Adim8 LLC v. Active Building LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adim8, LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: Active Building, LLC (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-02152, N.D. Tex., 09/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application infringes a patent related to replacing standard software "idle time" indicators with animated graphic advertisements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for monetizing user wait times during software operations (e.g., data loading) by displaying branded animations instead of generic loading spinners or hourglass icons.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent was assigned to Plaintiff Adim8, LLC. The patent claims priority from an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,107,940. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,787,895, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVERTISING ON A DEVICE", issued July 22, 2014 (’895 Patent). (Compl. ¶8).

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,895 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ADVERTISING ON A DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of advertising on early mobile devices, noting that limited screen space, slow network speeds, and low processing power made traditional advertising disruptive to the user experience. ('895 Patent, col. 2:2-35). It identifies the time a user spends waiting for an application to load or process data—often signified by a generic icon like a rotating hourglass—as a missed opportunity. ('895 Patent, col. 2:50-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing these conventional, non-commercial idle-time indicators with a "graphic advertisement" that is animated to indicate that the device is still functioning. ('895 Patent, Abstract). The system detects an "idle-time period," such as when an application is loading, and displays the animated advertisement until the application is ready to proceed, at which point the advertisement is removed. ('895 Patent, col. 3:12-23). This is intended to utilize the wait time for commercial purposes, potentially in a way that is more entertaining to the user than a standard loading icon. ('895 Patent, col. 2:60-64).
• Technical Importance: The described method provided a framework for monetizing the unavoidable latency in data-intensive mobile applications while attempting to maintain or even improve the user experience during such delays. ('895 Patent, col. 2:60-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’895 Patent. (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A method of advertising on a device that has a "first time passage indicator" for idle periods.
  • Loading a "second time passage indicator" onto the device, where this second indicator is different from the first, represents a "graphic advertisement," and also "indicates a passage of time."
  • An "idle-time period" is created by the device "updating application information."
  • Displaying the "second time passage indicator" during this idle-time period.
  • Animating the graphic advertisement on the display during at least a portion of the idle-time period.
• The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims," with Claim 1 cited as an example. (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s mobile application, as available on the Google Play store. (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused application advertises "ActiveBuilding goods and services." (Compl. ¶17). During idle periods, such as when the "application loads pages or data onto the mobile device," it is alleged to display a "graphic advertisement waiting indicator." (Compl. ¶17). The complaint asserts this indicator is animated and is displayed instead of a standard waiting indicator. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides a screenshot of the accused application's loading screen, which allegedly displays the animated graphic advertisement. (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’895 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused animated logo constitutes a "graphic advertisement" as that term is used in the patent. The complaint alleges the animated indicator advertises "ActiveBuilding goods and services" (Compl. ¶17), but a court may need to determine if a company's own logo on its own application's loading screen meets the claim's requirement, especially in light of patent examples that feature third-party ads. (e.g., ’895 Patent, col. 7:27-43).
• Technical Questions: The claim requires replacing a "first time passage indicator" with a "second time passage indicator." A technical question is what evidence exists of the "first" indicator. The complaint alleges that "Mobile devices include a standard waiting indicator" (Compl. ¶17), but the analysis may turn on whether the accused method actively supplants a specific, existing indicator, or merely provides its own loading animation in a context where a standard indicator might otherwise have been used.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "time passage indicator"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, appearing in reference to both the conventional element to be replaced ("first... indicator") and the novel advertising element ("second... indicator"). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused animated logo "indicates a passage of time." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that a simple rotating logo does not convey temporal progress in the same manner as an hourglass or progress bar.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that indicating the device has not crashed is a sufficient function, stating "any form of movement may be used to show that the mobile device (50) is functioning properly, and has not 'frozen'". ('895 Patent, col. 8:7-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently uses examples of icons that explicitly measure time, such as "an hour glass that rotates" or "the face of a clock on which the hands rotate." ('895 Patent, col. 2:51-52). An embodiment is described as "a plurality of radially extending lines that move around the graphic advertisement (22) with time." ('895 Patent, col. 7:62-64). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a more direct representation of time's passage.

• The Term: "graphic advertisement"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on the accused animated logo being a "graphic advertisement." If it is construed not to be an advertisement, the claim fails.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit, broad definition: "this may be any form of advertisement, preferably a logo, graphic design, advertisement, or similar symbol." ('895 Patent, col. 7:66-col. 8:2). This language appears to directly support interpreting a logo as a "graphic advertisement."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples in the specification focus on a "mobile concierge service" that displays targeted, third-party ads (e.g., Taco Bell®, AMC Theaters®) based on user activity. ('895 Patent, col. 7:4-43). A party could argue that, in this context, "advertisement" implies a commercial message beyond a company's own branding on its own service's loading screen.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks remedies for indirect infringement. (Compl. Prayer ¶E, F). However, the complaint's single count alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶15-17).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement. (Compl. Prayer ¶C). It does not, however, allege a factual basis for willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or its infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "time passage indicator," which the patent illustrates with time-measuring icons like clocks and hourglasses, be construed to cover the simple animation of a corporate logo as alleged in the complaint?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of claim structure: can the plaintiff prove that the accused method meets the claim's requirement of replacing a "first" time passage indicator with a "second" one, or does the accused application simply feature a standalone animated graphic without supplanting a distinct, pre-existing component?
• A further question of definitional scope will be whether a company's own logo displayed on its own application's loading screen constitutes a "graphic advertisement" within the meaning of the claims, particularly when the patent specification provides examples of third-party advertising.