Push Data LLC v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shea | Beaty
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00400, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business in the district, specifically citing two Family Dollar store locations in Plano, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Family Dollar mobile application infringes three expired patents related to methods for providing geographically-aware content and managing client-server communications for mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The patents address early methods for enabling mobile devices to receive location-based information and push notifications over dual-network environments, such as cellular and local Wi-Fi, a foundational concept for modern mobile applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents, which share a common specification, claim priority to an application filed in 1998 and expired in 2018. As the patents are expired, the lawsuit seeks only monetary 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: At the time of the invention, mobile device users had to manually navigate to or select icons to find information relevant to their local area (Compl. ¶16). The patent’s background describes a lack of technology to automatically control a network application, like a web browser, using locally broadcast information or GPS data to filter content (’395 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes methods and systems that allow a mobile unit to maintain a primary connection with a central server (e.g., cellular) and use information from an auxiliary channel (e.g., a local Wi-Fi broadcast) or its geographical position to control the flow of information on that primary connection (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30; Compl. ¶20). This enables functionality like a "geographical web browser" that updates content as the user physically moves into new areas (’395 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between a user's physical location and their digital experience, automating the discovery of location-relevant information beyond the coarse "cell data" available at the time (Compl. ¶¶17-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 22 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶84).
• Essential elements of independent claim 22 (a method claim) include:
  • Receiving a first request from a wireless handheld device at a remote server system.
  • Transmitting a server response from the remote server system, indicating availability of content related to the first request.
  • The remote server system receiving a second request, which is automatically generated by the wireless handheld device in response to the server response, without requiring user action.
  • The remote server system coupling the available content to the wireless handheld device.
  • Performing these steps in an environment with at least two different types of wireless packet network access stations.
• 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 the '844 Patent shares its specification with the '395 Patent, it addresses the same foundational problem of improving the delivery of location-based content to mobile users (Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims specific methods for delivering push notifications to mobile applications. The solution involves sending a push message containing an "application-program-identifying field" that allows the mobile device to route the notification to the correct application among a plurality of installed apps (’844 Patent, col. 23:5-13; Compl. ¶48). The push message can also carry address information, enabling the app to download further content over a resumed virtual session (’844 Patent, col. 23:13-18; Compl. ¶48).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a technical framework for targeted push notifications, a system where different applications on a single device could each maintain a separate, efficient communication channel with their respective servers (Compl. ¶53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶105).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
  • Causing a communication push message to be wirelessly transmitted to a mobile unit.
  • The push message includes an "application-program identifying field" that identifies a particular application program.
  • The push message contains information related to further content available for downloading in response to a user selection.
  • 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. ¶107).

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

• Issued: May 1, 2007

Technology Synopsis

The ’811 Patent, sharing the same specification, also relates to location-aware mobile computing. The asserted claims focus on methods where an incoming communication, such as a push notification, prompts the mobile device to present a selectable option to the user, which, when selected, triggers the download of additional content over a resumed communication session (’811 Patent, col. 23:50-61).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶126).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Family Dollar app infringes by performing a method of receiving a first request, responding with content availability, receiving a second automatically generated request, and coupling content to the mobile device (Compl. ¶¶124-125).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Family Dollar application as developed for mobile electronic devices," available on platforms such as Google Play and the Apple App Store (Compl. ¶68). The complaint collectively refers to the app and its associated server infrastructure as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶¶68, 80).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities operate via a client-server architecture. The core accused functionality is a method wherein: (1) a remote server receives a first request from the mobile app; (2) the server responds, indicating content is available; (3) the server receives a second request that is automatically generated by the app; and (4) the server provides the requested content to the app (Compl. ¶¶82, 103, 124).
• This functionality is alleged to operate over an environment with at least two types of wireless networks, such as cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶¶83, 104, 125). The complaint alleges that the original versions of the app were developed around 2017 (Compl. ¶81).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the narrative infringement theory provided for each lead patent.

'395 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 22)

'844 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the specific, multi-step request-and-response sequence required by the claims reads on the more general background data synchronization and push notification architectures common in modern mobile apps. The complaint acknowledges that features of the asserted claims began to be commonly used around 2014, years after the patent's priority date, raising the possibility of a dispute over whether the claims cover now-conventional technology (Compl. ¶81).
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on a two-request sequence where the second request is "automatically generated" by the device in response to the server's notification of available content. A key factual question will be whether the Family Dollar app actually performs this specific sequence, or if it uses a standard, operating-system-mediated push notification that triggers a single data refresh request, which may not meet the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically generated by the wireless handheld device in response to the server response" (’395 Patent, Claim 22)
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific client-side behavior that distinguishes the claimed method from a simple user-initiated action. The case may turn on whether the accused app's background processes function in this specific "automatic" responsive manner.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts automatic processes with direct user actions like clicking on a hyperlink, suggesting "automatic" could encompass any non-user-initiated, programmatic action triggered by a server communication (’395 Patent, col. 4:39-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of a "geographical packet" generated when a GPS receiver detects a new location suggests a specific type of automated trigger, which could be used to argue that "automatically generated" requires more than a standard client-server sync operation (’395 Patent, col. 16:40-50).
• The Term: "application-program identifying field" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegation for the ’844 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether standard identifiers used in modern mobile operating systems (e.g., device tokens for APNS or FCM) fall within the claim scope, or if the patent requires a proprietary or custom field within the data packet itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses routing messages to a "specific corresponding client-side App," which could support an interpretation that any data structure serving this routing function meets the limitation (Compl. ¶34; ’844 Patent, col. 13:35-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent family incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239, which describes specific packet structures and fields (Compl. ¶¶27-29). Language from this incorporated reference describing specific header fields could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to the disclosed embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.

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

1. Scope and Modern Technology: A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the specific client-server interaction sequence, conceived in 1998 for "geographical web browsers," be construed to cover the generalized background data refresh and push notification systems that are now a conventional part of the architecture for modern mobile applications?
2. Evidentiary Proof of Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: what evidence will demonstrate that the Family Dollar app performs the precise two-request sequence alleged in the complaint (initial request -> server notification of availability -> automatic second client request -> content delivery), as opposed to a different, more standard technical implementation for data synchronization?
3. Damages Quantification: As all patents are expired, the case is exclusively for past damages. A central question for trial will be the economic value of the accused features during the limited infringement window (from the app's launch in 2017 to the patents' expiration in late 2018), and what portion of the app's value, if any, can be reasonably attributed to the patented methods.