DCT

6:10-cv-00120

CEATS Inc v. Continental Airlines Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CEATS, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Continental Airlines, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Case Identification: 6:10-cv-00120, E.D. Tex., 04/05/2010
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district by offering for sale and selling airline tickets via its website to residents of the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website-based airline seat selection and reservation systems infringe five patents related to interactive, online seat selection technology.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods allowing a user to view a graphical representation of available seats for a venue (such as an airplane) over a network and interactively select a specific seat for purchase.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. All five asserted patents claim priority from the same 1999 application.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-04-22	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2008-11-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,454,361 Issues
2008-11-18	Alleged Infringement of the ’361 Patent Begins
2009-06-16	U.S. Patent No. 7,548,870 Issues
2009-06-16	Alleged Infringement of the ’870 Patent Begins
2010-02-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,660,728 Issues
2010-02-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,660,729 Issues
2010-02-09	Alleged Infringement of the ’728 and ’729 Patents Begins
2010-02-16	U.S. Patent No. 7,664,663 Issues
2010-02-16	Alleged Infringement of the ’663 Patent Begins
2010-04-05	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,454,361 - "Individual Seat Selection Ticketing and Reservation System"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7454361, "Individual Seat Selection Ticketing and Reservation System," issued November 18, 2008.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the "inadequacy and inefficiencies of present ticketing and reservation systems," where a customer must either call an agent and accept their definition of "best available" seats or physically visit a venue or kiosk to make a selection (’361 Patent, col. 1:51-55, col. 2:24-31).
The Patented Solution: The invention is an online system that allows a remote user, via a network like the internet, to view a graphical representation of all available seats for an event, interactively select the specific seat(s) they desire, and complete the purchase, which removes the selected seats from available inventory in real-time (’361 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This technology shifted the seat selection process from an agent-mediated model to a user-driven, interactive model, providing the end-user with greater information and control over their purchase from a remote, general-purpose computer (’361 Patent, col. 2:35-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and contains the following essential elements:

A method of communicating seat availability information from a server to a user's device over a wide area network.
The user's device is a client node "unaffiliated with the server" and has "no dedicated resident ticket vending software."
Providing the user with the "capability of interactively selecting the specific individual seat by clicking the specific seat."
The system receives the selection, adds the seat to a list, accepts payment, and returns a confirmation.
The display includes providing "additional information in response to user interaction," where the interaction is a "mouse over of a seating chart."

U.S. Patent No. 7,548,870 - "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7548870, "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats," issued June 16, 2009.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’361 Patent, this patent addresses the same inefficiencies in prior art reservation systems, but applies the solution specifically to the context of reserving airline seats (’870 Patent, col. 1:23-28).
The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for transmitting airline seat availability to a user's general-purpose computer and providing a graphical user interface with an "interactive seating map" of the airplane. The user can interact with the map, for example via a mouse-over action, to get more information and select a specific seat by clicking on it (’870 Patent, Abstract).
Technical Importance: The invention applies the interactive, visual seat selection model directly to the airline industry, a major sector for e-commerce and online travel booking.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative and contains the following essential elements:

A method of transmitting information about available airline seats to an application on a user's computer.
Providing a graphical user interface with an "interactive seating map" representing the available seats.
The interface provides "additional current available seat information" when a user places a mouse over a portion of the map.
Receiving a user's seat selection made via a "mouse click."
Accepting payment information for the selected seat(s).

U.S. Patent No. 7,660,728 - "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7660728, "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats," issued February 9, 2010.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for reserving airline seats where the system first receives payment information from a user's computer and then transmits data for generating an interactive seating map. The claims focus on the specific sequence of receiving payment data before transmitting seat data for generating the graphical user interface.
Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶25).
Accused Features: The seat selection and reservation systems on Defendant's website, www.continental.com (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 7,660,729 - "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7660729, "System and Method for Selecting and Reserving Airline Seats," issued February 9, 2010.
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system, comprising a server, for selecting airline seats. The claims are directed to a server configured to receive payment data, transmit seat data for an interactive map, and receive a seat selection made via a mouse click.
Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: The server(s) and database(s) supporting the seat selection functionality on Defendant's website, www.continental.com (Compl. ¶¶29-30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,664,663 - "System and Method for Displaying Airline Seats"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7664663, "System and Method for Displaying Airline Seats," issued February 16, 2010.
Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the method of displaying airline seats. The claims cover transmitting data that is processed by an application on the user's computer to generate a graphical user interface that includes an interactive seating map.
Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶33).
Accused Features: The methods for displaying airline seats for selection on Defendant's website, www.continental.com (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "seat selection ticketing and reservation systems and/or methods" used and offered on Defendant's website, www.continental.com (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant operates server(s) and database(s) to power its website, which is used to offer for sale and sell airline tickets to the public (Compl. ¶¶2, 18). The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation or architecture of the accused systems beyond these general allegations. It also does not make specific allegations regarding the market position of the accused website.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed factual allegations mapping specific features of the accused website to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The infringement theory is articulated at a high level of generality. For each patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant's "seat selection ticketing and reservation systems and methods... embody or practice the inventions claimed" (Compl. ¶¶17, 21, 25, 29, 33). The basis for this allegation is the operation of Defendant's server(s) and database(s) for its website (Compl. ¶¶18, 22, 26, 30, 34). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how any specific feature of the accused system meets any specific claim limitation.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: A primary point of contention will be establishing the facts of how the accused system operates. Key questions will include: What is the specific data flow between Defendant's servers and a user's browser? What specific user interactions (e.g., mouse-over, click) does the system support for displaying information and making selections?
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the scope of the claims relative to the accused system's functionality. For example, regarding claim 1 of the ’361 Patent, a central question will be whether the accused website provides "additional information" specifically in response to a "mouse over" action, as required by the claim, or if it uses a different user interface mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Based on the asserted patents, which share a 1999 priority date, the construction of terms related to the user's computing environment and interface technology may be central to the dispute.

The Term: "client node... having no dedicated resident ticket vending software" (from claim 1 of the ’361 Patent).
Context and Importance: This term appears intended to distinguish the invention from prior art systems that required proprietary, pre-installed software or specialized kiosks. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant may argue that a modern web browser, with its extensive use of cached data, cookies, and plug-ins, constitutes "dedicated resident... software that supports selecting a specific individual seat," thereby avoiding infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a user accessing the system from a "home of office computer" through "any conventional graphical browsing means," which suggests the term is meant to cover general-purpose computers running standard web browsers (’361 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:12-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A defendant could argue that the functionality of a web browser in 2010, the time of filing, is far more advanced than the "conventional" browsers of 1999 and that this advanced, locally-executed functionality meets the definition of "dedicated resident... software."
The Term: "user interaction is a mouse over of a seating chart" (from claim 1 of the ’361 Patent).
Context and Importance: This claim limitation recites a very specific type of user interaction. The infringement analysis for this element will be a direct factual question of whether the accused system displays information upon a "mouse over" event.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a supporting example in Figure 4(b) and its description: "As he moves his mouse over individual seats the seat number appears in the window at the bottom of his screen" (’361 Patent, col. 6:35-39). This suggests the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue for a narrower construction, suggesting that the "additional information" displayed must be of the same type shown in the patent's embodiment (e.g., only a seat number) or that technically distinct events like a "hover" with a time delay do not meet the "mouse over" limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: Each count includes a conclusory allegation of contributory and/or induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶17, 21, 25, 29, 33). The complaint alleges Defendant induces infringement by "actively inducing others to operate server(s) and/or database(s)," but provides no specific facts regarding intent or knowledge required to support such a claim (Compl. ¶18).
Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶H). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. Any claim for willfulness would likely depend on Defendant's continued conduct after being served with the complaint.

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

Given the general nature of the complaint, the case will likely center on the resolution of two fundamental types of questions during discovery and claim construction.

A core issue will be one of evidentiary alignment: Lacking specific factual allegations in the complaint, the case will depend on whether discovery produces technical evidence that demonstrates a direct correspondence between the architecture and functionality of the accused Continental website and each element of the asserted claims.
A second key issue will be one of temporal scope in claim construction: Can claim terms drafted in 1999 to describe the web environment of that era (e.g., "no dedicated resident ticket vending software," "mouse over") be construed to read on the more complex web technologies and user interface designs employed by the defendant in the 2008-2010 timeframe?