DCT
5:24-cv-00181
Fall Line Patents LLC v. Lowe's Companies
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fall Line Patents, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00181, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in the district, commits alleged acts of infringement there by offering its mobile app, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the form of at least one physical store.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Lowe's Mobile App, in conjunction with its servers, infringes a patent related to methods for managing and collecting location-specific data from remote computing devices.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses challenges in early mobile computing by enabling the creation and deployment of platform-independent, tokenized questionnaires that can function on diverse devices and over intermittent network connections.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously litigated, citing a case where the court denied a motion to dismiss and later granted a motion for summary judgment of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent's prosecution history also includes two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In IPR2019-00610, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the currently asserted claim, Claim 7, to be patentable while cancelling several other claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-19 | '748 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/404,491) |
| 2016-09-27 | '748 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-10-06 | IPR2018-00043 Filed |
| 2019-01-22 | IPR2019-00610 Filed (Resulted in confirmation of asserted Claim 7) |
| 2021-05-25 | Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Zoe's Kitchen litigation |
| 2022-12-19 | IPR2019-00610 Certificate Issued |
| 2023-07-11 | Public Version of Summary Judgment Order in Zoe's Kitchen litigation |
| 2023-08-22 | IPR2018-00043 Certificate Issued |
| 2024-11-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 - "System and Method for Data Management"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical landscape of the early 2000s, where creating data-collection applications for handheld computers was problematic (Compl. ¶24). Key issues included software incompatibility across different device manufacturers, requiring custom development for each platform ('748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:2), the need to reinstall an entire application to make a small change ('748 Patent, col. 3:7-10), and the unreliability of network connections for devices used in the field ('748 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a central server creates a "questionnaire" that is converted into device-independent "tokens" ('748 Patent, col. 8:54-62). These tokens, representing questions and logic, can be sent to and executed by any remote device running a compatible operating layer, solving the cross-platform problem (Compl. ¶26). The system is designed for "loosely networked" environments, meaning it can store collected data on the device if no network is present and transmit it automatically when a connection is restored ('748 Patent, col. 5:4-12; Compl. ¶27). The invention also contemplates using an integrated GPS to automatically capture location data as part of the questionnaire ('748 Patent, col. 5:46-48).
- Technical Importance: This method aimed to streamline field data collection by abstracting the application away from the specific hardware, allowing for rapid, incremental updates and ensuring data could be captured and transmitted even with inconsistent network access (Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 of the ’978 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- A method for collecting survey data and making responses available online, comprising:
- Designing a questionnaire customized for a location with branching logic on a first computer, where at least one question requests location information.
- Automatically transferring this questionnaire to a "loosely networked computer" with an integrated GPS.
- Executing the questionnaire on the remote computer when it is at the particular location to collect user responses.
- While executing, using the GPS to automatically provide location information as a response.
- Automatically transferring collected responses in real time over the "loose network" to a central computer.
- Making the transferred responses available via the Internet.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Lowe's mobile app" operating "in conjunction with Lowe's servers" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Lowe's Mobile App and associated servers "create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users" (Compl. ¶11). The app is also described as being used to "direct customers to, and receive orders from customers for, one or more Lowe's stores located in this district" (Compl. ¶6). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the accused app's features.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'748 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) designing a questionnaire including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having branching logic... | The complaint alleges the Lowe's system creates and executes a "location-specific questionnaire." It does not provide specific details on the design process or the alleged branching logic. | ¶11 | col. 14:47-53 |
| (b) automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; | The complaint alleges Lowe's provides its mobile app to customer devices, which are "loosely networked" by nature and equipped with GPS. | ¶11 | col. 14:54-56 |
| (c) when said loosely networked computer is at said particular location, executing said transferred questionnaire...thereby collecting responses from the user; | The complaint alleges the app executes a "location-specific questionnaire to collect responses from users." The specific trigger for execution is not detailed. | ¶11 | col. 14:57-60 |
| (d) while said transferred questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying information as a response... | The complaint alleges the system is "location-specific" but does not detail how GPS is used to provide location data as a response to the questionnaire. | ¶11 | col. 14:61-64 |
| (e) automatically transferring via the loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer; | The complaint alleges the system collects user responses and operates with Lowe's servers. Specifics on the "real time" transfer over a "loose network" are not provided. | ¶11 | col. 14:65-67 |
| (f) making available via the Internet any responses transferred to said central computer in step (e). | The complaint alleges the app works with Lowe's servers, from which it can be inferred that data is made available, but provides no specific details on this process. | ¶11 | col. 15:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the functionality of a commercial retail application like the Lowe's Mobile App constitutes a "questionnaire" as contemplated by the patent. The analysis may depend on whether features like a store locator or product search are found to be equivalent to a series of questions and responses with "branching logic."
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused app uses GPS data "as a response" to a question, as required by claim 7(d). This raises the issue of whether using location as a parameter for a search query satisfies this limitation, versus the app automatically populating a field with GPS coordinates in direct response to a prompt. The complaint does not provide evidence to distinguish between these possibilities.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "questionnaire"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 7. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the accused app's interactive features can be characterized as a "questionnaire." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether the patent applies to modern e-commerce apps or is limited to more formal survey and data-entry tools.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the terms "program" and "form" are used interchangeably with "questionnaire" ('748 Patent, col. 8:36-39), and describes it as a series of "questions or statements, each of which calls for a response" ('748 Patent, col. 8:26-28), which could support a broad reading covering various data-gathering interfaces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed "mystery shopper" embodiment describes a highly structured, multi-step data collection process with timers and specific prompts, akin to a formal survey ('748 Patent, col. 10:40-11:27). This detailed example may support a narrower construction limited to such structured instruments.
The Term: "loosely networked"
- Context and Importance: This term is explicitly defined in the patent and is central to the invention's claimed novelty in handling intermittent connectivity. Plaintiff must demonstrate that the accused system operates in this specific manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term as a system "tolerant of intermittent network connections" where, if a connection is unavailable, "the information is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored" ('748 Patent, col. 5:4-12). This definition could be argued to encompass any modern mobile app with standard offline caching capabilities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes this feature as a solution to the specific problems of limited bandwidth and unreliable connections in field data gathering ('748 Patent, col. 4:36-39), which may suggest the term requires more than incidental or OS-provided offline functionality and instead points to a system specifically designed around this store-and-forward architecture.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions and encouragement for customers to use the mobile app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16). The contributory infringement claim alleges the app contains "special features" with no substantial non-infringing use that are a "material part of the invention" (Compl. ¶17).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness claim is based primarily on alleged post-suit knowledge, stating Defendant had knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the commercial functions of the Lowe's Mobile App, such as its store locator, be construed to meet the specific claim limitations of a "questionnaire" with "branching logic" that collects user "responses," or is the patent's scope limited to more formal data-entry and survey tools?
- A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery substantiates the complaint’s allegations. Specifically, what evidence will be presented to show that the accused app "automatically provide[s] said location identifying information as a response to said executing questionnaire," as the claim requires, rather than merely using location data as an input for a search algorithm?
- A central legal and procedural question will be the impact of the patent's history. Given that asserted Claim 7 survived an inter partes review that invalidated other claims, a court will likely consider how the arguments and evidence from that proceeding inform claim construction and constrain the invalidity arguments available to the Defendant.