents, the invention sought to solve the problem of delivering relevant, location-specific information to mobile users in an automated fashion, which existing technologies at the time did not provide (Compl. ¶¶14, 47; ’844 Patent, col. 2:57-64).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server-side method for delivering targeted information. The solution involves receiving a user's preferences and approximate geographical location, identifying content that matches both criteria, and then transmitting information about that content via an unsolicited "push message" to the user's device without requiring an active client-server session to be maintained at all times (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:3-40).
• Technical Importance: This method for combining user interest with location to trigger targeted push notifications was an improvement that enabled more sophisticated and personalized location-aware mobile application services (Compl. ¶¶48, 51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶¶103, 107).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements:
  • receiving a user interest indication associated with a particular user;
  • receiving at least an approximate geographical location of a user's mobile unit;
  • identifying an information item that aligns with both the user's preferences and is associated with the location; and
  • causing information related to the identified information item to be wirelessly transmitted, via a push message, to the user's device without the need to maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer at all times.
• The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶105).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued May 1, 2007 (Compl. ¶110).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes systems for delivering location-based information to mobile devices, focusing on a client-server architecture. A device's location can trigger server-side actions, such as resuming a communication session to provide relevant data, which allows a user to navigate web-based information by physically moving (Compl. ¶¶13, 44, 55).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 5 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶124, 128).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the PGA Tour App’s client-server functionality, alleging it performs a method of receiving requests, responding, and delivering content in an environment with multiple wireless networks like cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶¶122, 123).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued January 3, 2006 (Compl. ¶131).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers methods for providing location-based services by combining user preferences with a device's geographical position to identify and push relevant information. The invention describes sending unsolicited push messages when a user enters a relevant geographical area to notify them of content matching their stated interests (’139 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶19).
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 22, 43, and 90 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶145, 147).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the PGA Tour App’s general client-server functionality of performing a request-response method for content delivery over cellular and Wi-Fi networks (Compl. ¶¶143, 144).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The PGA Tour mobile application ("PGA Tour App") developed for mobile electronic devices (Compl. ¶¶66, 78).

Functionality and Market Context

• The PGA Tour App is client-side software that operates on mobile devices and connects to Defendant's servers over networks including cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶¶66, 81). The complaint alleges that the core infringing functionality involves a method where the app sends a first request to a remote server, the server responds indicating content is available, the app automatically generates a second request, and the server then provides the content to the app (Compl. ¶80).
• The complaint alleges that the patented technologies have significant commercial value and that since their issuance, many related location-based push services have emerged (Compl. ¶¶62, 63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

’844 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a sufficiently detailed narrative infringement theory for Claim 1 of the ’844 Patent to construct a claim chart. The allegations in paragraph 101 describe a generic client-server data request method that does not map to the specific claim limitations requiring "receiving a user interest indication" and "identifying an information item that aligns with both the user['s]...preferences and is associated with the location."

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the ’395 Patent will be whether the standard data synchronization protocols of a modern mobile app constitute the specific two-request sequence recited in Claim 1. A defendant may argue that modern protocols are more streamlined and do not map onto the claimed method of a server first "respond[ing] that there is content available" which then triggers a separate, "automatically generated" second request from the device.
• Technical Questions: For the ’395 Patent, a key technical question is what evidence demonstrates that the alleged second request is "automatically generated" specifically in response to the server's first response, as opposed to being part of a pre-programmed, timed data synchronization operation that is independent of any particular server notification. For the ’844 Patent, the primary issue is evidentiary, as the complaint does not allege specific facts showing the PGA Tour App uses a "user interest indication" combined with location to trigger a "push message."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’395 Patent:

  • The Term: "a second request from the handheld device, which is automatically generated by the handheld device" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the ’395 Patent hinges on this two-step, cause-and-effect process. The construction of this term will determine whether a general background data refresh can meet the limitation, or if a more specific, triggered action is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using information received on one channel to control navigation on another, which could be argued to encompass any non-user-initiated data fetch following a server communication (’395 Patent, col. 3:12-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure suggests a direct causal link: the server's response precipitates the device's automatic second request. The specification describes a system where a packet received from a local broadcast domain "will include a pointer" that causes content to be "automatically downloaded," suggesting a specific external trigger rather than a routine background process (’395 Patent, col. 4:41-49).

• For the ’844 Patent:

  • The Term: "user interest indication" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term is the primary input that initiates the claimed method. Its scope will be critical, determining whether infringement can be based on inferred user interests (e.g., from search history) or requires an explicit user action (e.g., setting a preference or "following" a player).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states that a network server uses "a set of user preferences to filter a set of server-side information in accordance with a user's interest," which could be read broadly to include interests inferred from user behavior (’844 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a "content-selective information filter" that performs a search to "identify content that matches the user's preferences and the user's location" suggests that the "user interest indication" is a defined parameter used for filtering, rather than a passively observed behavior (’844 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

• Exceptional Case Allegation: The complaint includes a prayer for a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 28, ¶C). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as allegations of litigation misconduct or willful infringement, that would typically be required to support such a finding.

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

1. Technical Mapping: A core issue will be one of technical mapping: do the data communication and synchronization protocols of the modern PGA Tour App practice the specific, sequential two-request method claimed in the ’395 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the accused functionality and the claimed steps?
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: For the ’844 patent and its related family members, a key question will be evidentiary sufficiency: can the plaintiff produce evidence through discovery that the accused app implements the claimed combination of a "user interest indication" with "geographical location" to trigger targeted push messages—a factual basis not specified in the complaint?
3. Damages Calculation: As all patents-in-suit expired in 2018, the dispute is confined to past damages. A central question will be the proper calculation of a reasonable royalty for the alleged infringement that occurred during the damages period, which began as early as March 2011 and ended in November 2018.