Linfo IP LLC v. Old Navy LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Old Navy, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00634, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant operating physical retail stores and conducting substantial business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to methods and user interfaces for analyzing and selectively displaying information based on its semantic attributes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses information overload by automatically analyzing text to identify characteristics like sentiment (positive/negative) and providing users with tools to filter, extract, or highlight content based on those attributes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. No prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit is mentioned in the complaint.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "information overload," where finding specific, relevant information within large volumes of text—such as hundreds of user reviews for a hotel—is difficult and time-consuming using conventional search methods (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-38). Users may wish to see only comments on a specific topic (e.g., "room service") or filter by opinion (e.g., only "negative comments") (’428 Patent, col. 1:29-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-assisted system that tokenizes text and associates grammatical, semantic, or contextual attributes with the text tokens (’428 Patent, col. 3:18-24). It then provides a user interface with objects that allow a user to specify an attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action (e.g., "extract," "highlight") to be performed on the text associated with that attribute (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-29). The system can use dictionaries to identify attributes and pre-written rules to analyze the context of a word, such as identifying that "not good" represents a negative opinion despite the presence of the word "good" (’428 Patent, col. 13:12-42).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide users with a more efficient tool to analyze unstructured text by allowing filtering and organization based on semantic meaning rather than simple keyword matching (’428 Patent, col. 2:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶9). The asserted independent claims appear to be method claim 1 and system claim 14.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first and a second semantic attribute for a user to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases associated with those attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object."
  • Allowing the user to select one of the attributes.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "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. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s system provides users with "interface objects to act on the discovered information, such as extracting, displaying or hiding, or highlighting or un-highlighting words or phrases in a text content" (Compl. ¶8). No specific details about the operation of the accused system, its features, or its market context are provided in the complaint. The complaint states that support for its allegations may be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B," but this exhibit is not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶10). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’428 Patent by operating a system that embodies the claimed invention (Compl. ¶9). The core of the allegation is that Defendant's system discovers information in text and provides a user interface that allows users to perform actions on that discovered information, such as extracting or highlighting it (Compl. ¶8). The allegations are stated at a high level of generality, tracking the language of the patent's claims and abstract rather than describing the specific functionality of an Old Navy product or service.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint provides no specific evidence (e.g., screenshots, URLs, product descriptions) detailing the accused instrumentality's functionality. A primary point of contention will be whether the plaintiff can produce evidence of an Old Navy system that performs the specific steps of the asserted claims, particularly the step of presenting pre-selected semantic attributes for user selection.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether any feature in the accused system meets the claim limitation of "selecting a first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute for users to select from" (’428 Patent, col. 16:1-3). This suggests a requirement that the system offer at least two distinct, pre-defined, non-keyword-based filtering options, such as "positive" and "negative" opinions.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system "identif[ies] a words or phrases... associated with the first semantic attribute or the second semantic attribute"? (’428 Patent, col. 16:8-11). This raises the question of whether the system performs the claimed semantic analysis or a non-infringing function like simple keyword filtering.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of the claims. Its construction will determine the type of information analysis the patent covers. A broad construction might encompass simple topic tags or categories, while a narrow one could require sophisticated, context-aware sentiment or opinion analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is a central issue for both infringement and validity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that attributes can be "grammatical, semantic, contextual, or topical" (’428 Patent, col. 5:8-9) and gives examples ranging from "opinion" to "drug names" (’428 Patent, col. 5:17-19, col. 8:30). This language could support a construction that is not limited to sentiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures heavily emphasize opinion and connotation analysis (e.g., positive vs. negative) as the primary application (’428 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 9:29-56). A party could argue that the invention is properly centered on this specific type of semantic analysis, pointing to claim 3, which explicitly recites the "semantic category of sentiment or opinion," to argue that this is the core inventive concept.

• The Term: "an action on the word or phrase associated with the user-specified or user-desired semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required output of the system. The dispute will likely center on the causal link between the user's selection of a "semantic attribute" and the system's subsequent action.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim lists a broad range of actions: "extracting, displaying, storing, showing or hiding, or highlighting or un-highlighting the word or phrase" (’428 Patent, col. 16:21-24). The specification shows these actions applied in various formats, including topic trees and word clouds (e.g., '428 Patent, Figs. 4, 5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a process where the "semantic attribute" is first identified through linguistic analysis, and only then is an action performed. A defendant might argue that this limitation requires more than a simple filter, where the action is a direct consequence of a pre-existing tag. The process described in Figure 6, which determines a "connotation value" before highlighting, could be cited to support a narrower, multi-step functional requirement (’428 Patent, Fig. 6).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). No specific factual basis, such as citations to instructional materials, is provided.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). This allegation currently supports only post-filing willfulness, with Plaintiff reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11, n.1).

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

• The Specificity Question: A threshold issue is whether the complaint’s generalized allegations, which lack any identification of the accused Old Navy product or its specific functions, satisfy federal pleading standards. The case may turn initially on whether the plaintiff can amend its complaint to plausibly connect the patent's claims to a real-world product.
• The Claim Scope Question: A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "semantic attribute"? The viability of the infringement case will depend heavily on whether this term is limited to the patent’s detailed examples of context-aware opinion analysis or if it can encompass simpler categorical filtering systems.
• The Infringement Evidence Question: A key evidentiary hurdle will be one of functional proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate that an Old Navy system not only performs a function that falls within the construed scope of "semantic attribute" but also provides a user interface that allows users to explicitly select from at least two such distinct attributes to trigger an action, as required by the independent claims?