4:24-cv-00971
R2 Solutions LLC v. Roadget Business Pte Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: R2 Solutions LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Roadget Business Pte. Ltd (Singapore)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00971, E.D. Tex., 10/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district under the alien-venue rule.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform, including its website and mobile applications, infringes five patents related to search result generation, user intent analysis, result presentation, and user behavior tracking.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to improving online search functionality by moving beyond simple keyword matching to understand user intent, combat search spam, and dynamically respond to user behavior.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents originated from Yahoo! Inc. It also alleges that Plaintiff attempted to engage Defendant in licensing discussions beginning on March 12, 2024, but that Defendant ignored these attempts. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis for potential willfulness claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-08-10 | Earliest Priority Date for ’317 Patent |
| 2007-01-10 | Priority Date for ’329 Patent |
| 2007-12-21 | Priority Date for ’623 Patent |
| 2009-07-31 | Priority Date for ’157 Patent |
| 2010-04-13 | ’329 Patent Issued |
| 2012-06-26 | ’317 Patent Issued |
| 2012-12-25 | ’157 Patent Issued |
| 2013-09-03 | ’623 Patent Issued |
| 2014-12-17 | Priority Date for ’097 Patent |
| 2017-10-31 | ’097 Patent Issued |
| 2024-03-12 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-04-01 | Plaintiff sends email follow-up to Defendant |
| 2024-04-18 | Plaintiff sends hard copy of letter to Defendant |
| 2024-05-06 | Plaintiff sends second follow-up letter to Defendant |
| 2024-10-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 - “System and Method for Intent-Driven Search Result Presentation,” issued December 25, 2012 (’157 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional search engines often treat a user’s query as a simple "bag of words," which can produce search results that do not align with the user's actual purpose (Compl. ¶26; ’157 Patent, col. 4:1-5). Scrutinizing these results can be onerous for the user when the results are not contextually relevant (Compl. ¶26; ’157 Patent, col. 4:10-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that goes beyond keyword matching to infer the user's likely "intent." This intent is then used to customize the search results, for example by creating a tailored title or abstract, or by modifying the URL to pass information about the user's intent to the landing page (’157 Patent, col. 4:16-26). The system determines intent through methods including linguistic analysis of keywords, analysis of previous queries in the user's session, and user profile information (Compl. ¶27; ’157 Patent, col. 9:53-61).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from pure document retrieval based on keywords to a more user-centric model that attempts to understand and act upon the underlying goal of a search query (Compl. ¶28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 7-10, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 57).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising:
- Receiving a query with at least one token.
- Analyzing the query to identify a keyword.
- Determining a "plurality of intents" from the keyword.
- Classifying the query into at least one of those intents.
- Identifying data objects that match the keyword.
- Assigning at least one intent to some of the data objects.
- Ranking the data objects.
- Building a result where at least one display entry is "customized to a respective assigned intent."
- Transmitting the result to the user.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶57).
U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 - “Method for Improving Quality of Search Results by Avoiding Indexing Sections of Pages,” issued April 13, 2010 (’329 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses "search engine spamming," where malicious actors manipulate search rankings by populating documents with irrelevant keywords or sponsored links, degrading the quality and relevance of search results (Compl. ¶32; ’329 Patent, col. 2:6-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a web crawler delineates a document into "recall sections" and "no-recall sections" (’329 Patent, col. 3:12-15). Terms in "no-recall sections" (e.g., advertisements, boilerplate content) are not used to recall the document in a search, but the content within these sections is still analyzed for ranking purposes, such as detecting spam or assessing link quality (Compl. ¶33; ’329 Patent, col. 3:18-27). This prevents spammers from hiding spammy content in sections that are ignored by the crawler entirely.
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a more sophisticated tool for webmasters and search engines to improve result relevance by separating primary content from ancillary content, while still allowing for a holistic analysis of the page to thwart manipulation (Compl. ¶36; ’329 Patent, col. 1:67-2:5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 11-12, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 70).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising:
- Ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine.
- Wherein the documents contain at least one section "not used by said search engine for recall" and one or more sections that are used for recall.
- Wherein the ranking is based, at least in part, on the content of the "at least one section...not used by said search engine to recall documents."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶70).
U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 - “Method and Apparatus for Reconstructing a Search Query,” issued June 26, 2012 (’317 Patent)
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the difficulty of entering full search queries on devices with limited input capabilities, like mobile phones (Compl. ¶37). It discloses a system that receives a "partial query" (e.g., an abbreviation or typo) and reconstructs a "full query" based on a database of previously submitted queries, making search more accessible on such devices (Compl. ¶¶ 38-39).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1 and 12, among others (Compl. ¶83).
Accused Features
SHEIN’s search functionality, which allegedly receives partial user queries and reconstructs them to provide search results based on a more complete query (Compl. ¶¶ 82-83).
U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 - “Method and System for Providing a Search Result,” issued October 31, 2017 (’097 Patent)
Technology Synopsis
The patent seeks to solve the problem of limited user engagement with traditional, list-based search results that require extensive scrolling (Compl. ¶40). The solution is to generate a "framed structure" (e.g., a tiled layout) for displaying content items, where a correspondence is determined between the content items and sub-components of the structure (Compl. ¶41).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶96).
Accused Features
The user interface of SHEIN's Online Store, which allegedly presents search results in a non-linear, framed, or tiled structure to enhance presentation (Compl. ¶¶ 95-96, 103).
U.S. Patent No. 8,527,623 - “User Vacillation Detection and Response,” issued September 3, 2013 (’623 Patent)
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the phenomenon of "user vacillation" in online commerce, where a user is in a state of indecision between products or vendors (Compl. ¶43). The invention is a system that automatically detects a "vacillation pattern" based on a user's online behavior, constructs a "vacillation event data structure," and provides targeted information to help the user resolve their uncertainty (Compl. ¶44).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1 and 13, among others (Compl. ¶109).
Accused Features
SHEIN’s systems that allegedly track user behavior (e.g., through features like "Wishlist" and "Recently Viewed") to detect user interests or indecision, and then provide responsive information or recommendations through features like "My Message" (Compl. ¶116). A screenshot of a user's account page shows these exact features (Compl. p. 32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Instrumentalities are the front-end and back-end systems, services, processes, and methods associated with "SHEIN's Online Store," which includes the website us.shein.com and its related mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities provide search functionality that allows users to find products. This includes systems for receiving and analyzing user queries, tracking user online behaviors, and generating and presenting search results (Compl. ¶8). For example, the complaint points to SHEIN's search interface, which allegedly suggests search terms to users, as an infringing feature (Compl. ¶64). The complaint also identifies features such as "Wishlist," "Recently Viewed," and "My Message" as functionalities that track and respond to user behavior (Compl. ¶116). SHEIN is described as a "global fashion and lifestyle online retailer" that derives substantial revenue from its infringing activities in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’157 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, over a network, a query from a user, the query comprising at least one query token; | SHEIN's Online Store receives search queries from users via its website and mobile apps (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8, 57). A screenshot shows a search bar on the SHEIN website (Compl. p. 22). | ¶57, ¶64 | col. 10:1-3 |
| analyzing the query...to identify at least one query keyword; | SHEIN’s back-end systems analyze the user’s submitted query to identify keywords for performing a search (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 57). | ¶8, ¶57 | col. 10:4-6 |
| determining...a plurality of intents from the at least one keyword, each of the plurality of intents indicates a type of information...likely to be desired... | The complaint alleges SHEIN's systems determine user intent from the query, which is a core feature of the patent's described solution (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27, 29, 57). | ¶29, ¶57 | col. 10:7-13 |
| classifying the query...into at least one of the plurality of intents; | SHEIN's systems allegedly classify the query into an intent category to guide result generation (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 57). | ¶29, ¶57 | col. 10:14-16 |
| identifying...a plurality of data objects available over the network that match the at least one query keyword; | SHEIN's search engine identifies products and other data objects within its e-commerce platform that match the user's query keywords (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 57). | ¶8, ¶57 | col. 10:17-19 |
| assigning...at least one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality of data objects; | The complaint alleges SHEIN's system assigns a determined intent to the identified data objects to inform how they are presented (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 57). | ¶29, ¶57 | col. 10:20-22 |
| ranking...the plurality of data objects; | SHEIN's systems rank the identified products before presenting them to the user (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 57). | ¶8, ¶57 | col. 10:23-24 |
| building a result...at least one display entry customized to a respective assigned intent is constructed for each of the ranked plurality of data objects; and | The complaint alleges SHEIN's systems generate a results page where the presentation of at least one result is customized based on the assigned user intent (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 57). | ¶29, ¶57 | col. 10:25-30 |
| transmitting the result, over the network, to the user. | SHEIN's Online Store transmits the search result page back to the user's browser or mobile application (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 57). | ¶3, ¶57 | col. 10:31-32 |
Identified Points of Contention (’157 Patent)
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof can be offered that SHEIN's search system performs the specific, multi-step process of determining a "plurality of intents" and then "customizing" a display entry based on an "assigned intent"? The complaint does not provide specific evidence of how SHEIN's back-end system operates.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether SHEIN's functionality, which could be argued to be conventional relevancy ranking and result formatting, meets the specific claim requirement of customizing a result "to a respective assigned intent." This raises the question of whether standard e-commerce personalization features fall within the claim's scope.
’329 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine for a query; | SHEIN's back-end systems rank documents (e.g., product pages) that are recalled by its search engine in response to a user query (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 70). | ¶8, ¶70 | col. 7:3-4 |
| wherein the plurality of documents contain certain documents, each...containing at least one section that is not used by said search engine for recall and one or more sections that are used...for recall; | The complaint alleges that SHEIN's systems analyze web pages that are structured with different sections, some of which are used for search recall and some of which are not (e.g., primary content vs. ads/boilerplate) (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 34, 70). | ¶33, ¶34, ¶70 | col. 7:5-10 |
| wherein ranking a plurality of documents includes ranking said plurality of documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section of said certain documents not used by said search engine to recall documents; and | The complaint's theory is that SHEIN's ranking algorithms analyze the entire document, including sections not used for recall (like ad-heavy portions), to determine the final ranking, for example, to penalize spammy pages (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 34, 70). | ¶33, ¶34, ¶70 | col. 7:11-15 |
| wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. | The alleged infringement is carried out by SHEIN's computer systems, including its servers and software (Compl. ¶8). | ¶8, ¶70 | col. 7:16-18 |
Identified Points of Contention (’329 Patent)
- Technical Questions: The central issue is the lack of public-facing evidence for the claimed method. The complaint does not provide details on how it knows that SHEIN's ranking algorithm bases its ranking "on the at least one section...not used by said search engine to recall documents." This is an internal, back-end process, and the basis for this allegation is not specified.
- Scope Questions: A question of scope is whether standard search engine practices, such as analyzing a page for ad density to influence a quality score, can be equated to the specific claim limitation of ranking based on a "section that is not used...for recall."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’157 Patent
- The Term: "a plurality of intents"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the ’157 Patent. The entire claim hinges on whether the accused system determines "intents" as opposed to merely performing keyword expansion or query categorization. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether SHEIN's personalization features fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an intent as "a mapping from many combinations of keywords to a relatively small set of common goals that users pursue" (’157 Patent, col. 9:44-47). This could support a broad reading covering any system that maps keywords to user goals.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an "illustrative list" of very specific intents, such as "official-site, research, purchase, dealer, support, or reviews" for products (’157 Patent, col. 9:49-51). This language may be used to argue that the term is limited to a pre-defined, enumerated set of such explicit commercial goals.
For the ’329 Patent
- The Term: "at least one section that is not used by said search engine for recall"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core data structure and process of the invention—differentiating parts of a document for recall versus ranking analysis. Proving that the accused system creates and uses such a "no-recall section" is fundamental to the infringement case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that a no-recall section may be identified by "analyzing section content rather than examining only delimiters" (’329 Patent, col. 3:16-18). This suggests the section need not be explicitly tagged and could be algorithmically inferred, supporting a broader functional definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a concrete example of a "no-recall" section being "demarcated by, for example, a tag" and shows an embodiment using
<div class="robots-noindex">(’329 Patent, col. 3:15-16, Fig. 2). This could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit tag or a similarly formal structural delimiter.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five patents. The factual basis for inducement is that SHEIN provides its Online Store to customers and "instructs and encourages" them to use the infringing functionalities (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 60-64). As a specific example, the complaint repeatedly references a screenshot of the SHEIN website that displays pre-populated, demonstrative search terms like "Workout Tank Tops," which it alleges induces users to engage the accused search systems (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 77, 90, 103). For the ’623 patent, inducement is alleged based on SHEIN providing and encouraging the use of features like "Wishlist" and "Recently Viewed" (Compl. ¶116).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that SHEIN had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. It details a series of four communications sent to SHEIN's General Counsel between March 12, 2024, and May 6, 2024, offering to license the portfolio (Compl. ¶¶ 49-51). The complaint alleges SHEIN "ignored each of these attempts to engage in a licensing dialogue" (Compl. ¶52). This alleged pre-suit notice and subsequent inaction form the basis for a claim of willfulness and a request for a finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof for back-end functionality: Can the Plaintiff obtain and present evidence demonstrating that SHEIN's internal, non-public systems operate in the specific manner required by the claims—for example, by distinguishing "recall" from "no-recall" sections of a document ('329 patent) or by explicitly determining and assigning user "intents" to customize search results ('157 patent)? The complaint's allegations regarding these technical operations are not substantiated with public-facing evidence.
- A second central question will be one of definitional scope and functional equivalence: Can terms rooted in specific technical contexts, such as "vacillation pattern" ('623 patent), be construed broadly enough to encompass common e-commerce features like "Wishlist" and "Recently Viewed"? The case may turn on whether these widely used features perform the specific functions recited in the claims or if there is a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation.
- A key question for damages will be willfulness: Given the complaint's specific allegations of pre-suit notice and ignored licensing outreach, the court will have to determine whether SHEIN's conduct, if infringement is found, met the standard for objective recklessness, which could lead to enhanced damages and a finding that the case is exceptional.