Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Fabletics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Fabletics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01138, E.D. Tex., 01/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business," a Fabletics retail storefront, within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying customizable, automated web slideshows, commonly known as "carousel ads."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns server-side systems for generating and presenting sequences of web pages or images automatically, a feature that has become a widely adopted standard in online advertising and retail.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629. The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the ’707 Patent, the patent examiner determined that automatically composing a slideshow via the automatic extraction of web page details was an unconventional feature not disclosed in 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 Jan. 30, 2007)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need for a system that allows website owners to create automated presentations of web page sequences without the cost of reprogramming the site or requiring users to install client-side development tools or plugins, such as Flash (Compl. ¶25; ’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-side software system comprised of two main components: a "composer" and a "performer," both operating on a host server (’629 Patent, Fig. 1). The composer is used to create a "presentation" by defining a list of URLs, their display sequence, and their display duration (’629 Patent, Abstract). The performer, also on the server, is then invoked to automatically load and display this presentation to a user in a slideshow format, thereby avoiding the need for a locally installed plugin on the user's computer (Compl. ¶26; ’629 Patent, col. 9:11-20).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach moved the presentation-rendering logic from the client-side (which dominated the market via plugins like Flash) to the remote server, which the complaint alleges was a "paradigm shift" that avoided software compatibility issues and installation requirements for the end-user (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶42).
• The essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server;
  • creating a presentation in the composer, which includes the steps of:
    • establishing a list of URLs in the composer by one of a plurality of list establishment methodologies;
    • determining a display sequence of the list of URLs in the composer; and
    • determining a duration of display for the list of URLs in the composer;
  • remotely invoking a performer operating on the host server to present the created presentation; and
  • automatically locally displaying the presentation in a slide show format, wherein each slide is automatically displayed to a user, absent human intervention, for a pre-determined duration.

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore (Issued Sep. 23, 2008)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that prior art methods for creating slideshows were manual and labor-intensive, requiring a developer to compose and store the slideshow in a specific file format and location (Compl. ¶62).
• The Patented Solution: The ’707 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the ’629 Patent, adds a method for "auto-composing" a presentation. Instead of requiring manual entry of URLs, the system automatically creates the list of URLs by "extracting" web page details—such as hyperlinks, data from a text file, or information from a meta tag—directly from a desired web page (’707 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶62). The "performer" then displays this automatically generated presentation.
• Technical Importance: This invention sought to automate the creation of the presentation content itself, reducing the manual effort needed to generate a web slideshow from an existing page's embedded links and data (Compl. ¶62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶64).
• The essential elements of claim 7 include:
  • composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs;
  • wherein the composing step comprises one of:
    • (a) automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page;
    • (b) automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from the desired web page; or
    • (c) automatically extracting a meta tag from the desired web page;
  • automatically displaying the presentation, wherein the presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The website https://www.fabletics.com/ ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶42, ¶64).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Fabletics website, particularly its homepage, features an automated "web slide show" used to display a rotating series of images and promotional content (Compl. ¶43, ¶50). A screen capture provided in the complaint shows this slideshow feature active in the upper portion of the homepage as viewed on a desktop web browser (Compl. ¶43; Exhibit E). Another visual shows the same feature on a smartphone-based web browser, indicating cross-platform functionality (Compl. ¶43; Exhibit F).
• The complaint alleges this slideshow is implemented using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS code, which is loaded and executed when a user visits the website (Compl. ¶44). The complaint characterizes this type of feature as a "carousel ad" and alleges it is an "industry standard" that drives significantly higher user engagement and conversion rates compared to static ads (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused website's architecture, which allegedly uses integrated JavaScript and HTML, maps onto the patent’s claim structure of distinct "composer" and "performer" components that are "remotely invoked" on a "host server." The definitions of "composer" and "performer" will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the "composer" is invoked and establishes a list of URLs. The actual mechanism by which the Fabletics website assembles its slideshow content (e.g., via a client-side script calling an API versus a server-side component as claimed) will be a key factual issue.

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the meaning of "automatically extracting... from the desired web page." A question for the court will be whether this term covers a modern web application's process of dynamically generating HTML from a database or content management system, or if it is limited to a process of parsing or scraping a pre-existing, static web page.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system "extracts" hyperlinks or other details? The complaint points to source code, but the defendant may argue this code reflects a dynamic assembly or generation process, not an "extraction" from a static source as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’629 Patent: "composer" / "performer"

• The Term: "composer" and "performer"
• Context and Importance: These terms define the fundamental software architecture of the claimed invention. Whether the accused system infringes will depend heavily on whether its integrated web application code can be mapped onto this two-component structure. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they appear to describe distinct software modules, and the defense may argue that such distinct modules do not exist in its modern, monolithic web application.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract refers to a "software program incorporating both a composing portion and a performing portion," which could support a functional definition where any code that performs the "composing" function is a "composer." (e.g., ’629 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:6-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts "Composer 12" and "Performer 14" as separate boxes residing on "Host Server 16," suggesting they are structurally distinct components. The detailed description also discusses their operations separately, which could support a more limited interpretation requiring discrete, identifiable software modules. (e.g., ’629 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:11-44).

Term from the ’707 Patent: "automatically extracting"

• The Term: "automatically extracting"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted inventive concept of the ’707 Patent, distinguishing it from the manual methods of the parent ’629 Patent. The infringement analysis for claim 7 will likely hinge on the construction of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the "auto compose function" as a process where "the composer 12 is invoked and operates to extract the details... to automatically compose a presentation." This functional language could be argued to cover any automated means of gathering URLs to build a slideshow. (e.g., ’707 Patent, col. 8:15-19).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint contrasts the invention with prior art where a slideshow was "composed manually" (Compl. ¶62). This context, along with the patent's description of extracting from sources like hyperlinks or text files within a page, could support a narrower definition that requires parsing or reading from a pre-existing data source, as opposed to dynamically generating the content from a database on the fly. (e.g., ’707 Patent, col. 8:20-44).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c). Instead, for method steps that may involve user action (such as a user's browser invoking the system), the complaint alleges that Defendant is liable for direct infringement because it "directed or controlled performance" of those steps (Compl. ¶49, ¶50).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the accused website's integrated use of server-side logic and client-side JavaScript map onto the claimed architecture of distinct, remotely invoked "composer" and "performer" components operating on a "host server," as described in the ’629 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in system design?
• A key question of claim scope for the ’707 Patent will be: Can the term "automatically extracting," which the complaint frames as an unconventional feature, be construed broadly enough to cover the dynamic server-side generation of slideshow content from a database, or is it limited to a more specific technical act of parsing a pre-existing web page or text file?
• An evidentiary question concerning direct infringement will be: Does Fabletics exert sufficient "direction or control" over its end-users' autonomous actions of navigating to its website to make it legally responsible for claimed steps such as "remotely invoking a performer"?