Push Data LLC v. First Watch Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: First Watch Restaurants, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00129, E.D. Tex., 02/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific restaurant location in Plano, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s First Watch mobile application for iOS and Android infringes three expired patents related to geographical web browsing and location-based push notifications.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit describe foundational methods for mobile devices to receive geographically relevant information, such as through local wireless broadcasts or GPS data, to automatically control a network application like a web browser.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that all three patents-in-suit descend from a single patent application filed in 1998. It further notes that all patents expired on or about November 17, 2018, indicating this action is limited to seeking damages for past infringement.

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 describes a technical environment where mobile device users had to manually navigate applications or click icons to find information specific to their local area (Compl. ¶16; ’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64). Existing location-determination methods, such as those based on cellular network cells, were too "coarse" to provide detailed, user-relevant data (’395 Patent, col. 3:23-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides systems for a mobile unit to automatically receive and filter information based on its precise geographical location, using either locally broadcast wireless packets or GPS data (’395 Patent, Abstract). A key component is a "packet filter" that allows the device to selectively process incoming location-based data to control a network application, such as by automatically accessing a relevant web page without direct user navigation to that page (’395 Patent, col. 4:37-44). The system architecture, depicted in Figure 1, envisions a mobile unit communicating over both a primary network (e.g., cellular) and an auxiliary, local channel (e.g., a local broadcast entity) (’395 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create a "geographical web browser" functionality, enabling early forms of location-aware mobile applications that could provide relevant, timely information based on a user's physical presence in a specific area (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least dependent claims 4 and 22, which rely on independent claims 1 and 21, respectively (Compl. ¶84).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Receiving a user interest indication and a location indication for a 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 needing to maintain a continuous, active client-server session.
• Independent Claim 21 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Causing a "communication push message" to be sent to a mobile unit, where the message identifies an application and contains information about content available for download.
  • The push message is specified as not being a direct server response to a client request sent "substantially just prior" to the push message.
  • Receiving a client-request from the mobile unit in response to a user selection.
  • Sending the further content in response to that client-request.
  • The push message acts as a "notification to allow the user to selectively download the further content."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶86).

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

• Issued: November 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family as the ’395 Patent, the ’844 patent addresses the same problem of providing location-relevant information to mobile users without requiring cumbersome manual navigation (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The ’844 Patent claims a specific client-server communication method to achieve a similar goal. The solution involves a multi-step, automated data synchronization process initiated by the client device. This method allows an application to refresh its content based on new information available at the server, triggered by an initial client request (’844 Patent, col. 23:28-40). The patent's specification describes this as a way for a client-side application to synchronize with a server (Compl. ¶48).
• Technical Importance: This claimed method provides a specific protocol for efficient client-server synchronization in a mobile environment, forming a basis for features like automated background content updates in mobile applications (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶105).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • A server receiving a first request from a mobile unit.
  • The server sending a response that includes an "indication of availability of content."
  • The server receiving a second request from the mobile unit, which is "automatically generated" by the device in response to the server's indication of availability and "without requiring user action."
  • The server coupling the available content to the mobile unit.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶107).

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

• Issued: May 1, 2007

Technology Synopsis

Belonging to the same family, the ’811 Patent discloses systems for enabling a mobile device to navigate network applications based on its physical location. The technology uses inputs like GPS or local wireless signals to trigger the delivery of geographically relevant content, aiming to solve the problem of users having to manually search for local information (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17, 114).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶126).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by the First Watch App based on a client-server communication method. This method allegedly involves a server receiving a first request, responding with content availability, receiving a second automatically generated request, and then delivering the content to the mobile application (Compl. ¶¶ 124-125).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "First Watch application" for mobile devices, available on both Apple and Android platforms (the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶68).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as mobile applications that operate using Defendant's servers and client-side software (Compl. ¶68, p. 16). The functionality central to the infringement allegations involves a client-server communication method where a remote server receives requests from a user's mobile device and responds with content, allegedly performing a specific two-request handshake in an environment with access to both cellular and WiFi networks (Compl. ¶¶ 82-83). The app's purpose is to allow users to interact with the First Watch restaurant chain, a context where location-based services are commercially relevant.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, F) that were not included with the filed document; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below based on the narrative theory presented in the complaint's body.

• ’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint's general infringement narrative alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method where a server receives requests from a mobile device and couples content back to it over a network that includes both cellular and WiFi access points (Compl. ¶¶ 82-83). For the ’395 Patent specifically, this general method is alleged to meet the limitations of at least claims 4 and 22 (Compl. ¶84). The core of this theory would require showing that the First Watch app receives "unsolicited pushed messages" (as required by claim 1) or a "communication push message" that acts as a notification for selective download (as required by claim 21).

• ’844 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint's narrative infringement theory for the ’844 Patent aligns closely with the text of asserted independent claim 1. It alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method where: (1) a remote server receives a first request from the mobile device; (2) the server responds that content is available; (3) the server receives a second request from the device that is "automatically generated"; and (4) the server couples the available content to the device (Compl. ¶103). This alleged two-step, automated synchronization process is accused of infringing at least claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 of the ’844 Patent (Compl. ¶105).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the Accused Instrumentalities actually perform the specific two-request, server-client handshake described in the ’844 patent and alleged in the complaint. The allegation that the second request is "automatically generated by the handheld device... without requiring user action" is a critical technical limitation that will require evidentiary support (Compl. ¶103).
  • Scope Questions: For the ’395 Patent, a key dispute may arise over the definition of "unsolicited pushed messages" (claim 1). The litigation may question whether modern, permission-based mobile push notifications (e.g., from Apple or Google services), which typically require a user to install an app and grant permissions, can be considered "unsolicited" within the meaning of a patent from 1998.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "unsolicited pushed messages" (’395 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the claimed invention from a standard client-pull architecture where the mobile device initiates every data request. Whether modern push notifications used by the First Watch app fall within the scope of "unsolicited" will be a critical issue for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain meaning could be at odds with the technical reality of modern, opt-in notification systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using "unsolicited pushed information packets which could trigger, for example, downloading of related information from the Internet," suggesting the key aspect is the triggering of a download without an immediately preceding, specific user request for that data (Compl. ¶19; '395 Patent, col. 4:9-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently describes these packets in the context of a "local broadcast domain," where a transmitter sends information to any device within a physical area, a model that is technically distinct from a server sending a targeted notification to a specific, registered device (’395 Patent, col. 4:30-36).

• The Term: "automatically generated" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term requires that the second client request in the claimed method occurs without user intervention. The infringement analysis for the ’844 patent will likely depend on whether the accused app performs a background synchronization that meets this "automatic" requirement, as opposed to a process that is ultimately triggered by a user action, such as launching the app or tapping a refresh button.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term's plain and ordinary meaning suggests any process not requiring direct, contemporaneous user action. The complaint alleges that "automated processing such as background application refresh operations can be performed in response to the push message," linking the concept to automatic functions (Compl. ¶41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes embodiments where further content is downloaded after a user makes a selection from a graphical interface, which could be used to argue that not all data transfers in the disclosed system are fully automatic (’395 Patent, col. 7:31-37; Compl. ¶35).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and its infringement "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶67). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What technical evidence will emerge in discovery to support the allegation that the First Watch app performs the specific two-request, "automatically generated" client-server handshake required by claim 1 of the ’844 patent, as opposed to a more conventional, single request-response data-fetching model?
• A second key question will be one of technological translation and claim scope: Can the term "unsolicited pushed messages," which originates in the patent’s context of 1998-era local broadcast domains, be construed to encompass the modern, permission-based push notification infrastructure likely used by the accused application?
• Finally, as this is a case for past damages on expired patents, a central question will be one of valuation: For the limited infringement period between the app's alleged 2017 launch and the patents' 2018 expiration, what was the commercial value and contribution of the specific, accused client-server communication methods within the overall functionality of the First Watch mobile app?