DCT

4:24-cv-00131

Push Data LLC v. Office Depot LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00131, 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 a specific retail location in Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Office Depot mobile application infringes three expired patents related to geographical web browsing and location-based push notifications.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational methods for using a mobile device's geographic location to automatically filter and deliver relevant information from a network, a core function of modern location-based services.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents, which expired in November 2018, all claim priority to a patent application filed in November 1998. The complaint asserts claims for past damages only. The patents-in-suit incorporate by reference a co-pending application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239, which discloses concepts related to virtual sessions and push services.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 Issues
2007-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 Issues
2007-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 Issues
2011-09-30 Accused Office Depot App Approx. Launch Date
2018-11-17 ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents Expire
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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued June 6, 2006 (Compl. ¶70).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that prior art systems for finding location-specific information required users to manually select an icon or navigate a browser application (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64). It also notes that location data derived from the wireless cell a user was in was too "coarse" for providing highly relevant, individualized information (Compl. ¶18; ’395 Patent, col. 3:23-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile unit uses its geographical position, determined from GPS or local broadcast signals, to automatically control the flow of information from a network server (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-44). The system can use "unsolicited pushed information packets" to trigger the download of relevant data, such as local restaurant web pages when a user enters a new city, effectively allowing a user to "surf the web" by physically moving through different locations (Compl. ¶¶19, 21; ’395 Patent, col. 3:48-52, col. 5:20-24). The complaint references an exemplary system diagram from the patent, showing a mobile unit (105) capable of connecting to a server through a cellular network (112) and also receiving information from a local broadcast entity (150) like a WiFi access point (Compl. ¶22; ’395 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to automate the discovery of location-relevant content on mobile devices, a conceptual forerunner to the functionality now common in location-aware mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶17, 57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 22 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶¶84, 88).
  • Independent Claim 22 recites a method with the essential elements:
    • Identifying an information item that comports with a user interest.
    • Causing a communication push message to be wirelessly transmitted to a mobile unit, where the message includes an application-program identifying field and contains information about further content available for download.
    • Receiving a client-request packet wirelessly from the mobile unit in response to a user selection, indicating a request to download the further content.
    • 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. ¶86).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS," issued November 6, 2007 (Compl. ¶91).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patents-in-suit share a common specification and thus address the same technical problems related to providing location-based information to mobile devices (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent family discloses systems where a mobile unit can maintain a network connection with a server and control information flow using location data received on an "auxiliary channel," such as from a local WiFi access point or GPS (Compl. ¶20). The inventors contemplated mobile units with two wireless interfaces, such as cellular and WiFi, that could receive push messages over either interface to maintain a push service while roaming between networks (Compl. ¶¶34, 40).
  • Technical Importance: The technology describes a client-server architecture for synchronizing data in response to push notifications, a model that corresponds to modern background application refresh operations (Compl. ¶¶38, 41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶¶105, 109).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method performed at a remote server with the essential elements:
    • Receiving a first request from a handheld device.
    • Sending a server response to the device indicating that content related to the first request is available.
    • Receiving a second request from the handheld device, which is automatically generated by the handheld device.
    • Coupling the available content related to the first request to the handheld device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶107).

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 - "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, "GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER," issued May 1, 2007 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, this patent discloses technology for providing location-relevant information to mobile devices (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1). The disclosed methods enable client-server functionalities where a mobile application can receive push messages containing address information, allowing the app to then request and download further content from an application server (Compl. ¶¶37, 48).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶¶126, 130).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Office Depot app utilizes a client-server architecture that performs a multi-step data retrieval method, consistent with the asserted claims, in an environment that includes both cellular and WiFi network access (Compl. ¶¶124, 125).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "Office Depot application as developed for mobile electronic devices," available on both Apple and Android platforms, along with its supporting server infrastructure (collectively, the "Office Depot App") (Compl. ¶¶68, 80).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Office Depot App operates a client-server system where a remote server interacts with the client-side software on a user's mobile device (Compl. ¶68). The alleged infringing functionality involves a specific multi-step communication protocol: (1) a remote server receives a first request from the mobile device; (2) the server responds with an indication that content is available; (3) the server then receives a second, automatically generated request from the device; and (4) the server couples the available content to the device (Compl. ¶¶82, 103, 124).
  • This alleged method is performed in an environment where mobile devices can connect through at least two types of wireless networks, such as cellular and WiFi (Compl. ¶¶83, 104, 125). The complaint suggests this technology provides significant commercial value for companies like Office Depot (Compl. ¶64).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement chart exhibits that are not attached to the filing (Compl. ¶¶84, 105, 126). The infringement theories are summarized below based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

'395 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 22, which recites a multi-step method for delivering content in response to a push notification (Compl. ¶88). The narrative allegations state that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method where a server receives requests and couples content back to a mobile device (Compl. ¶82). A potential point of contention is how this alleged sequence maps to the specific elements of claim 22. The claim requires a server to first cause a communication push message to be transmitted, which then prompts a user selection leading to a client-request packet. The complaint's narrative focuses on the server's receipt of requests rather than its initial push, raising the question of what evidence will be presented to show the accused system initiates this claimed sequence with a push notification.

'844 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Office Depot App infringes at least claim 1, which recites a four-step client-server communication method (Compl. ¶109). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform a method where: (1) a remote server receives a first request from a mobile device; (2) the server responds that content is available; (3) the server receives a second, automatically generated request from the device; and finally (4) the server couples the content to the device (Compl. ¶103). The infringement argument appears to be a direct mapping of this alleged functionality onto the claim elements. A primary technical question will likely be whether the accused system's architecture and data logs can substantiate this specific four-step sequence of operations, particularly the server's intermediary response indicating content availability and the subsequent, "automatically generated" request from the client device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the patented method from conventional client-server communications where every server transmission is a direct response to a client request. The patentability of claims may rely on this distinction, and the infringement analysis for claim 1 will depend on whether notifications from the Office Depot App are deemed "unsolicited." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its notifications are sent within an established session and are therefore solicited by the user's act of running the application.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses causing information to be transmitted "without the need to continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session" (’395 Patent, col. 23:34-37, as cited in Compl. ¶21). This could support a view that "unsolicited" refers to messages sent outside of an active, user-facing session, such as a background notification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of "unsolicited pushed information packets which could trigger... downloading" (’395 Patent, col. 3:48-51) could be interpreted to require a message that is not only sent to a backgrounded app but is also not in response to any recent user preference setting or configuration request, implying a higher degree of "unsolicitedness."

The Term: "second request... which is automatically generated by the handheld device" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific technical mechanism for data retrieval, requiring a two-step request from the client device where the second step is automated. The infringement analysis for the ’844 Patent will hinge on whether the Office Depot App's software performs this automated second request. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a single, multi-part request and two separate requests (one manual, one automatic) could be a critical point of non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges that this functionality allows "Apps to automatically perform client-server sync operations in response to a push notification message" (Compl. ¶38). This suggests that a request triggered by a preceding server message, but executed by the client app without further user interaction, would be considered "automatically generated."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition. A defendant may argue that for a request to be "automatically generated," it must be initiated by the device's internal logic (e.g., a timer, a location change) independent of any immediate, preceding server response, thus narrowing the scope to exclude sync operations that are part of a rapid, continuous data exchange.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of willful or indirect infringement. It pleads knowledge of the patents-in-suit only from the date of the complaint's filing, which is a basis for post-suit damages but not pre-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶67). The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead specific facts in the complaint body to support such a finding (Compl. p. 26).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technical evidence: can Plaintiff produce evidence, likely from source code or network traffic analysis, demonstrating that the Office Depot App's client-server architecture performs the specific, multi-step communication protocols recited in the asserted claims, particularly the "availability response" followed by an "automatically generated" second request required by the ’844 Patent?
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the notifications sent by the Office Depot App be construed as "unsolicited pushed messages" as required by claims in the ’395 Patent, or will they be characterized as conventional data transfers within an ongoing, user-initiated session, potentially placing them outside the scope of the claims?