Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. v. Michaels Stores, Inc.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Michaels Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00738, E.D. Tex., 08/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, specifically its homepage slideshow feature, infringes patents related to server-side systems for creating and displaying automated sequences of web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating dynamic web presentations, such as promotional carousels, to enhance user engagement and deliver targeted content on e-commerce and marketing websites.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629, indicating a shared technical disclosure. The complaint also references the prosecution history of the ’707 patent to distinguish it from prior art. The inventor of both patents is identified as the founder, owner, and CEO of the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629, "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore," issued January 30, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior methods of web navigation as inefficient, requiring users to manually click through web pages or repeatedly return to search results. For site owners, creating automated presentations was complex and costly, often requiring site-wide reprogramming for any content changes ('629 Patent, col. 7:48-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-side system comprised of two main components: a "composer" and a "performer." The composer is used to create a "presentation" by defining a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a display duration. The performer then automatically loads and displays this presentation to a user as a seamless, client-installation-free slideshow ('629 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:11-30).
• Technical Importance: The system provided a method for website owners to create automated "tours" or dynamic sequences of content to guide visitors and improve engagement, thereby increasing the time users spent on a site without requiring expensive client-side software or continuous redevelopment ('629 Patent, col. 13:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
• Essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • Remotely invoking a "composer" operating on a host server.
  • Creating a presentation in the composer by establishing a list of URLs, determining a display sequence, and determining a display duration.
  • Remotely invoking a "performer" operating on the host server to present the created presentation.
  • Automatically locally displaying the presentation in a slideshow format, where each URL is a slide that is displayed for a pre-determined duration absent human intervention.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707, "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore," issued September 23, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares its specification with the ’629 Patent, addresses the same general problem of inefficient web navigation and content presentation (’707 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on an "auto-composing" system. Instead of requiring manual creation of a URL list, the system automatically composes a slideshow by extracting web page details—such as hyperlinks, information from a separate text file, or data from a meta tag—directly from a designated web page to generate the presentation list (’707 Patent, Abstract). The complaint emphasizes that this automatic extraction was an unconventional feature at the time (Compl. ¶45).
• Technical Importance: This innovation automated the creation of the presentation itself, allowing a dynamic slideshow to be generated from a page’s existing content with minimal manual input, further lowering the barrier for creating such features (’707 Patent, col. 8:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
• Essential elements of claim 7 include:
  • Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs.
  • This composing step comprises one or more of: (a) automatically extracting hyperlinks from the page, (b) automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from the page, or (c) automatically extracting a meta tag from the page.
  • Automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the website "https://www.michaels.com/" and its underlying system, specifically the automated slideshow of images and promotions displayed on its homepage (Compl. ¶¶26-27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the homepage of the accused website features an automatically advancing slideshow of promotional images (Compl. ¶27). This slideshow is allegedly created and presented using a combination of HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, with server-side components operating on a host server to establish the list of images (URLs) and their display parameters (Compl. ¶¶28, 48). Exhibit E provides a screen capture of the accused slideshow as it appears to a user on the Defendant's homepage (Compl. ¶27, Ex. E).
• The functionality is described as a method for presenting "featured promotional offerings" to website visitors, a common and commercially significant marketing tool for major e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,171,629 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system possesses the distinct "composer" and "performer" components as architected in the patent. The complaint alleges these components exist on "information and belief," which may be tested as discovery proceeds.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the list of URLs is established via manual entry or a "query-based system." A point of contention may be what evidence supports the operation of a "query-based system" for establishing the slideshow content, as opposed to a static, pre-defined list.

7,428,707 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The core of the dispute for this patent may turn on the meaning of "automatically extracting." A question for the court will be whether simply rendering a list of URLs provided in a page's source code constitutes "extracting" them, or if the term requires a more active parsing or discovery process.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the system performs an "extraction" step at runtime, as opposed to being delivered a pre-compiled list of image assets from the server? The distinction between dynamically parsing a page versus rendering a pre-configured data object will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’629 Patent:

• The Term: "composer"
• Context and Importance: The claimed method requires distinct steps of invoking a "composer" and a "performer". The existence and scope of the "composer" as a discrete logical entity will be central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that the accused system is a monolithic script or application that does not map onto the patent's specific two-part architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the composer functionally as a "composing portion of the software program... used to create a presentation," which could support a broad interpretation covering any software module that performs these functions ('629 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 2A depict the composer as a specific module that interacts with a site owner/developer and accepts discrete inputs like a URL list, duration, and replay order, suggesting a more structured and interactive component than a simple script ('629 Patent, Fig. 2A; col. 9:45-54).

For the ’707 Patent:

• The Term: "automatically extracting"
• Context and Importance: This term is the key functional limitation that distinguishes the invention from methods requiring manual list creation. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused system performs this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of novelty argued during prosecution (Compl. ¶45).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language in claim 7, "automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page," could be interpreted broadly to cover any automated server or client-side process that reads hyperlink data from the page's code and uses it to form a list (’707 Patent, col. 8:6-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint references prosecution history where the applicant allegedly distinguished the invention from prior art where slideshows were "composed manually and then stored" (Compl. ¶45). This could support a narrower construction requiring a dynamic, on-the-fly parsing of a page's content to "extract" the links, rather than simply receiving a pre-packaged list of assets from a server.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that to the extent users perform certain steps of the claimed methods (e.g., invoking the performer), Defendant is liable because it "directs or controls performance" (Compl. ¶¶33, 34). This language appears tailored to address potential arguments of divided infringement, where multiple parties collectively perform the steps of a method claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit count for willful infringement or plead specific facts alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

• Architectural Equivalence: A central issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused "michaels.com" slideshow, likely built with modern web frameworks, implement the distinct server-side "composer" and "performer" architecture required by the '629 patent, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch between the accused system and the patent's specific design?
• Functional Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system "automatically extract" hyperlinks as required by claim 7 of the '707 patent, or does it merely render a pre-configured list of assets delivered to the browser? The case may turn on whether the system's operation meets the specific, active process of "extraction" that was allegedly positioned as a key inventive concept.