Linfo IP LLC v. Gap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Gap, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00635, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district (a distribution center in Longview, TX), conducts substantial business in the forum, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering, extracting, and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to user interfaces for information discovery.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-assisted methods for analyzing text, identifying words or phrases based on their attributes (such as positive or negative sentiment), and providing user interface tools to selectively display or highlight that information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity with no products to mark. No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Priority Date
2015-07-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Issued
2023-12-31	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of "data overload" or "information overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, needed information within large volumes of text, such as numerous online product reviews, news articles, or long medical documents (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-21). For example, a user may want to find only the negative comments about a specific feature (e.g., "room service") from hundreds of hotel reviews, a task the patent describes as "very time-consuming" using conventional methods (’428 Patent, col. 1:28-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to associate "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes" with words and phrases (’428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides user interface objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to select an attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action (e.g., "highlight" or "extract") (’428 Patent, col. 3:20-29). The system then performs this action, for example, by extracting and listing all positive comments or highlighting them within the original text, thereby simplifying information discovery for the user (’428 Patent, col. 3:1-15; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to make large-scale text analysis more efficient and user-friendly by moving beyond simple keyword search to a more attribute-driven method of filtering and presentation (’428 Patent, col. 1:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’428 patent, with Independent Claim 1 being foundational (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer-assisted method for discovering information in a text content.
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Selecting a first and a second "semantic attribute" for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text content associated with the selected semantic attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" allowing a user to select one of the attributes.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that is maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant The Gap, Inc. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not name a specific product (e.g., a website or mobile application).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "puts the inventions claimed by the ’428 Patent into service" (Compl. ¶8). The functionality is described in general terms that mirror the patent's language, such as "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific details on how the accused instrumentality operates or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not included with the public filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶9). The narrative infringement theory alleges that The Gap operates a system that allows for the discovery and presentation of information from text, and that this system performs the steps claimed in the ’428 patent (Compl. ¶7-8). The complaint alleges that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments involving Defendant's products and services would never have been put into service" (Compl. ¶8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be what specific feature of The Gap's system is alleged to perform the claimed method. For example, if the accused feature is a product review filter, a court may need to determine if filtering reviews (e.g., showing only 5-star reviews) constitutes "performing... an action on the word or phrase associated with the... semantic attribute" as required by the claim, or if it is merely a filter on a database entry associated with the review.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the functionality offered by The Gap, likely in an e-commerce context, falls within the scope of the patent's claims. For instance, does a user's selection of a product attribute like "color" or "size" to filter search results constitute the selection of a "semantic attribute" as that term is used and described in the patent, which provides examples such as positive/negative opinions or domain-specific topics like "over-the-counter drug names" (’428 Patent, col. 4:51-54; col. 8:23-28).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claim, as it defines the very basis for how information is categorized and selected by the user. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the attributes used in The Gap's system (e.g., product ratings, topics in reviews) qualify as "semantic attributes." Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will determine whether the claim covers generic filtering mechanisms or is limited to more sophisticated linguistic analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "semantic attribute" can be an "attribute of things, such as whether a person is 'tall' or is 'a student'," and that meanings of words can be named "connotation" or "semantic attributes" (’428 Patent, col. 8:16-26). This could support a broad definition encompassing any descriptive tag or property.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed examples focus heavily on "opinion" (positive, negative, neutral) and domain-specific topics derived from analysis, such as identifying "over-the-counter drug names" from a medical document (’428 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 9:29-38). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term to attributes requiring a deeper level of linguistic or contextual understanding, rather than simple metadata tags.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that the Defendant has "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its services to perform the infringing actions (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement on a similar basis (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10-11). The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if an earlier date of knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1).

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and definition: Does the term "semantic attribute," as defined and exemplified in the ’428 patent with its focus on linguistic opinions and complex topics, read on the user-selectable filters (e.g., star ratings, product features) present in a conventional e-commerce system?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the complaint targets The Gap's product review or search filtering system, does that system actually perform an "action on the word or phrase" within the text content itself, as Claim 1 requires, or does it operate by filtering database records associated with the text, potentially creating a non-infringing technical distinction?