DCT

3:15-cv-01106

Industrial Print Tech LLC v. Vistaprint USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:15-cv-01106, N.D. Tex., 09/08/2015
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint was originally filed in the District of Delaware, with venue premised on Defendants' business operations and acts of infringement in that district. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for consolidated pretrial proceedings, to which Defendants consented.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that high-speed digital printing presses designed and sold by Hewlett-Packard, and used by the Vistaprint Defendants to provide variable data printing services, infringe five patents related to methods for efficiently processing such print jobs.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in variable data printing, where documents in a single job (e.g., a mass mailing) contain both static content and unique data (e.g., names and addresses), by separating the processing of static and variable elements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Hewlett-Packard had pre-suit knowledge of several of the patents-in-suit via a series of notice letters beginning in September 2002. Additionally, the complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 6,381,028 underwent an ex parte reexamination, with the USPTO issuing a certificate in December 2014 confirming the patentability of claim 4.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-01-18 Priority Date for ’665, ’153, ’479, and ’233 Patents
1998-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 5,729,665 Issues
1999-04-26 Priority Date for ’028 Patent
1999-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 5,937,153 Issues
2002-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,381,028 Issues
2002-09-11 Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly sends first notice letter to HP's predecessor regarding ’665, ’153, and ’028 patents
2007-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,274,479 Issues
2008-02-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,333,233 Issues
2012-12-21 Ex parte reexamination of ’028 patent is requested
2014-12-19 USPTO issues reexamination certificate for ’028 patent, confirming patentability of claim 4
2015-01-20 Plaintiff alleges Vistaprint Defendants received actual notice of infringement
2015-09-08 First Amended Complaint is Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,729,665 - Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields With a Page Description Language

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the inefficiency of using page description languages like PostScript for variable data printing. Generating a new, complex PostScript program for every single page, even when only a small element like a name changes, consumes immense processing time and slows down high-speed printing systems ('665 Patent, col. 1:43-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a page description file is processed once to separate the static background (the "template") from the variable data areas. The formatting instructions for the variable areas (the "graphics states," e.g., font, size, position) are defined and saved in a database. A "merge task" then repeatedly combines the single saved template and the saved graphics states with different data items from a database (e.g., a list of addresses) to rapidly generate multiple unique pages without re-executing the entire page description code each time ('665 Patent, col. 2:16-42; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled the use of powerful, device-independent page description languages for industrial-scale variable data printing, which was previously considered computationally impractical for high-speed applications ('665 Patent, col. 2:4-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’665 Patent are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and includes the following essential elements:

  • Generating a page description code representing a template, the code defining a variable data area and a corresponding graphics state.
  • Executing the code to generate a template bit map, and during execution, identifying the variable data area and "reserving" its corresponding graphics state.
  • Retrieving variable data.
  • Associating the variable data with the reserved graphics state.
  • Applying the graphics state to the variable data to generate a variable data bit map.
  • Merging the variable data bit map with the template bit map.
  • The process is characterized by the reserved graphics state being applied repeatedly to different variable data without needing to repeat the initial step of executing the page description code.

U.S. Patent No. 5,937,153 - Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields With a Page Description Language

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the ’665 Patent, the ’153 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the significant processing overhead and resulting slowness from regenerating an entire page specification for each unique page in a high-volume variable data print job ('153 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented method involves interpreting a page description code to identify variable data areas. The "graphics states" associated with these areas are "stored" in a database. A separate "merge task" then retrieves these stored graphics states and applies them to items of variable data from a merge file or database, allowing for the rapid generation of multiple unique pages by reusing the stored formatting information ('153 Patent, col. 2:21-48; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a structured method to leverage the design capabilities of page description languages for mass personalization tasks, such as direct mail or customized catalogs, at speeds required for industrial printing ('153 Patent, col. 2:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’153 Patent are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and includes the following essential elements:

  • Generating a page description code specification that defines a variable data area and a corresponding graphics state.
  • Interpreting the specification and identifying the defined variable data area.
  • "Storing" the graphics state that corresponds to the identified variable data area.
  • Retrieving a variable data item.
  • Applying the "stored" graphics state to the variable data item to generate a variable data bit map.
  • Repeating the retrieving and applying steps for remaining variable data items, thereby reusing the stored graphics state.

U.S. Patent No. 7,274,479 - Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields With a Page Description Language

Technology Synopsis

This patent, from the same family, describes a method for variable data printing that emphasizes the separation of static and variable elements during processing. The method involves interpreting a page description file to generate a bitmap of only the static data areas, while identifying the variable data areas but explicitly not adding a bitmap of them to the static bitmap. This saved static bitmap is then available for repeated use with different variable data bitmaps to form complete pages ('479 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Representative independent claims include 1 and 9.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendants of "using methods covered by the ‘479 patent to set-up and run variable data print jobs" on HP high-speed printing presses (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,333,233 - Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields With a Page Description Language

Technology Synopsis

This patent is also from the same family and claims a similar method for optimizing variable printing. A page description file is interpreted to create a static bitmap of static content. During this interpretation, variable data areas are identified, but their rendering is deferred. The resulting static bitmap is saved and can be reused in the generation of multiple documents, each containing the static bitmap and a unique variable data bitmap ('233 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Representative independent claims include 1 and 14.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendants of "using methods covered by the ‘233 patent to set-up and run variable data print jobs" on HP high-speed printing presses (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 6,381,028 - Method of Utilizing Variable Data Fields With A Page Description Language

Technology Synopsis

This patent focuses on an optimization where, upon identifying a variable data area, the system applies the associated graphics state to a standard set of alphanumeric characters to generate and store a set of character bit maps (effectively, a font cache). These pre-rendered character bit maps are then used repeatedly to assemble the full bitmaps for different variable data items, avoiding the need to re-render each character from vector instructions for every new data item ('028 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify asserted claims. Representative independent claim is claim 1.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendants of "using methods covered by the ‘028 patent to set-up and run variable data print jobs" on HP high-speed printing presses (Compl. ¶94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the processes for variable data printing and the high-speed printing presses used by the Defendants. The complaint specifically identifies Hewlett-Packard’s Inkjet Web Presses (e.g., T200, T300, T350, T400) and Indigo Digital Presses (e.g., W3250, 3550, WS4600 and others) (Compl. ¶30). The Vistaprint Defendants are accused of using these presses and offering related services (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are industrial-grade digital printing presses designed for high-volume commercial printing. The complaint alleges that the Vistaprint Defendants operate an "Internet website portal" through which customers and print media agents can provide print specification files and data to enable variable data print jobs to be run on these HP presses (Compl. ¶26, ¶44, ¶61). These presses are central to the variable data printing services that Vistaprint offers to its customers in the United States (Compl. ¶24).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart. It makes only general allegations that Defendants directly infringe, induce infringement, and/or are liable for divided infringement by using methods covered by the patents-in-suit to set up and run variable data print jobs (Compl. ¶24, ¶26, ¶30, ¶34). The complaint does not contain claim charts or map specific features of the accused products or processes to the elements of any asserted patent claim.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether modern print workflow software and hardware, which employ various optimization and caching techniques, practice the specific sequence of "reserving," "storing," and "merging" a "graphics state" as that term is defined and used in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence describing how the accused HP presses and Vistaprint workflows technically operate. A key question for the court will be whether discovery reveals that these systems in fact separate the processing of a page template and its associated formatting rules from the variable data in the manner required by the claims, or if they achieve printing efficiency through alternative, non-infringing methods.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "graphics state"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’665 and ’153 patents and is the central technical object that is allegedly defined, stored/reserved, and repeatedly applied. The scope of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it must read on the set of formatting parameters used in the accused systems.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "sets of default attributes such as angle, scale factor, type font etc., which define how data is to appear on the page" (’665 Patent, col. 1:26–29). This could support an argument that the term covers any collection of formatting parameters used in a printing process.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly links the "graphics state" to the attributes stored in a PostScript interpreter's "stack" (’665 Patent, col. 2:49–53). This could support a narrower construction limited to the specific attributes and data structures used in a PostScript or closely analogous environment.

  • The Term: "reserving said graphics state" (’665 Patent) / "storing the graphics state" (’153 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This action is the core of the claimed invention's efficiency gain, representing the separation and preservation of formatting rules for reuse. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement question will turn on whether the accused systems' caching or data handling processes meet this specific limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents describe saving the graphics state in an "internal database," which could be interpreted broadly to cover various forms of memory or storage, including modern caching mechanisms that allow formatting information to be reused (’665 Patent, col. 2:58–59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes a specific sequence where a "control task" interrupts an "interpreter program" to explicitly reserve the state, which is then recalled by a "merge task" (’665 Patent, col. 3:1–14). This could support an argument that the term requires this specific, multi-stage architectural implementation, not just any form of caching.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant HP induces infringement by its customers, including the Vistaprint Defendants. The basis for this allegation is that HP supplies the accused presses with the knowledge that they were "designed and intended to practice methods covered by the" patents and provides "related training and support materials and services" that instruct users on how to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶34, ¶51, ¶68, ¶85, ¶103).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants. The allegations against the Vistaprint Defendants are based on alleged actual notice of infringement as of January 20, 2015 (Compl. ¶27, ¶45, ¶62). The allegations against HP are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge dating back to a series of notice letters allegedly sent to its predecessor, Indigo N.V., beginning on September 11, 2002, as well as knowledge allegedly obtained through HP's own patent prosecution activities and monitoring of prior litigation involving the plaintiff (Compl. ¶31, ¶32, ¶37).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical operation: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations regarding the accused processes, a central question for discovery will be to determine if the accused HP presses and Vistaprint workflows actually perform the claimed method of separating, storing, and reapplying "graphics states," or if they utilize different proprietary technologies for optimizing variable data printing.
  • The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "graphics state," which is described in the context of a PostScript interpreter stack from the 1990s, be construed to cover the methods used for handling formatting parameters in modern, complex digital printing workflows?
  • Finally, a key question for damages will be pre-suit knowledge and willfulness: Can the plaintiff substantiate its allegation that HP had actual knowledge of the asserted patents and their relevance to its products for more than a decade prior to the lawsuit, which could support a finding of willful infringement?