Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00326, E.D. Tex., 03/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in Longview, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas, where acts of infringement allegedly occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website homepage, which features an automated image slideshow, infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying sequences of web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for automatically navigating users through a series of web pages or web content, replacing manual clicking with a server-controlled "slide show" presentation to increase user engagement.
• Key Procedural History: The '707 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '629 Patent. The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the '707 Patent, arguments were made regarding the unconventional nature of automatically extracting web page details to distinguish the invention from the prior art.

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," issued January 30, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inefficiency of web navigation where users had to manually click through pages or repeatedly return to a search results list. For developers, creating automated, sequential presentations was described as costly and difficult to update without reprogramming the entire site (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16; ’629 Patent, col. 7:48-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system comprising a "composer" and a "performer" operating on a host server. The composer creates a "presentation"—a list of URLs with a defined sequence and display duration—based on input from a developer or a query. The performer then automatically displays this presentation to the end-user as a controllable slide show, eliminating the need for constant clicking (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18; ’629 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture is depicted in the patent's Figure 1 (’629 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to transform the user experience from a "passive site and active visitor" model to an "active site/active visitor" model, designed to retain visitor attention and deliver more content efficiently (Compl. ¶19; ’629 Patent, col. 13:35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of claim 11 are:
  • Remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server.
  • Creating a presentation in the composer by:
    • Establishing a list of URLs via manual entry or a query-based system.
    • Determining a display sequence for the list of URLs.
    • Determining a display duration for the list of URLs.
  • Remotely invoking a performer on the host server to present the created presentation.
  • Automatically and locally displaying the presentation in a slide show format, where each URL is a slide that is automatically displayed to a user for a pre-determined duration.
• The complaint seeks judgment on claim 11 under theories of literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶17a).

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 '707 Patent addresses the same general problem of inefficient web navigation as its parent '629 Patent. It specifically focuses on the challenge of composing the slideshow, noting that prior art methods were manual and labor-intensive (Compl. ¶¶ 43-45).
• The Patented Solution: This invention discloses an "auto-composing" system. Rather than relying on a developer to manually create a list of URLs, the system automatically creates the slideshow by extracting "web page details" directly from a target webpage. These details can include hyperlinks, information from a separate presentation/rendition text file, or data from a meta tag within the page's code (’707 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶44).
• Technical Importance: This approach automates the creation of slideshow presentations, enabling them to be generated dynamically based on a page's existing content structure, thereby reducing development overhead (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
• The essential elements of claim 7 are:
  • Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs.
  • This composing step comprises one or more of:
    • Automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page.
    • Automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from the desired web page.
    • Automatically extracting a meta tag from the desired web page.
  • Automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The complaint seeks judgment on claim 7 under theories of literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶17b).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the website "www.petco.com", particularly the automated image slideshow feature on its homepage (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 46).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Petco homepage utilizes an automated slideshow, identified in the site's code by the "div id="carousel-homepage-hero"", to present a rotating sequence of images (Compl. ¶28). This feature is alleged to use HTML, JavaScript, and CSS to function (Compl. ¶28). Plaintiff's exhibits show a series of promotional images that automatically advance (Compl. Ex. A, E, F). Exhibit A provides a screenshot from Google Chrome DevTools allegedly showing the HTML elements for the slideshow, including a "div id" of "carousel-homepage-hero" and a rotating "active" pointer (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 36).
• The complaint characterizes the slideshow as a method for presenting "featured promotional offerings," suggesting it is a central component of the website's marketing and user engagement strategy (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the integrated JavaScript and HTML code of the accused carousel maps to the patent’s more delineated "composer" and "performer" architecture. The complaint alleges these functions exist, but Defendant may argue the accused product lacks the distinct software components described and claimed in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the list of URLs is established via "manual entry" and "automatic entry by a query-based system" (Compl. ¶30). A factual dispute may arise over the specific back-end mechanisms Petco uses to populate the slideshow, and whether they meet these claimed methodologies.

'707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: Claim 7 requires a specific method of composition: "extracting" hyperlinks, a text file, or a meta tag from a desired web page. The complaint alleges that the image URLs for the slideshow are the extracted hyperlinks (Compl. ¶49). This raises the question of whether the system is performing an "extraction" step at all, or if the list of image URLs is simply defined within the webpage's source code (e.g., in a JavaScript object), which may not constitute "extracting" in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '629 Patent:

• The Term: "composer"
• Context and Importance: The patent's architecture is built on the interaction between a "composer" and a "performer". The definition of these terms is critical, as Defendant may argue that its modern, integrated web code does not contain the separate components required by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a functional or structural definition applies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader (Functional) Interpretation: The specification defines the composer by its function: "a software program... used to create a presentation," which includes accepting a list of URLs, a sequence, and a duration (’629 Patent, Abstract). This may support an argument that any code performing these functions is a "composer".
  • Evidence for a Narrower (Structural) Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts "Composer 12" and "Performer 14" as distinct, separate blocks on the "Host Server 16". This visual depiction could support a construction requiring separate and distinct software modules.

For the '707 Patent:

• The Term: "automatically extracting"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation defining the "auto-composing" feature of the '707 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the accused product’s method of populating its slideshow falls within the claim scope. The dispute may center on whether "extracting" requires parsing a webpage for information versus simply reading a pre-defined list from the page's code.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain and ordinary meaning of "extracting" simply means to derive or obtain the URL information from the webpage in an automated fashion, without requiring a specific parsing mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page" suggests a process where the system first identifies the page and then actively searches within its content (its hyperlinks, a text file, or a meta tag) to find and collect the URLs. This could be interpreted to exclude a system where the URLs are simply embedded in a JavaScript array for direct use by the slideshow script.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect infringement. However, in its direct infringement allegations, it addresses potential divided infringement issues by asserting that for any steps performed by end-users (e.g., navigating to the website), "such performance was nevertheless attributable to Defendant, because, among other things, Defendant directed or controlled performance" (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). This suggests Plaintiff is prepared to argue that Defendant is liable for the entire method claim even if a third party performs certain steps.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: for the '629 Patent, can the functions of the accused website's integrated code be mapped onto the distinct "composer" and "performer" components as claimed, or does the patent require structurally separate modules that are absent in the accused instrumentality?
• A key evidentiary question for the '707 Patent will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused "petco.com" slideshow perform the specific act of "automatically extracting" URLs from hyperlinks, a text file, or a meta tag found on the webpage, or is the list of image URLs simply pre-defined within the page's script, potentially creating a functional mismatch with the claimed method of composition?
• A central legal question will be the sufficiency of the "direction or control" allegations. The court will need to determine if Plaintiff's factual assertions—that users must visit the website to trigger the slideshow—are sufficient to attribute the users' actions to the Defendant and satisfy the requirements for direct infringement under a divided infringement theory.