Linfo IP LLC v. Gap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Gap, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00635, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district (specifically, a distribution center), has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to computer-assisted methods for analyzing and interacting with text based on its semantic attributes.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of natural language processing and user interface design, specifically addressing the problem of information overload by enabling users to filter, extract, or highlight text based on underlying meanings or topics rather than simple keyword searches.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Priority Date
2015-07-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Issued
2023-12-31	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of "data overload" or "information overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, relevant information within large volumes of text, such as numerous online hotel reviews or long medical documents (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-21, 1:47-54). Conventional search methods are described as potentially time-consuming and inefficient for parsing this scattered data.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words or phrases (’428 Patent, col. 3:17-22). It then provides a user interface with objects that allow a user to select a specific attribute (e.g., "positive comments") and perform an action (e.g., "highlight" or "extract") on all text segments possessing that attribute (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:3-15). This allows users to interact with content based on its meaning, not just keywords. Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, including a linguistic analysis module (120) and a user interface (150) with attribute and action selectors (’428 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide more sophisticated and efficient tools for information discovery by moving beyond keyword matching to contextual and semantic analysis, enabling users to quickly digest large corpora of text like user reviews.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1: A computer-assisted method comprising the steps of:
  • obtaining a text content;
  • selecting a first and second semantic attribute for users to select from;
  • identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected attributes;
  • displaying an actionable user interface object associated with the attributes;
  • allowing a user to select one of the attributes via the interface object; and
  • performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint makes a general allegation against claims 1-20, which suggests the right to assert dependent claims is preserved (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name. It generally accuses a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that is maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s system infringes by "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). No specific features, functions, or operational details of the accused system are provided in the complaint. The complaint also makes no specific allegations regarding the accused system's commercial importance or market position, beyond the general assertion that Defendant procures "monetary and commercial benefit from it" (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). However, Exhibit B was not included with the provided complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by using a system that practices the claimed methods for discovering and presenting information (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary question is factual: what specific system or service does Defendant operate, and does its functionality map to each element of the asserted claims? The complaint's lack of specificity on the accused instrumentality will likely be a focus of early discovery and potential pleading challenges.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around the scope of the claim term "semantic attribute." The analysis will question whether the accused system's filtering or sorting capabilities, once identified, constitute the identification and processing of a "semantic attribute" as contemplated by the patent, or if they are more akin to conventional keyword-based filtering.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused system performs the contextual analysis described in the patent. For example, does the system differentiate between a positive term used sincerely (e.g., "the room was good") and the same term used in a negative context (e.g., "not as good as she expected"), a distinction the patent explicitly addresses (’428 Patent, Fig. 11, col. 14:20-41)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• 1. "semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, defining the type of information the system is designed to identify and act upon. Its construction will determine whether the accused system's functionality falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is critical to the infringement case; a narrow definition tied only to "opinion" could limit the patent's applicability, while a broader one could cover a wide range of content analysis features.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the concept generally, stating the method includes associating "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes to the tokens" (’428 Patent, col. 3:20-22). This suggests "semantic" is one of several types of attributes and is not inherently limited.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed examples focus heavily on user opinions (positive/negative) and specific topics (e.g., "drug name" or "pain-reliever") (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:23-29; col. 9:1-5). The patent also distinguishes its method from identifying "named entities" (’428 Patent, col. 16:35-36), which could be used to argue for a narrower scope that excludes certain types of data tagging.

• 2. "actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the mechanism through which a user interacts with the system. The dispute will concern what types of UI elements meet this definition. Its construction is important because it links the back-end semantic analysis to the front-end user experience.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general language of the claim suggests any UI element that allows a user to select an attribute and trigger an action could qualify. The specification mentions that selectors "can be combined or integrated into a single user interface object" (’428 Patent, col. 6:16-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a dropdown menu (Fig. 7), clickable buttons (Fig. 3, 420), and radio buttons (Fig. 9A, 910), which could be argued to define the scope of the term (’428 Patent, col. 6:8-15; col. 9:63-67).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the same conduct (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness, but bases the knowledge requirement on notice from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). This pleading supports a claim for post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

1. A primary issue will be one of factual identification: What specific system or feature is being accused of infringement? The complaint's lack of detail on the accused instrumentality creates a significant evidentiary hurdle that must be overcome for the case to proceed on the merits.
2. The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: Will the term "semantic attribute" be construed broadly to cover general content categorization, or will it be limited to the patent’s more specific examples of contextual opinion analysis (e.g., positive vs. negative sentiment)? The answer will determine if Defendant's system, once identified, performs the claimed invention.
3. A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Assuming Plaintiff can identify an accused system, does it merely perform keyword filtering, or can Plaintiff provide evidence that it performs the more advanced contextual analysis required by the claims, such as differentiating a term's meaning based on surrounding words as illustrated in the patent?