DCT
3:22-cv-02868
R2 Solutions LLC v. 7 Eleven Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: R2 Solutions LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02868, N.D. Tex., 12/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant 7-Eleven has its headquarters in Irving, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and mobile application search and widget functionalities infringe five patents, originally developed by Yahoo!, related to search result generation, presentation, and user interface technology.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational internet search technologies, including determining user intent, improving search quality by combating spam, reconstructing partial queries, and dynamically presenting results and widgets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit were originally filed by Yahoo! Inc. between 2006 and 2009, during a period of intense competition and innovation in the web search market. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-08-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 Priority Date |
| 2007-01-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 Priority Date |
| 2007-09-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,176,272 Priority Date |
| 2009-07-31 | U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 Priority Date |
| 2010-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 Issued |
| 2012-06-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 Issued |
| 2012-12-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 Issued |
| 2014-12-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 Priority Date |
| 2017-10-31 | U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 Issued |
| 2019-01-08 | U.S. Patent No. 10,176,272 Issued |
| 2022-12-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 - “System and Method for Intent-Driven Search Result Presentation,” issued December 25, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional search engines that treat a query as a simple "bag of words" can return results that do not align with the user's actual goal, making it "onerous to scrutinize" the results for the desired information (Compl. ¶18; ’157 Patent, col. 4:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that goes beyond keyword matching to determine the user's likely "intent" (e.g., to research, purchase, or find reviews for a product) (Compl. ¶19; ’157 Patent, col. 9:49-52). This inferred intent is then used to rank results and customize how they are displayed, for instance by generating a specialized title, abstract, or clickable URL to better match the user's goal (Compl. ¶18; ’157 Patent, col. 4:16-26).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from purely lexical search to a more semantic approach, aiming to improve the relevance and usability of search results by understanding and acting upon user goals (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 (Compl. ¶43).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the essential elements of:
- Receiving a user query.
- Analyzing the query to identify keywords.
- Determining a plurality of "intents" from the keywords that indicate a likely desired information type.
- Classifying the query into at least one of those intents.
- Identifying data objects that match the keywords.
- Assigning at least one intent to some of the data objects.
- Ranking the data objects.
- Building a result where at least one display entry is "customized to a respective assigned intent."
- Transmitting the result to the user.
U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 - “Method for Improving Quality of Search Results by Avoiding Indexing Sections of Pages,” issued April 13, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses "search engine spamming," where malicious actors use techniques to trick search engines into recalling and highly ranking irrelevant documents, such as pages containing only sponsored links, leading to a poor user experience (Compl. ¶24; ’329 Patent, col. 2:6-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a web crawler divides a document into "recall sections" and "no-recall sections." The content in "no-recall sections" is ignored for the purpose of document "recall" (i.e., it is not indexed and will not trigger a match for a query). However, the content within these same sections is analyzed for the purpose of document "ranking", allowing the system to detect and penalize spam without preventing webmasters from legitimately designating certain content as non-indexable (Compl. ¶25; ’329 Patent, col. 3:7-27).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a more nuanced tool for search engines to improve result quality by decoupling the signals used for document recall from those used for spam and relevance ranking (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4-5, 8, and 11-12 (Compl. ¶56).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the essential elements of:
- Ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine.
- The documents must contain at least one "section that is not used by said search engine for recall" and one or more sections that are used for recall.
- The ranking must be based, at least in part, on the content of the "section... not used by said search engine to recall documents."
U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 - “Method and Apparatus for Reconstructing a Search Query,” issued June 26, 2012
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of entering full, properly structured search queries on mobile devices with limited input capabilities (Compl. ¶29; ’317 Patent, col. 1:43-56). The solution is a system that receives a partial or abbreviated query (e.g., "auto ins") and reconstructs a "full query" (e.g., "auto insurance") by referencing a database of previously submitted queries, thereby making search more flexible and accessible on such devices (Compl. ¶¶30-31; ’317 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, 12 and dependent claims 2, 9-10 are asserted (Compl. ¶68).
- Accused Features: The search functionality of Defendant's websites and mobile apps, which allegedly reconstruct full queries from partial user input (Compl. ¶¶67-68).
U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 - “Method and System for Providing a Search Result,” issued October 31, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the limitation of conventional search results, which are typically presented in a simple top-to-bottom list that can be time-consuming to scroll through and limit user engagement (Compl. ¶32; ’097 Patent, col. 1:30-40). The invention proposes displaying content items in a "framed structure" (e.g., a grid of tiles or thumbnails), where a correspondence is determined between content items and sub-components of the structure to create a more engaging and visually organized presentation (Compl. ¶33; ’097 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 8-10, 17-20 are asserted (Compl. ¶80).
- Accused Features: The presentation of search results on Defendant's platforms, which allegedly use a framed or tiled structure to display content items (Compl. ¶¶79-80).
U.S. Patent No. 10,176,272 - “System and Method of Automatically Sizing and Adapting a Widget to Available Space,” issued January 8, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of fixed-size web widgets that fail to adapt to different webpage layouts and browser window sizes, often resulting in display errors like overflow or improper scaling (Compl. ¶35; ’272 Patent, col. 2:38-52). The solution is a "smart-sizing" widget that, upon detecting a change in the browser window size, dynamically reduces the size of its elements and, if a constraint is met, removes certain elements and increases the size of remaining ones to make optimal use of the available space (Compl. ¶36; ’272 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶92).
- Accused Features: Interactive widgets on Defendant's websites that allegedly resize and adapt their content dynamically based on available browser space (Compl. ¶¶91-92, 98). The complaint points to a screenshot of a website menu as an example of an interface that instructs users to access such widgets (Compl. ¶98).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the web platforms and mobile applications operated by 7-Eleven, including 7-Eleven.com, 7now.com, and 7-elevenshop.com (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities provide front-end and back-end systems for an online store for groceries, apparel, and other items (Compl. ¶5). The core accused functionality is the system for receiving, processing, and responding to user search queries, including the ranking and display of results (Compl. ¶5). The complaint provides a screenshot of a search bar on the 7now.com website which prompts the user, "What are you craving?", illustrating the primary interface for the accused search functionality (Compl. ¶49). Another screenshot shows a menu on 7-eleven.com that allegedly directs users to interactive widget interfaces (Compl. ¶98). The complaint does not provide further detail on market context beyond identifying the instrumentalities as 7-Eleven's online commerce platforms.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on the narrative provided in the complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, over a network, a query from a user, the query comprising at least one query token; | Defendant's websites and apps provide search interfaces, such as the one depicted asking "What are you craving?", that receive user queries. | ¶49 | col. 1:13-16 |
| analyzing the query... to identify at least one query keyword; | Defendant's system analyzes the received query to perform a search, which necessitates identifying keywords. | ¶21 | col. 1:16-19 |
| determining... a plurality of intents from the at least one keyword, each... indicates a type of information... likely to be desired by a user; | The complaint alleges Defendant's system employs the patented "intents"-driven process, which includes determining a user's likely intent (e.g., purchase, research) from the query keywords. | ¶¶19-20 | col. 9:42-49 |
| classifying the query... into at least one of the plurality of intents; | As part of the allegedly infringing "intents"-driven process, Defendant's system classifies the user's query into one or more determined intents. | ¶19 | col. 1:20-22 |
| identifying... a plurality of data objects... that match the at least one query keyword; | Defendant's system searches for and identifies products or other data objects that match the user's query. | ¶21 | col. 1:23-25 |
| assigning... at least one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality of data objects; | Defendant's system allegedly assigns an inferred intent to the search results as part of its ranking and presentation process. | ¶21 | col. 1:28-30 |
| ranking... the plurality of data objects; | Defendant's system ranks the search results, allegedly using the assigned user intent to place more relevant results near the top. | ¶20 | col. 1:27-28 |
| building a result... at least one display entry customized to a respective assigned intent is constructed for each... data objects; | Defendant's system allegedly customizes the display of search results based on the inferred intent, going beyond a simple list of titles and abstracts. | ¶18 | col. 2:11-16 |
| transmitting the result, over the network, to the user. | Defendant's system transmits the final, ranked, and allegedly customized search results for display to the user. | ¶21 | col. 2:16-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will likely be factual: does 7-Eleven's e-commerce search engine actually implement the specific "intent"-based classification and result customization process described in the '157 patent, or does it use a conventional keyword relevance and ranking model that Plaintiff has characterized as "intent-driven"? Proving the internal workings of Defendant's server-side system will be a key challenge for the Plaintiff.
- Scope Question: A related question concerns the scope of "customized to a respective assigned intent." Does any search result presentation that varies from a simple title/snippet list meet this limitation, or does the patent require a specific type of customization explicitly tied to a pre-defined "intent" category?
U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine for a query; | Defendant's search functionality ranks the documents (e.g., product pages) it recalls in response to a user query. | ¶26 | col. 1:62-63 |
| wherein the plurality of documents contain certain documents, each... containing at least one section that is not used by said search engine for recall... | The complaint alleges infringement of a method that requires the underlying web documents to have this structure, implicitly alleging its presence in the accused environment. | ¶¶25-26 | col. 3:12-14 |
| wherein ranking... includes ranking said plurality of documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section... not used... to recall documents; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's ranking algorithm considers content from sections of a webpage that are not used for initial keyword matching (recall). | ¶26 | col. 4:6-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A primary issue will be evidentiary: how can Plaintiff demonstrate that 7-Eleven's ranking algorithm analyzes content from sections of a webpage that it simultaneously excludes from its search index for recall purposes? This allegation concerns a specific, non-public technical process.
- Scope Question: The meaning of "section" and what it means for a section to be "not used... for recall" will be critical. Does this require an explicit demarcation (like the "noindex" tag shown in the patent's figures), or can it be inferred from the search engine's behavior?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’157 Patent
- The Term: "intent"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the '157 patent. The entire infringement theory depends on whether Defendant's system determines and acts upon user "intent" as the patent defines it. The case may turn on whether 7-Eleven’s modern, likely machine-learning-driven, relevance signals can be properly characterized as the structured "intents" contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an intent as a mapping from "many combinations of keywords to a relatively small set of common goals that users pursue," suggesting a high-level, goal-oriented concept rather than a rigid technical structure ('157 Patent, col. 9:42-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific, finite list of example intents ("official-site, research, purchase, dealer, support, or reviews") and describes them as being "pre-programmed" and "mapped to from query keywords," which could support a narrower construction requiring a system of discrete, pre-defined categories ('157 Patent, col. 9:49-52; Compl. ¶19).
For the ’329 Patent
- The Term: "section that is not used by said search engine for recall"
- Context and Importance: The novelty of the '329 patent rests on the distinction between how different "sections" of a document are treated for "recall" versus "ranking." Infringement requires proving that Defendant's system makes this exact distinction. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core mechanism alleged to be infringed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a no-recall section may be identified "by analyzing section content rather than examining only delimiters," which could support a broader, functional definition where any part of a page not used for keyword matching qualifies, regardless of how it is marked ('329 Patent, col. 3:15-17).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "no-recall sections demarcated by, for example, a tag" and provides a detailed example in Figure 2 using a
<div class="robots-noindex">tag, suggesting the term may be limited to explicitly and technically demarcated areas of a document ('329 Patent, col. 3:14-15, Fig. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that 7-Eleven instructs and encourages its customers to use the accused search and widget functionalities. As evidence, the complaint provides screenshots of search bar prompts (e.g., "What are you craving?") and website menus, which allegedly serve as instructions for users to perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶49, 62, 74, 86, 98).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful infringement." However, for each count, it pleads that 7-Eleven has had knowledge of the asserted patent "at least since being served with this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶47, 60, 72, 84, 96). This allegation forms the basis for a claim of post-filing knowledge, which could support a finding of willfulness and a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary Question of Technical Operation: The core of this case rests on allegations about the internal, server-side operations of 7-Eleven's e-commerce platform. A central question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence, likely through discovery, to prove that the accused systems perform the specific functions required by the claims—namely, the "intent"-based result customization of the '157 patent and the "no-recall section" analysis for ranking of the '329 patent.
- A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The dispute will likely involve a battle over the meaning of key claim terms. Can the term "intent", as defined in a 2009-era patent for general web search, be construed to read on the relevance and personalization algorithms of a modern, specialized e-commerce search engine? Similarly, can the "section not used for recall" in the '329 patent be proven to exist functionally in Defendant's system, or is it limited to the explicit "noindex" tags described in the patent's embodiments?
- A Question of Technological Congruence: Underlying the specific infringement theories is a broader question of whether the technical solutions patented by Yahoo! for web-scale search in the late 2000s are truly equivalent to the technologies used in 7-Eleven's current online retail platforms. The court may need to determine if there is a fundamental mismatch between the problems solved by the patents and the functionality of the accused instrumentalities.