Push Data LLC v. Nekter Juice Bar Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Nekter Juice Bar Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00130, E.D. Tex., 02/14/2024
• 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 specific retail locations in Plano, Texas, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile loyalty application infringes three expired patents related to methods for delivering location-based information and push notifications to mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves systems where a mobile device's geographical location and user preferences are used to trigger the delivery of relevant data from a server, a foundational concept for modern location-aware mobile applications.
• Key Procedural History: All three patents-in-suit expired in November 2018. The complaint was filed in February 2024, limiting the potential damages period to the portion of 2018 that falls within the six-year statutory window for damages preceding the complaint's filing. The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit all stem from the same initial application and incorporate by reference the disclosure of another patent from the same inventors.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-11-17	Priority Date for ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents
2006-06-06	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395
2007-05-01	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811
2007-11-06	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844
2014-10-01	Accused Product (Nekter App) Approximate Development/Copyright Date
2018-11-17	Expiration Date for ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents
2024-02-14	Complaint Filing Date

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 "’395 Patent") (Compl. ¶70)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, technology was allegedly lacking to "automatically control a network application" on a mobile device by using local broadcast information. Instead, users were required to manually select icons or navigate to find information relevant to their local area. (Compl. ¶16; ’395 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a mobile unit maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) and uses information from a secondary, auxiliary channel (e.g., a local "picocell" broadcast) to control information flow on the primary connection. (Compl. ¶20; ’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). A packet filter on the mobile device selectively passes broadcast packets based on user preferences, which can trigger the device to automatically access related information, such as a web page, over the primary network connection without requiring continuous user interaction. (Compl. ¶21; ’395 Patent, col. 3:51-56).
• Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the invention as a pioneering effort in targeted, location-based data dissemination and wireless push notifications for mobile devices. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 4 and 22, which depend from independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶84, ¶88).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a user interest indication.
  • Receiving a location indication for a mobile unit via a packet switched data network.
  • Identifying an information item that corresponds to both the user interest and the location.
  • Causing information related to that item to be coupled to a wireless packet access station, which then transmits it to the mobile unit via "one or more unsolicited pushed messages."
  • Performing these steps without the need to "continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session."
• 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 "’844 Patent") (Compl. ¶91)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family, the ’844 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’395 Patent: the need for a system to automatically provide geographically relevant information to mobile users to control network applications. (Compl. ¶13, fn. 1, ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also conceptually similar, involving client-server communication triggered by location and user preferences. The complaint highlights that claims in the ’844 Patent recite specific client-server interactions, such as a client sending a request, a server responding with the availability of new data, the client then sending a second request to pull the content, and the server responding to that request. (Compl. ¶48). This method allows the client application to synchronize with the server. (Compl. ¶48).
• Technical Importance: This technology is presented as an improvement in client-server communication architecture for mobile devices, enabling more sophisticated location-based services. (Compl. ¶51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46. (Compl. ¶105, ¶109).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include a method performed by a mobile unit, comprising:
  • Receiving a user interest indication that identifies a type of information.
  • Receiving from a server a response that includes an indication of the availability of information corresponding to the user's interest.
  • Sending a second request to the server, which is "automatically generated by the handheld device... without requiring user action."
  • Receiving the information from the server corresponding to the user's interest.
• 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; the "’811 Patent") (Compl. ¶112)

Technology Synopsis

Belonging to the same patent family as the other patents-in-suit, the ’811 Patent discloses inventions that resolve technical problems in client-server computing by enabling mobile applications to control information flow based on location data, such as from GPS. (Compl. ¶13, ¶60, ¶114). The technology allows a user to "surf the web" or navigate applications based on their physical geographical position. (Compl. ¶57).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 5 is asserted. (Compl. ¶126, ¶130).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by the Nekter App, which is alleged to perform a multi-step method where a server receives a request from a mobile device, responds with content availability, receives a second automatically generated request from the device, and then delivers the content. (Compl. ¶124).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "Nekter application as developed for mobile electronic devices" (the "Nekter App"), available on Apple and Android platforms, along with the associated server-side infrastructure. (Compl. ¶68).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused product as a loyalty application for Nekter Juice Bar customers. (Compl. ¶68).
• The relevant technical functionality is described as a method where a remote server receives a first request from a user's mobile device, the server responds with an indication that content is available, the server then receives a second request automatically generated by the device, and finally the server provides the available content to the device. (Compl. ¶82, ¶103, ¶124). This process is alleged to occur in an environment with at least two wireless networks, such as cellular and WiFi. (Compl. ¶83, ¶104, ¶125).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement analysis in Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

Narrative Infringement Theory

The complaint's theory suggests that the Nekter App uses a customer's implicit interest in Nekter products (user interest) and the device's geographical data (location indication) to trigger the delivery of relevant content, such as promotions. This delivery is allegedly performed via "unsolicited pushed messages" to the Nekter App without requiring the user to be actively interacting with the app, thereby avoiding a "continuously maintain[ed] active... session" as recited in claim 1. (Compl. ¶21, ¶80-83).

Identified Points of Contention

The analysis may focus on whether the communications to the Nekter App are truly "unsolicited pushed messages." A potential dispute could arise over whether the app's background processes periodically "pull" data from the server, which might place such communications outside the claim scope. A second point of contention may be the definition of an "active user-interactive client-server application layer session" and whether the alleged background operation of the Nekter App qualifies as being outside of such a session.

’844 Patent Infringement Allegations

Narrative Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that the Nekter App and its backend servers perform the multi-step communication method of claim 1. The theory posits that an initial user action or app state serves as a first request; a server response indicates new data is available (e.g., via a push notification); the app then "automatically generate[s]" a second request to fetch the data; and the server delivers the content. (Compl. ¶103).

Identified Points of Contention

A central question may be whether the accused system performs the distinct three-step communication sequence required by the claim (server response indicating availability -> separate, automatic client request -> content delivery). Defendant may argue that its system uses a more streamlined process, such as delivering content or a direct data link within the initial notification itself, which could potentially circumvent the claim's requirement for a second, automatically generated request from the client device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’395 Patent

The Term

"unsolicited pushed messages" (from independent claim 1).

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a "pushed" message (initiated by the server) and a "pulled" response (initiated by the client) is a fundamental aspect of network architecture and often a key non-infringement argument. The case may turn on whether communications from Nekter's servers are truly "unsolicited" or are responses to periodic background polling by the app.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the invention's benefit is providing messages "without the need to maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer at all times," which could support construing "unsolicited" broadly to mean any communication not occurring during an active, user-driven session. (’395 Patent, col. 4:11-15).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes embodiments where information is triggered by a mobile unit entering a local broadcast domain. (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-34). This could support a narrower construction where "unsolicited" requires an external trigger from a local network entity, rather than a server-initiated message based on server-side logic alone.

For the ’844 Patent

The Term

"a second request from the handheld device, which is automatically generated by the handheld device" (from independent claim 1).

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because it is crucial to the claim's required sequence of operations. Infringement will depend on evidence that the Nekter App, after receiving a notification of available content, generates a new and distinct network request to fetch that content, as opposed to the operating system simply handling a rich notification that already contains the data.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites patent disclosure contemplating "automated processing such as background application refresh operations" performed in response to a push message, which could support a broad reading of what constitutes an "automatically generated" request. (Compl. ¶41).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint also cites disclosure that recites a specific sequence where "the client sends a request... the server then sends a response that indicates the availability of new data... in response to this notification, the App then sends another request to pull the content." (Compl. ¶48). This explicit, step-by-step description may support a narrower interpretation requiring a discrete request generated by the application's logic, not merely the OS processing a notification.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that 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). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. p. 25, ¶C).

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

• A threshold issue will be the scope of potential damages. The patents-in-suit expired in November 2018. Given the complaint's filing date of February 2024, the statutory six-year damages limitation raises the question of whether recovery is limited to a period of approximately nine months in 2018.
• A central evidentiary question will concern the mechanism of communication. The case will likely depend on whether discovery shows the accused Nekter App's architecture aligns with the specific multi-step, push-then-pull sequences recited in the patent claims, or if it operates on a different client-pull or synchronous communication model that falls outside the claims' technical scope.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope. The dispute may turn on the construction of foundational terms such as "unsolicited pushed messages" and whether an "automatically generated" request requires action by the client application itself versus the underlying mobile operating system.