DCT
6:18-cv-00299
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Great West Casualty Company (Nebraska)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nix Patterson & Roach, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00299, E.D. Tex., 01/20/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial and continuous business in the Eastern District of Texas through relationships with agents, adjusters, and customers, and because at least part of the alleged infringing acts occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online customer and agent portal infringes a patent related to systems for creating a personalized access point where users can collect and retrieve content objects.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the curation of online information, allowing users to aggregate links or content from various sources into a single, personalized web-based location for later access.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts claims that were subsequently challenged in multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed in August 2015. As a result of these proceedings, all asserted claims (1-10) of the patent-in-suit were ultimately disclaimed in 2021, rendering them unenforceable. This post-filing development is dispositive for the infringement allegations presented in this complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-05-11 | ’177 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-04-07 | ’177 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-01-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2015-08-12 | IPRs filed against the ’177 Patent (IPR2015-01706, IPR2015-01707) |
| 2021-04-19 | Inter Partes Review Certificate Issued, cancelling claims 11-13 and 15-20 and noting claims 1-10 are disclaimed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 - "Apparatus for Distributing Content Objects to a Personalized Access Point of a User Over a Network-based Environment and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of users becoming overwhelmed by the vast amount of information available on the internet, leading to a syndrome characterized as "sipping information from a fire hose" where users fail to find or lose track of information they seek (’177 Patent, col. 1:39-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a client-server system that allows a user to create a "personalized access point," such as a personal webpage. When the user finds interesting "content objects" (e.g., articles, products, tutorials) on the web, they can select them, and the system adds the object, or a link to it, to their personalized page for later retrieval (’177 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This creates a centralized hub for a user to collect and organize desired content from disparate sources (’177 Patent, col. 2:45-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for personalized content curation, addressing the growing need for users in the early 2000s to manage and re-access information discovered across the expanding World Wide Web (’177 Patent, col. 1:30-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An apparatus comprising a server with a database for storing content object indicia, user identifiers, and user selections.
- A "selection client" that communicates with the server, allowing a user to select content objects for their personalized access point by submitting an indicia and user identifier.
- A "retrieval client" that communicates with the server, allowing a user to retrieve information from their personalized access point.
- Wherein submitting the indicia and user identifier causes the content object (or a link to it) to be added to the user's personalized access point for later retrieval.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment on the patent generally, implying a potential reservation of rights to assert other claims (Compl. p. 7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "system(s) used to implement the portal website accessed via Accused Portal" (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant Great West uses and maintains computer systems and software to provide online services to its insurance agents and customers through the accused website (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation or architecture of the accused portal, focusing instead on its role in supporting Defendant's business relationships throughout the United States (Compl. ¶15-16).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint pleads infringement in a conclusory manner without mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as implied by the complaint's general allegations.
- ’177 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a server including a database operative to store indicia associated with at least one content object and further operative to store user identifiers as well as information about which content objects have been selected by a particular user; | Defendant's computer systems and software that maintain and provide online services and information to agents and customers via the accused portal. | ¶16, ¶19 | col. 2:48-52 |
| a selection client communicating with the server via a communication link and configured to allow a user to select content objects to add to a personalized access point by submitting an indicia and a user identifier to the server; | The system and user interface of the accused portal that allows agents and customers to interact with and select services or information for their account. | ¶16, ¶19 | col. 2:52-56 |
| a retrieval client communicating with the server over a communication link allowing a user to retrieve information from a personalized access point; | The system and user interface of the accused portal that allows agents and customers to log in and view their account-specific information and services. | ¶16, ¶19 | col. 2:56-59 |
| wherein, in response to submission of the indicia and user identifier, at least one of: (a) a content object, and (b) a link to a content object are added to the personalized access point...and...the particular user can retrieve the content object... | The overall functionality of the accused portal, which allegedly allows users to access and use information and services associated with their accounts. | ¶16, ¶19 | col. 2:59-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The core of the dispute would likely concern whether a standard business-to-customer web portal, which provides users access to pre-determined account information (e.g., policy documents, claim status), meets the patent's definition of a "personalized access point" for "distributing content objects". The patent appears to describe a system where a user actively collects content from various third-party sources into a central hub, which may present a scope mismatch with the alleged functionality of the accused portal.
- Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any technical evidence regarding the architecture of the accused system. This raises the question of whether the system actually embodies the claimed "selection client" and "retrieval client" architecture, or if it operates as a monolithic web application where these functions are not distinct as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "personalized access point"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's scope. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether a standard customer account page on a corporate website can be construed as a "personalized access point" under the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether the patent reads on generic customer portals or is limited to more specialized content aggregation platforms.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the personalized access point as a "personal web page," a term that could be interpreted broadly to cover any user-specific page on a website (’177 Patent, col. 7:21-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures repeatedly illustrate the "personalized access point" as a space where a user aggregates content selected from a broader network, including third-party sites, rather than a page that simply displays information assigned to the user by the site operator (’177 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 1:39-47, col. 2:30-35). This suggests a primary function of user-directed curation, not just data presentation.
The Term: "selection client"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites both a "selection client" and a "retrieval client." The distinction, if any, between these two clients is critical. If they are construed to be structurally or functionally distinct components, it may be more difficult to prove infringement against a standard web browser that performs both selection (e.g., clicking a link) and retrieval (e.g., loading a page) functions.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that a client can be a standard computer with a web browser, suggesting the term is not limited to specialized software (’177 Patent, col. 10:2-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "selection client" to be configured to "select content objects to add to a personalized access point by submitting an indicia and a user identifier." This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific function beyond simple navigation, focused on the act of capturing an object for aggregation. The abstract similarly distinguishes the selection and retrieval functions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief requests an injunction against contributory and inducing infringement, but the body of the complaint fails to plead any specific facts to support the requisite knowledge or intent for such claims (Compl. ¶21, p. 7). The sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It contains a "Notice" section alleging that filing the complaint constitutes written notice, which would only be relevant to potential damages for post-suit infringement (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A primary issue in this case is procedural and dispositive: As the asserted claims of the ’177 Patent were disclaimed during Inter Partes Review proceedings subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, the complaint is based on unenforceable patent rights. This moots the infringement allegations entirely.
Setting aside the dispositive procedural posture, a central question for the court would have been one of definitional scope: can the term "personalized access point", which the patent describes in the context of a user actively curating content from across the web, be construed to cover a standard corporate customer portal that primarily displays provider-selected account information?
A second key question would have been evidentiary: does the accused online portal, as a technical matter, implement the distinct "selection client" and "retrieval client" architecture required by claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's claimed apparatus and the functionality of a conventional web application? The complaint provides no specific facts to resolve this.