DCT

3:22-cv-02870

R2 Solutions LLC v. GameStop Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02870, N.D. Tex., 12/21/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant GameStop having regular and established places of business in the district, including its corporate headquarters in Grapevine, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website and mobile applications, specifically their search, results presentation, and web-widget functionalities, infringe five patents related to search engine and web interface technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address foundational aspects of web search technology, including inferring user intent, combating search spam, processing partial queries, organizing results, and creating adaptive user interfaces, which are all critical to the modern e-commerce user experience.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit were originally filed by Yahoo! Inc. between 2006 and 2009, a period of intense innovation and competition in the web search market.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-08-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’317 Patent
2006-09-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’272 Patent
2007-01-10 Priority Date for ’329 Patent
2009-07-31 Priority Date for ’157 Patent
2010-04-13 ’329 Patent Issued
2012-06-26 ’317 Patent Issued
2012-12-25 ’157 Patent Issued
2014-12-17 Priority Date for ’097 Patent
2017-10-31 ’097 Patent Issued
2019-01-08 ’272 Patent Issued
2022-12-21 Complaint Filing Date

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 (’157 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a shortcoming in traditional search engines that treat a query as a simple "bag of words," which may yield results that do not align with the user's actual purpose or intent (Compl. ¶19; ’157 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that goes beyond keyword matching to determine a user's likely "intent" (e.g., to research, purchase, find support). This inferred intent is then used to customize the presentation of search results—such as by altering titles, abstracts, or URL parameters—to make them more relevant and useful to the user's specific goal (Compl. ¶¶19-20; ’157 Patent, col. 4:16-26). The system maps keywords to a set of common goals and can use other signals like user session history or demographics to determine intent (’157 Patent, col. 9:42-61).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a move from syntactic keyword matching to a more semantic understanding of user queries, a crucial step in improving search relevance for commercial and navigational searches (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Receiving a query from a user.
    • Analyzing the query to identify a keyword.
    • Determining a plurality of intents from the keyword.
    • Classifying the query into at least one of the plurality of intents.
    • Identifying data objects that match the keyword.
    • 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.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 7-10, reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 - “Method for Improving Quality of Search Results by Avoiding Indexing Sections of Pages”

Issued April 13, 2010 (’329 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "search engine spamming," where web pages contain irrelevant content designed to trick ranking algorithms, leading to a poor user experience (Compl. ¶25; ’329 Patent, col. 2:6-17). An example given is a user searching for "digital camera reviews" and being led to a page filled with keywords and commercial links instead of actual reviews (’329 Patent, col. 2:18-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a method for delineating "no-recall sections" on a web page (e.g., sections with ads, boilerplate text, or copyright notices). A search engine crawler is instructed not to use terms within these sections for the purpose of recalling the document in a search. However, the search engine does analyze the content of these no-recall sections (e.g., the number of ads, the quality of links) as a factor in ranking the document, which helps identify and penalize low-quality or spam-filled pages (Compl. ¶26; ’329 Patent, col. 3:7-27).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a more sophisticated tool for search engines to distinguish between a page's substantive content and its ancillary content, enabling better spam detection without forcing webmasters to completely hide non-substantive page elements (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine.
    • The documents contain at least one section that is not used by the search engine for recall and one or more sections that are used for recall.
    • The ranking is based, at least in part, on the section that is not used for recall.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 11-12, reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 - “Method and Apparatus for Reconstructing a Search Query”

Issued June 26, 2012 (’317 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of entering full, properly structured search queries on devices with limited input capabilities, such as mobile phones (Compl. ¶30). The invention provides a system that receives a "partial query" (e.g., an abbreviation or typo) and reconstructs a "full query" based on a database of previously submitted queries, making search more flexible and intuitive for mobile users (Compl. ¶31).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The search functionality of the GameStop website and mobile apps, which allegedly reconstructs full search 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 (’097 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies a drawback in presenting search results as a simple top-to-bottom list, which can limit user engagement (Compl. ¶33). The solution is a method for displaying search content items in a "framed structure" (e.g., a grid of thumbnails) where there is a determined correspondence between content items and sub-components of the structure, offering a more dynamic and visually engaging presentation (Compl. ¶34).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The systems used by GameStop to generate and present search results, which allegedly display content items in a framed structure (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 (’272 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of fixed-size web page widgets that fail to adapt to varying browser window sizes, leading to layout errors like overflow or improper rendering (Compl. ¶36). The invention discloses a widget that can automatically resize itself and its internal elements in real-time to make optimal use of the available space on a web page (Compl. ¶37).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The web-page widgets on the GameStop website, which allegedly resize and adapt automatically to the user's browser environment (Compl. ¶¶91, 98).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are GameStop’s web platform (GameStop.com), mobile applications, and associated front-end and back-end systems, processes, and components (Compl. ¶6).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint targets core e-commerce functionalities of the accused instrumentalities, including the systems for receiving and processing user search queries, generating and rendering search result pages, and displaying interactive web-page widgets (Compl. ¶¶6, 39). The complaint provides a screenshot of the GameStop.com homepage showing a prominent search bar, which it alleges is used to instruct and encourage users to engage with the accused search functionalities (Compl. ¶50). These features are presented as integral to how GameStop markets, offers for sale, and sells its products online (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’157 Patent 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; GameStop’s systems receive queries from users via the search interface on its website and mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶6, 43-44). ¶6, ¶44 col. 15:2-5
determining, at least the one computing device, a plurality of intents from the at least one keyword… GameStop’s accused systems allegedly determine multiple potential user intents (e.g., purchase, research) based on the keywords entered by the user (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). ¶20, ¶22, ¶44 col. 15:9-14
classifying the query, using the at least one computing device, into at least one of the plurality of intents; The accused systems allegedly classify the user’s query into one or more of the determined intents to guide the search process (Compl. ¶22). ¶22, ¶44 col. 15:15-17
identifying, using the at least one computing device, a plurality of data objects available over the network that match the at least one query keyword; GameStop’s systems identify products, pages, and other data objects within its online store that match the user’s query keywords (Compl. ¶¶6, 22). ¶6, ¶22, ¶44 col. 15:18-21
assigning, using the at least one computing device, at least one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality of data objects; The accused systems allegedly associate one or more of the determined intents with the identified data objects (Compl. ¶22). ¶22, ¶44 col. 15:22-25
building a result...at least one display entry customized to a respective assigned intent is constructed for each of the ranked plurality of data objects; GameStop’s systems allegedly construct a search results page where the display entries for products are customized based on the assigned user intent (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a screenshot of the search bar which initiates this process (Compl. ¶50). ¶22, ¶44, ¶50 col. 15:31-38
transmitting the result, over the network, to the user. GameStop’s systems transmit the generated search results page back to the user’s browser or mobile application for display (Compl. ¶¶6, 22). ¶6, ¶22, ¶44 col. 15:39-41

’329 Patent 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; GameStop’s back-end search systems allegedly perform ranking of documents (e.g., product pages) that have been recalled in response to a user query (Compl. ¶¶6, 56). ¶6, ¶56 col. 7:2-4
wherein the plurality of documents contain certain documents, each...containing 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 complaint alleges that pages on GameStop’s platform contain sections with content that is not used for recall (e.g., ads, boilerplate) and other sections with content that is used for recall (e.g., product descriptions) (Compl. ¶¶26-27). ¶26, ¶27, ¶56 col. 7:5-11
wherein ranking a plurality of documents includes ranking said plurality of documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section of said certain documents not used by said search engine to recall documents; The complaint alleges that GameStop's ranking algorithms analyze and base their ranking scores, at least in part, on content within the sections of a page that are not used for recall, for purposes such as spam or quality analysis (Compl. ¶¶26-27). ¶26, ¶27, ¶56 col. 7:12-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’157 Patent, a central question may be whether the term "plurality of intents" requires a system that performs explicit, discrete classifications (e.g., "purchase," "review") as described in the patent's embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any system that uses multiple signals to generate a relevance score. For the ’272 Patent, a question may arise as to whether the accused website components are "widgets" within the meaning of the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff across multiple patents (’157, ’329, ’317) will be demonstrating how GameStop’s proprietary, back-end search and ranking algorithms actually operate. For the ’329 Patent, the complaint does not specify which page sections are allegedly "no-recall" sections or provide evidence that GameStop’s ranking algorithm actually uses information from such sections for ranking while simultaneously excluding it from recall. Proving this combination of a negative and positive limitation will likely require significant discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’157 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "a plurality of intents"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether GameStop’s system is shown to determine multiple, distinct "intents." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a generalized personalization algorithm infringes, or if the claim requires a more specific, structured classification system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, such as "official-site, research, purchase, dealer, support, or reviews" (’157 Patent, col. 9:50-52), which may support a construction that is not limited to just those examples.
  • Intrinsic evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes an intent as "a mapping from many combinations of keywords to a relatively small set of common goals" (’157 Patent, col. 9:44-47). This language, combined with the detailed process of classifying a query "into at least one of the plurality of intents," may support a narrower construction requiring a system that performs an explicit classification into predefined categories, rather than simply using a continuous-valued relevance score.

’329 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "section that is not used by said search engine for recall"
  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a critical prerequisite for infringement. The plaintiff must first prove the existence of such a section before it can prove that the section is then used for ranking. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on how this term is defined and applied to the accused web pages.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that no-recall sections can be identified in multiple ways, including being "demarcated by, for example, a tag" or by "analyzing section content rather than examining only delimiters" (’329 Patent, col. 3:15-18), suggesting flexibility in how such a section is defined.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and description provide specific examples of no-recall sections, such as those containing a "navigation pane," "copyright notice," "related blogs," and "ads" (’329 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:32-41). A party may argue that an accused section must be functionally analogous to these non-substantive, ancillary content types to qualify.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all five patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that GameStop’s website and applications actively encourage and instruct users to engage with the accused functionalities, for example, by displaying a search interface that prompts users to "Search games, consoles & more" (Compl. ¶¶50, 62, 74, 86, 98).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that GameStop has had knowledge of each patent "at least since being served with this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶48, 60, 72, 84, 96). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof for back-end functionality: Given that several of the asserted claims (’157, ’329, ’317) depend on the specific inner workings of GameStop’s proprietary search and ranking algorithms, a key question will be what evidence the plaintiff can obtain through discovery to demonstrate that these complex, non-public systems in fact perform the precise, multi-step methods required by the claims.
  2. The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim scope and technical equivalence: Can the term "intent" from the ’157 patent, which is described in the context of a structured classification system, be construed to read on the potentially more fluid personalization and relevance signals used by a modern e-commerce search engine? Similarly, can the dynamic page elements on GameStop's site be properly classified as "widgets" that practice the specific resizing and element-removal steps of the ’272 patent?
  3. A third key question will focus on the interaction of negative and positive claim limitations: For the ’329 patent, can the plaintiff prove both that GameStop's system designates a part of its web page as a "section that is not used...for recall" and, simultaneously, that its ranking algorithm does use that same section to calculate a document’s rank? The dual nature of this requirement presents a substantial hurdle for proving infringement.