DCT

4:24-cv-00406

Push Data LLC v. Torrid LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00406, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, specifically citing retail store locations in Prosper and Frisco, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile retail application infringes three expired patents related to location-based services, push notifications, and client-server communication methods for mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies for delivering geographically relevant information and application-specific notifications to mobile devices, a core function of modern smartphone applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that all three patents-in-suit stem from a common patent application filed in 1998. All asserted patents expired in November 2018, limiting the action to a claim for past damages.

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
2017-01-01 Approximate Launch of Accused Torrid App
2018-11-17 Expiration of ’395, ’844, and ’811 Patents
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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where providing localized information to mobile users was inefficient. Existing technology required users to manually "select an icon or navigate a browser application... to access information specific to a local area" (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-65; Compl. ¶16). Furthermore, location determination based on cellular network "cell data" was coarse and imprecise (Compl. ¶18; ’395 Patent, col. 3:23-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "geographical web browser" system that automates the delivery of location-relevant content. A mobile device maintains a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) while also receiving information on an auxiliary channel, such as from a local low-power broadcaster or a GPS receiver (’395 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶20). A key component is a "packet filter" on the mobile device that selectively processes this locally received information, allowing the device to automatically access web pages or application data pertinent to its physical location without constant user interaction (’395 Patent, col. 4:35-44; Compl. ¶16).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve mobile data communications by enabling applications to become location-aware automatically, rather than relying on manual user input to define a local area (Compl. ¶51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 4 and 22 (Compl. ¶88). Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 22 is an independent claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Receiving a user interest indication.
    • Receiving a location indication for a mobile unit.
    • Identifying an information item that comports with the user interest and is associated with the location.
    • Causing information related to the item to be transmitted to the mobile unit via "one or more unsolicited pushed messages" using packet headers, without maintaining an active user-interactive client-server session.
  • Independent Claim 22 (Apparatus):
    • A processor and memory.
    • A user interface.
    • At least one wireless air interface with a protocol stack.
    • An application program configured to receive "pushed information" and present a "selectable indication" to the user.
    • Upon user selection of the indication, further content is downloaded.
    • The pushed information includes an "application-program identifying field" to identify the application program.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶86).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the technology addresses the need for more efficient, automated delivery of location-based information to mobile devices, overcoming the limitations of manual navigation and coarse location data (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’844 patent, which shares a specification with the ’395 patent, claims specific client-server functionalities for delivering this information (Compl. ¶12, fn 1; Compl. ¶48). The complaint alleges that the ’844 patent’s claims are directed to inventions that send a push message to a specific application on a remote device using an "application-program-identifying field." This message also carries "address information" that the application can use to download further information over a "resumed virtual session" with its server (Compl. ¶48).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provided a method for routing push notifications to one of a plurality of applications on a single device and for managing the subsequent data synchronization, a model that became foundational to modern multi-app smartphone operating systems (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 (Compl. ¶109). The dependency of these claims is not specified in the complaint.
  • The complaint alleges these claims contain recitations of specific client-server interactions, including a client request, a server response indicating data availability, a subsequent client request to pull the content, and the server's response to that pull request (Compl. ¶48).
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶107).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: Stemming from the same original application as the other patents-in-suit, this patent relates to methods for providing geographically relevant data to mobile devices (Compl. ¶13). It addresses the problem of prior art systems requiring manual navigation for local content by introducing methods to automatically control network applications using filtered local broadcast information or GPS data (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶130).
  • Accused Features: The accused Torrid App is alleged to perform a client-server communication method in an environment with at least two wireless networks (e.g., cellular and WiFi). This method involves a remote server receiving a first request, responding with content availability, receiving a second automatically generated request from the device, and then coupling the content to the device (Compl. ¶¶ 124-125).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the "Torrid application as developed for mobile electronic devices," available on the Google Play and Apple App stores, which operates in conjunction with Defendant's servers and website (Compl. ¶68).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges a specific, three-part client-server interaction model as the core infringing functionality. First, a remote server receives an initial request from the mobile device. Second, the server responds, indicating that related content is available. Third, the server receives a second request from the device, which is "automatically generated," and in response, couples the available content to the device (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 103, 124).
  • This method is alleged to be performed in an environment where at least two wireless packet networks, such as cellular and WiFi, are available for access (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 104, 125). The complaint alleges that original versions of the Torrid App were developed around 2017 (Compl. ¶81).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement analysis exhibits for each patent but does not include them in the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 105, 126). The following summarizes the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

’395 Patent Infringement Summary

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claims 4 and 22 by performing the client-server interaction described in Section III (Compl. ¶¶ 82-83, 88). This method—involving a first request, a server response about content availability, a second automatically generated request, and final content delivery—is alleged to meet the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’395 patent (Compl. ¶88).

’844 Patent Infringement Summary

The complaint asserts that the same client-server interaction method infringes at least claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46 of the ’844 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 103-104, 109). This functionality is alleged to embody the specific client-server functionalities and network configurations recited in the asserted claims of the ’844 patent (Compl. ¶48).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the alleged client-server "request-response-request-delivery" model (Compl. ¶82) maps onto the patent's concept of a mobile unit processing "unsolicited pushed messages" (e.g., ’395 Patent, Claim 1) or filtering information from a "local broadcast domain" (’395 Patent, col. 4:45-51). The defense may argue that a server’s response to a client’s request is neither "unsolicited" nor a "broadcast."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the mobile device "automatically" generates a second request after receiving the server's initial response (Compl. ¶82). The factual basis for this "automatic" generation will be a key point. Further, for the ’844 patent, a question is whether the accused app’s communications protocol uses a specific "application-program-identifying field" to route notifications as described in the complaint’s technology summary (Compl. ¶48), a detail not repeated in the complaint’s narrative infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶ 103-104).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "packet filter" (’395 Patent, Claim 22)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for achieving automated, location-aware functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a standard server-side process for handling client requests can be considered equivalent to the client-side filtering of local broadcast packets described in the patent’s specification.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the filter’s function broadly as being "configured to selectively pass packets according to a predefined criterion" (’395 Patent, col. 4:40-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the packet filter in the context of processing locally received broadcast packets from a "local broadcast domain entity" (’395 Patent, col. 10:48-56). Figure 2 shows the "Packet Filter and Control Module" (225) receiving input from the "Broadcast Reception Module" (220), suggesting a client-side component filtering passively received signals.

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

    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory rests on a request-response model, while this claim term suggests a push model. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a server's response to a client's initial request can be construed as "unsolicited."
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint describes how the inventors sought to update data based on "unsolicited pushed information packets" (Compl. ¶19), potentially framing any server-initiated update (even if part of a larger sync process) as "unsolicited" from the end-user's direct command perspective.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The infringement narrative begins with a server "receiv[ing] a first request from a handheld or mobile device" (Compl. ¶82), which describes a client-pull interaction. This appears to be the opposite of an "unsolicited" message.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement or provide specific factual allegations regarding pre-suit knowledge or intent to induce infringement by third parties.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain an explicit 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 in this action" (Compl. ¶67). The Prayer for Relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead the factual basis for such a finding beyond the infringement itself (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the concepts of a client-side "packet filter" processing local "broadcasts" and receiving "unsolicited pushed messages," as described in the patents, be construed to cover the accused product's alleged server-side logic for responding to client-initiated data requests?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional matching: what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused app's client-server communication protocol performs the specific steps alleged, particularly the "automatic generation" of a second request and, for the '844 patent, the use of an "application-program-identifying field" to route notifications to the correct application?
  • A third question relates to damages and timing: as all patents expired in 2018, the dispute is limited to past damages for a relatively short period (from the app's 2017 launch to the 2018 expirations). The case will likely focus on establishing the accused functionality during that specific pre-expiration timeframe and quantifying the value, if any, it provided.