Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. JM Bullion Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: JM Bullion, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00748, N.D. Tex., 03/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a principal place of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, which features an automated image slideshow, infringes patents related to customizable systems for accessing and presenting web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves server-side systems for creating and automatically displaying sequences of web pages or content, aiming to improve user experience over manual, click-by-click navigation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629. It also references the '707 patent's prosecution history, alleging that an examiner found the claimed feature of automatically composing a slideshow via extraction of web page details to be unconventional over the prior art.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore (Issued January 30, 2007)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a system that allows website owners to create automated presentations of web page sequences without the cost of reprogramming site content or installing special development tools on the user's side (Compl. ¶17; ’629 Patent, col. 7:60-67). The goal was to overcome the limitations of users navigating "random paths through web sites one click at a time" (Compl. ¶19; ’629 Patent, col. 13:45-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server architecture with two main software components operating on a host server: a "composer" and a "performer" (’629 Patent, FIG. 1). The composer is used to create a "presentation" by establishing a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a display duration (’629 Patent, col. 9:12-24). The performer then automatically loads and displays this pre-defined sequence to the end-user in a "slide show" format, replacing passive site navigation with an "adaptive presentation model" (Compl. ¶19; ’629 Patent, col. 13:38-40).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve web user engagement by guiding visitors to relevant content more quickly and reducing the need for continuous clicking, thereby increasing the time users spend on a site (Compl. ¶19; ’629 Patent, col. 13:30-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
• Essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • A method for customizing access to web sites.
  • Remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server.
  • Creating a presentation in the composer by:
    • Establishing a list of URLs via manual entry or an automatic query-based system.
    • Determining a display sequence for the list of URLs.
    • Determining a display duration for the list of URLs.
  • Remotely invoking a performer on the host server to present the created presentation.
  • Automatically and locally displaying the presentation in a slide show format where each URL is a slide, displayed automatically for a pre-determined duration.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore (Issued September 23, 2008)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '707 Patent, which shares a specification with the '629 Patent, addresses the same general problem of creating automated web presentations (Compl. ¶44). However, it focuses on the challenge of composing the slideshow itself, noting that in the prior art, this was a manual process of creating and storing HTML files (Compl. ¶45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an "auto-composing" system that creates a slideshow by "automatic extraction of web page details from a desired web page" (’707 Patent, Abstract). Instead of requiring manual input of URLs, the system can automatically extract them from sources like hyperlinks, a separate presentation/rendition text file, or a meta tag within the desired webpage, and then use that extracted list to build the presentation (Compl. ¶45; ’707 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
• Technical Importance: This solution automates the creation of the presentation list itself, allowing for more dynamic and efficient generation of slideshows without manual intervention by a developer (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
• Essential elements of claim 7 include:
  • A method for auto composing a web site.
  • Composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs.
  • The composing step comprises automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks, a presentation/rendition text file, or a meta tag from the desired web page to provide the URLs.
  • Automatically displaying the presentation in the order of the created list of URLs.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the website "https://www.jmbullion.com/" and its underlying systems, particularly the automated slideshow feature on its homepage (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 46).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the homepage of the accused website features a web slideshow presenting promotional offerings and images (Compl. ¶27, Ex. E). A screen capture included with the complaint shows an automatically rotating banner of promotional images at the top of the homepage (Compl. ¶27, Ex. E). The complaint alleges this functionality is created using HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, and points to a specific HTML element "
  " as comprising the slideshow (Compl. ¶28, Ex. A). The progressive rotation of images is allegedly controlled by a "translate3d()" CSS variable that cycles through pixel values to display a series of images (Compl. ¶36). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific commercial importance beyond its function as an e-commerce platform.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’629 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent describes a distinct "composer" and "performer" architecture. A central question may be whether the accused website's combination of standard client-side JavaScript and server-side code, which generates and displays the homepage, can be mapped onto this specific claimed architecture. The complaint's allegation that a "web browser and/or its associated code" invokes the composer raises the question of whether this meets the "remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server" limitation (Compl. ¶28).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 11 requires that the list of URLs be established via "manual entry" or a "query-based system." A technical question is what evidence supports the allegation that the accused website uses these specific "list establishment methodologies," as opposed to having a static list of image URLs embedded in a script or template on the server (Compl. ¶30).

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires "automatically extracting" URLs from a "desired web page." A key question of scope will be whether this term can read on a server-side process that generates a webpage by pulling content from a database and inserting it into a template, or if it requires a two-step process where a complete webpage is first created and then parsed to extract the URLs.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is what proof the complaint offers that the accused system actually "extracts" URLs from a "desired web page" (Compl. ¶48). The allegations point to the presence of URLs in the final source code, but do not detail the mechanism by which they are placed there, leaving open the question of whether a true "extraction" process, as claimed, is occurring.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '629 Patent

• The Term: "composer"
• Context and Importance: This term, along with "performer," defines the core architecture of the claimed system. Its construction is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused website's functionality can be divided into these two distinct, server-side components as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory appears to map it onto potentially standard web server functions (Compl. ¶28).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the system is a "software program incorporating two main components, a composer 12 and a performer 14" (’629 Patent, col. 9:12-14). This functional language, rather than specifying a particular implementation, may support a broader interpretation covering any software that performs the recited composing steps.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently depicts the "composer" as a discrete module (e.g., FIG. 1) that is invoked to "create a presentation" (’629 Patent, Abstract). This could support a narrower reading that requires a separate, identifiable software component, not just a set of general server-side scripts that generate a webpage.

For the '707 Patent

• The Term: "automatically extracting"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept distinguishing the '707 patent's claims. The case may turn on whether the accused system's method of generating its slideshow content constitutes "extracting" from a "desired web page." The complaint alleges the examiner allowed the claims based on this unconventional feature, heightening its importance (Compl. ¶45).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim lists multiple sources for extraction ("hyperlinks," "text file," "meta tag") from a "desired web page" (’707 Patent, col. 10:14-19). This could be argued to cover any automated method of gathering URLs from a web page's data, regardless of how that data is structured or when it is generated.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "extracting... from said desired web page" could imply a sequence where the "desired web page" exists as a discrete object first, and the extraction process then acts upon it. This might support a narrower reading that excludes a single, integrated process where a server script simply populates a template with URLs from a database to generate the final page. The complaint's reference to the prosecution history suggests this term was a point of patentability, which may argue against a construction so broad that it covers conventional dynamic web page generation (Compl. ¶45).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, in alleging direct infringement of the '629 patent's method claims, it states that to the extent users perform some steps, "such performance is nevertheless attributable to Defendant, because... Defendant directs or controls performance" (Compl. ¶33). This language invokes the standard for divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused website's use of standard server-side scripts and client-side code for generating and displaying its promotional slideshow meet the specific limitations of the '629 patent's "composer" and "performer" architecture, or is there a fundamental mismatch?
• A key evidentiary and technical question will be one of process and sequence: for the '707 patent, does the accused system perform the claimed step of "automatically extracting" URLs from an existing "desired web page," or does it utilize a different technical process, such as directly generating the final webpage with pre-defined content from a database, that falls outside the scope of the claim?