DCT
4:24-cv-00402
Push Data LLC v. Michaels Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Michaels Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shea | Beaty
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00402, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for smartphones infringes three expired patents related to location-based services and push notifications.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for delivering geographically relevant information to mobile devices, a core feature of modern e-commerce and marketing applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts three patents that expired in November 2018; consequently, the action is for past damages only. The patents-in-suit all stem from a common patent application filed in 1998.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-11-17 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 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 |
| c. 2011 | Original versions of Accused Michaels App allegedly developed |
| c. 2014 | Features of asserted claims allegedly began common use in Android push technologies |
| 2018-11-17 | ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents Expire |
| 2024-05-08 | Complaint Filed |
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.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, mobile users seeking location-specific information had to manually navigate to it, for instance, by selecting an icon corresponding to a local area (Compl. ¶16; ’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64). Existing systems relied on coarse "cell data" for positioning and lacked methods to automatically control network applications using more precise, locally broadcast data or GPS information (’395 Patent, col. 3:23-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a mobile device maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) but controls the information flow on that connection using data received from an auxiliary channel, such as a local broadcast (e.g., Wi-Fi) or a GPS receiver (Compl. ¶20; ’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). A key component is a "packet filter" on the mobile device that selectively passes locally received information based on a user's interest; this filtered information can then trigger the automatic downloading of related content, such as web pages, over the primary network connection (’395 Patent, col. 4:31-44).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for automatically delivering location-relevant, personalized information to mobile users without requiring constant manual interaction, foreshadowing modern geo-fenced marketing and location-aware application functionality (Compl. ¶14-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least claims 4 and 22, with claim 22 being independent (Compl. ¶84, ¶88).
- Independent Claim 22 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Causing a communication push message to be wirelessly transmitted to a mobile unit, where the message contains information about further content available for download.
- The push message is not a server response to a client request sent "substantially just prior" to the push message.
- Receiving a client-request packet from the mobile unit in response to a user's selection, indicating a request to download the further content.
- Sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to that client-request packet.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
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.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a member of the same patent family, the ’844 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’395 Patent, namely the lack of automated, location-aware information delivery to mobile devices (Compl. ¶16, ¶93). The patents share the same substantive written description (Compl. ¶12, n.1).
- The Patented Solution: The ’844 Patent discloses the same core technical solution of using location data (from GPS or local broadcasts) to control information flow over a primary network connection, enabling a "geographical web browser" functionality (Compl. ¶17; ’395 Patent, col. 4:25-44).
- Technical Importance: The invention contributed to the development of push notifications and location-based services that are now foundational to the mobile application ecosystem (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46, with claims 1 and 25 being independent (Compl. ¶105, ¶109).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- A server receiving a first request from a mobile unit.
- The server sending a response that includes an indication of available content related to the request.
- The server receiving a second request from the mobile unit, which is "automatically generated" by the mobile unit in response to the server's initial response and "without requiring user action."
- The server coupling the available content to the mobile unit.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 - GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS (Multi-Patent Capsule)
- Patent Identification: 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 as the other patents-in-suit, discloses systems and methods for delivering geographically relevant information to mobile users (Compl. ¶12, n.1; Compl. ¶114). It solves the problem of prior art systems' inability to automatically provide location-based content by describing client-server interactions triggered by the device's position, enabling functionalities like push notifications and automated content updates based on user location and preferences (Compl. ¶16-17).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶126, ¶130).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Michaels mobile app and its supporting servers of infringing by performing a multi-step method where a server receives a request, responds with content availability, receives a second automatically generated request, and then provides the content to the device in an environment with at least two wireless networks (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi) (Compl. ¶124-125).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are identified as "at least the Michaels application as developed for mobile electronic devices," available on the Google Play and Apple App stores, as well as the supporting server-side infrastructure and website (Compl. ¶68).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities implement a client-server communication method to deliver content to users (Compl. ¶82, ¶103, ¶124). This method allegedly involves a first request from the mobile device to a remote server, a response from the server indicating content availability, a second, automatically generated request from the device, and the server then sending the content (Compl. ¶82). This functionality is alleged to occur in an environment with access to at least two wireless networks, such as cellular and Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶83). The complaint suggests that this type of location-based push service has significant commercial value (Compl. ¶64).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references but does not include claim-chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations based on the narrative descriptions provided in the complaint.
7,058,395 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 22) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| causing a communication push message to be wirelessly transmitted to the particular mobile unit...[containing] information related to the further content available for downloading... | Defendant's server sends a response to the mobile device indicating that content is available related to a user's request. | ¶82 | col. 23:5-13 |
| ...the communication push message is not a server response message sent via a user-interactive client-server session and is not sent in response to a client request message coupled from the particular mobile unit substantially just prior to the communication push message being transmitted... | The complaint alleges a method of providing location-based push services, which implies a server-initiated or triggered communication rather than a standard, immediate client-pull response. | ¶65, ¶82 | col. 23:14-22 |
| receiving a client-request packet wirelessly coupled from the particular mobile unit in response to the user selection, the client-request packet indicating a request to download the further content... | The mobile device, upon user interaction with the app, generates a request to the server to obtain the available content. | ¶82 | col. 23:23-28 |
| sending the further content to the mobile unit in response to the client-request packet... | The server couples the available content to the mobile device in response to its request. | ¶82 | col. 23:29-31 |
7,292,844 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| the particular server receiving a first request coupled thereto from the particular mobile unit via the particular wireless packet network access station... | A remote server receives a first request from a user's handheld or mobile device operating the Michaels App. | ¶103 | col. 21:10-14 |
| the particular server coupling a server response to the particular mobile unit, the server response including an indication of availability of content related to the first request... | The remote server responds to the device that there is content available related to the request. | ¶103 | col. 21:15-18 |
| the particular server receiving a second request coupled thereto from the particular mobile unit, wherein the second request is automatically generated by the particular mobile unit in response to the server response, without requiring user action... | The remote server receives a second request from the handheld device, which is automatically generated by the device. | ¶103 | col. 21:19-24 |
| the particular server coupling the available content related to the first request to the particular mobile unit. | The server then couples the available content to the handheld or mobile device. | ¶103 | col. 21:25-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute for the ’395 Patent may be whether the accused system’s server notifications qualify as a "communication push message" that is not a response to a "substantially just prior" client request. The defense may argue that any notification is part of a conventional, immediate client-pull transaction, placing it outside the claim's negative limitation.
- Technical Questions: For the ’844 Patent, a key factual question will be whether the Michaels App performs a two-request process as claimed. The analysis may focus on whether the accused functionality involves a distinct, "automatically generated" second request after the server's initial response, or if it constitutes a single, continuous client-server transaction that does not map to the claim’s multi-step sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "communication push message" (from ’395 Patent, Claim 22)
Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical due to the claim's negative limitation, which excludes messages sent in response to a "substantially just prior" client request. The viability of the infringement theory depends on whether the accused server notifications can be characterized as a "push" that is temporally distinct from a user's initial action. Practitioners may focus on this term because it draws a line between a novel push-based notification system and a conventional request-response architecture.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses systems that allow data to be updated based on "unsolicited pushed information packets which could trigger, for example, downloading of related information" (’395 Patent, col. 3:48-52), suggesting a "push" can be any server-initiated message that prompts client action, regardless of an antecedent user interest submission.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes embodiments where a user makes a selection on a graphical user interface in response to a received message to obtain further content (Compl. ¶35; ’395 Patent, col. 10:2-22). This could be interpreted to mean the "push" is merely the first step in an interactive, user-driven session, which a defendant might argue is functionally equivalent to a standard request-response transaction.
The Term: "second request... automatically generated... without requiring user action" (from ’844 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’844 patent hinges on this element. If the accused process is found to be a single, user-initiated transaction with multiple underlying data packets, rather than a sequence of two distinct requests where the second is machine-generated, the claim would not be met.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contemplates automated background operations, such as an app performing "automated background application refresh type operations" in response to a push message (Compl. ¶55; ’395 Patent, col. 13:55-56). This could support a broad reading of "automatically generated" to include any machine-to-machine communication that follows an initial server response.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes resuming a "virtual session" from an "inactive state to an active state" (Compl. ¶46). A defendant may argue that "automatically generated" requires a distinct session-level event, not merely a standard, low-level protocol handshake (like a follow-up HTTP GET) that is part of a single, continuous user-initiated transaction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations that Defendant "caused to be used" the accused products, which is language associated with induced infringement (Compl. ¶80, ¶101, ¶122). However, the complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instructs on the infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit only since "at least the filing of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶67). As the patents are expired, this allegation does not support a claim for enhanced damages based on willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute over foundational, now-expired mobile technology appears to center on the specific architectural details of the accused client-server communications. The outcome may depend on the answers to the following questions:
- A core issue will be one of temporal scope: For the ’395 patent, can the server notifications in the accused system be characterized as a "push message" that is meaningfully independent of a "substantially just prior" client request, or does the evidence show they are part of a conventional and immediate request-response sequence explicitly carved out of the claim?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: For the ’844 patent, does the accused Michaels App technically perform a two-step process by generating a distinct and "second request... automatically" after receiving an initial server response, or is the entire data exchange a single, unified transaction from both a protocol and user perspective?
- An overarching challenge will be one of historical evidence: Given that the patents expired in 2018, can Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence to prove the precise functionality of the accused mobile application and its server architecture as it existed during the relevant pre-2018 damages period?