DCT
6:13-cv-00758
Landmark Technology LLC v. ADT Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Landmark Technology, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The ADT Corporation (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:13-cv-00758, E.D. Tex., 10/10/2013
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district and a substantial portion of the infringing acts occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes two patents related to automated systems for sales, services, and data processing.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit generally describe systems for interactively generating customized sales presentations and processing complex transactions by retrieving and combining data from local and remote sources.
- Key Procedural History: The '951 Patent was the subject of two separate Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings, which confirmed the validity of all original and additional claims. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant regarding the patents and the alleged infringement on May 7, 2010, more than three years prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1984-05-24 | Earliest Priority Date for '951 and '508 Patents |
| 1996-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 Issues |
| 2006-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508 Issues |
| 2008-01-29 | '951 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issues |
| 2008-09-01 | Patents Licensed to Plaintiff |
| 2010-05-07 | Plaintiff Allegedly Informs Defendant of Infringement |
| 2013-05-09 | '951 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issues |
| 2013-10-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951: "Automated Sales and Services System" (Issued Nov. 19, 1996)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the pre-internet era challenge faced by travel agents, who had to consult numerous, often out-of-date, printed directories to create itineraries, resulting in a "time-consuming, disorganized and ineffective sales presentation" (ʼ951 Patent, col. 2:53-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a data processing system that allows a user (e.g., a travel agent) to "synergistically compose individual customized sales presentations" by automatically accessing, combining, and displaying information from multiple data sources, such as local audio-visual files and remote computerized reservation systems (ʼ951 Patent, col. 1:40-47; col. 5:22-38). The system uses a client's profile to generate a "customized mini-travelogue" (ʼ951 Patent, col. 5:48-49).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to automate and personalize the sales process by replacing static, paper-based information with dynamic, interactive, and multimedia presentations tailored to individual customer needs (ʼ951 Patent, col. 2:37-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 10 "by way of example only" (Compl. ¶16).
- Key elements of Claim 10 include:
- A computerized system for selecting and ordering information, goods, and services.
- Comprising a plurality of computerized data processing installations (e.g., servers) and at least one computerized station (e.g., a user terminal).
- Means for addressing one of the installations to send and receive data.
- Program means for controlling a display of inquiries and answers.
- User-operated means for selecting answers.
- Automatic data processing means for processing those answers as a function of other data.
- Means for storing interrelated textual and graphical information.
- Means for executing a search by addressing an installation and retrieving data.
- Means for transferring orders to the installations.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but notes that its allegations are exemplary.
U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508: "Automated Multimedia Data Processing Network" (Issued Mar. 7, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies loan processing as a "labor-intensive business" for financial institutions, with a complexity that had "so far prevented the application of automatic terminals" to the task (ʼ508 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a network of remote, self-service terminals that connect a user to a financial institution's computer and a credit reporting service's computer (ʼ508 Patent, Abstract). The terminal uses a video screen to display a "fictitious loan officer" who guides the applicant through an "interactive series of questions and answers" to acquire the necessary data, automatically retrieve a credit rating, and process the loan application (ʼ508 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- Technical Importance: The system proposed automating complex, multi-party financial transactions at remote, unstaffed terminals by integrating interactive multimedia guidance with real-time data retrieval and processing from separate entities (ʼ508 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 8 "by way of example, only" (Compl. ¶29).
- Key elements of Claim 8 include:
- An automated multimedia system for data processing for delivering information on request to at least one user.
- Comprising at least one computerized station.
- Means for accepting and processing a user's entry according to "backward-chaining and forward-chaining sequences," which includes means for analyzing and combining the user's entry with stored data to formulate and output a query to the user.
- Means for delivering information to said user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but notes that its allegations are exemplary.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The ADT Website (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the ADT Website as an "electronic commerce system" used for selling "alarm systems and security services" (Compl. ¶¶7, 12). It allegedly allows customers to search for information about products and to purchase them, using "text and graphics, among other means, to deliver product information" (Compl. ¶¶16, 29.a). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant derives a "significant portion of its revenue" from sales conducted via the website (Compl. ¶7). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'951 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services... | The Website is a computerized system for selecting and ordering a variety of information, goods and services. | ¶16.a | col. 24:42-45 |
| a plurality of computerized data processing installations programmed for processing orders... | The Website includes a plurality of computerized data processing installations (the web server and its supporting systems). | ¶16.b | col. 24:46-49 |
| at least one computerized station... | The Website is operated through at least one computerized station (the customer's computer). | ¶16.c | col. 24:50-51 |
| [All remaining limitations of Claim 10] | The web server of the Website and that Defendant's customers' computers practice all of the remaining limitations of Claim 10. | ¶16.d | col. 24:55-26:7 |
'508 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automated multimedia system for data processing for delivering information on request to at least one user... | The Website is an automated multimedia system for data processing... it uses text and graphics, among other means, to deliver product information. | ¶29.a | col. 7:1-3 |
| at least one computerized station; | The Website includes at least one computerized station (the server and its supporting systems). | ¶29.b | col. 7:4 |
| [All remaining limitations of Claim 8] | The web server(s) of the Website practice all of the remaining limitations of Claim 8. | ¶29.c | col. 7:5-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute concerns whether the claims of the '951 Patent, which are described in the context of a travel agent tool for creating customized itineraries, can be construed to cover a general-purpose consumer e-commerce website.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the accused website practices the "remaining limitations" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶16.d, 29.c). This raises the evidentiary question of how, specifically, the ADT website performs the complex functions recited in the numerous "means-plus-function" elements of the claims, such as "processing said set of answers as a function of other data" ('951 Patent) or processing entries according to "backward-chaining and forward-chaining sequences" ('508 Patent).
- Divided Infringement: The asserted claims appear to require components and actions at both the server side (Defendant's "installations") and the client side ("customer's computer"). This raises the legal question of whether any single party performs all steps of the claimed system as required for direct infringement, or whether liability would depend on a theory of joint infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term ('951 Patent): "automatic data processing means for processing said set of answers as a function of other data"
- Context and Importance: This means-plus-function term is central to the claimed invention's intelligence. Its construction will determine the specific algorithm or structure required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is limited to the corresponding structure described in the specification, which appears highly specific to creating travel itineraries.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. The complaint does not point to specific supporting structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific structure where a microprocessor analyzes client "prerequisites" (e.g., destination, cost, activities) to select and assemble "chapter segments" of a "mini-travelogue" from local and remote data sources (ʼ951 Patent, col. 5:45-64; Fig. 6). This suggests a narrow function tied to assembling a presentation, not just processing a simple purchase order.
Term ('508 Patent): "means for accepting and processing an user's entry according to backward-chaining and forward-chaining sequences"
- Context and Importance: This is another critical means-plus-function limitation. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the ADT website contains the structure disclosed in the patent for performing this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be argued to cover any interactive, multi-step process.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a very specific corresponding structure: a system that emulates a "fictitious loan officer" who guides a user through a structured, interactive Q&A dialogue for a loan application, where the system presents new questions based on previous answers (ʼ508 Patent, col. 8:1-33; Figs. 3-4). This structure appears distinct from a typical e-commerce product selection and checkout flow.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging its customers to use their computers in combination with the ADT Website to carry out the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶22, 35). The factual basis for inducement appears to rest on the general operation of an interactive website.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged "full knowledge" of the patents, citing a notice letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant on or about May 7, 2010 (Compl. ¶¶11, 20, 33). This alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringing activity.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims of patents rooted in the specific contexts of travel-agent tools and interactive loan applications be construed to cover the functionality of a modern, general-purpose consumer e-commerce website?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient factual evidence to show that the accused ADT website performs the functions of the asserted "means-plus-function" claims using structures that are identical or equivalent to the specific, and seemingly distinct, implementations disclosed in the patents (e.g., the "mini-travelogue" assembler and the "fictitious loan officer" system)?
- A central legal question will be one of divided infringement: given that the claimed systems require actions at both ADT's servers and the end-user's computer, can the Plaintiff establish that ADT directly infringes by "making" or "using" the entire system under a single-entity theory, or will the case depend on the more stringent requirements for induced or joint infringement?