Linfo IP LLC v. Charles Tyrwhitt Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Charles Tyrwhitt, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-03865, S.D. Tex., 10/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district (a retail store in Houston), has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, which presents and allows for interaction with user-submitted product reviews, infringes a patent related to systems for discovering and presenting information within text content.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods of automated linguistic analysis to identify, categorize, and selectively display or highlight information within large bodies of text, such as user reviews or technical documents, to make the information easier for users to digest.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigation, but states that none of these licenses were for producing a patented article, a point raised to address potential patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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"

• Patent Identification: 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’s background section identifies the problem of "information overload," where finding specific, relevant information within large amounts of unstructured text—such as hundreds of user reviews for a hotel—is difficult and time-consuming using conventional search methods (U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, col. 1:13-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify and associate grammatical, semantic, or contextual "attributes" with words or phrases (e.g., labeling a comment as a "positive opinion"). It then provides a user interface with objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to select a desired attribute and perform an action, such as extracting, displaying, or highlighting all text segments that possess that attribute ('428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-28). Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, including the user interface (150) and linguistic analysis module (120), while Figure 8 shows an exemplary output where user comments are hierarchically organized under topics like "Room" and "Bathroom" ('428 Patent, Fig. 1; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a more efficient way for users to "gather, organize and digest" information by allowing them to filter and view unstructured text based on its underlying meaning or topic, rather than simple keyword matching ('428 Patent, col. 3:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Providing a user interface for selecting a first and second "semantic attribute" (e.g., "positive opinion" vs. "negative opinion").
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" associated with a label representing the attribute.
  • Allowing a user to select the attribute as "user-specified or user-desired".
  • Performing an "action" (e.g., extracting, displaying, highlighting) on the identified words or phrases.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert all dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's website, www.ctshirts.com, and its associated systems, particularly the "review platforms" on the website (Compl. ¶¶3, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant operates a system with a user interface for "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶9). This system allegedly allows customers to interact with product reviews. The complaint provides a URL to a product page on the website as an example of where infringing activity occurs (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific details about how the review platform operates but alleges generally that it provides interface objects for users to act on information within the reviews (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in a preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶10). However, Exhibit B was not included with the filed complaint.

In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the body of the complaint. The core allegation is that Defendant's website (www.ctshirts.com) provides a system that infringes one or more claims of the ’428 patent (Compl. ¶9). Plaintiff alleges this system includes a user interface and methods for "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint suggests this functionality is related to the "review platforms" on Defendant's website and that Defendant instructs customers on how to use these features (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused website performs each step of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claim, defining the type of information the system is designed to identify. Its construction will determine whether the filtering or sorting options on Defendant's website (if any) qualify as being based on a "semantic attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether simple categorization (e.g., by star rating) meets the claim limitation or if a more sophisticated linguistic or contextual analysis is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states attributes can be "grammatical, semantic, contextual, or topical" (col. 6:8-9). It also defines a semantic attribute broadly as the "meanings of a word or a phrase," including "connotation" (col. 8:14-25). This could support a reading that covers various forms of data classification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary examples focus on nuanced linguistic concepts like "opinion" (positive/negative), "drug names," or the contextual meaning of a phrase like "not as good" ('428 Patent, col. 8:30-34; col. 13:25-30). A defendant could argue these examples limit the term to attributes derived from natural language processing, not just metadata like a star rating.

• The Term: "actionable user interface object"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines how the user interacts with the system. The dispute may turn on whether the UI elements on Defendant's website are "actionable" in the specific way the patent requires—namely, being tied to a semantic attribute and triggering an action like highlighting or extraction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the object simply as allowing a user to "select the first name or description" of an attribute to trigger an action (Claim 1). This could be argued to cover any interactive element, like a button or link, that filters content.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict specific UI elements like dropdown menus (Fig. 7), checkboxes (Fig. 9A), and radio buttons (Fig. 11) that are explicitly labeled with the attribute and the action (e.g., "Extract positive opinions," "Highlight negative comments"). This could support a narrower construction requiring a direct, explicit link between the UI object, the semantic attribute, and the resulting action.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use the infringing features of its website (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused service "is not a staple commercial product" and that Defendant had reason to know its customers' use would be infringing (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the '428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness but does not plead facts showing pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "semantic attribute", which the patent illustrates with nuanced linguistic concepts like "opinion," be construed to cover the likely functionality on a commercial website, such as filtering product reviews by star rating or sorting by "most helpful"?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement: as the complaint lacks specific factual detail or a claim chart, a central task for the court will be to determine what the accused website actually does and whether that functionality maps onto the specific steps recited in the asserted claims, particularly the requirement for an "actionable user interface object" that allows a user to select a "user-desired attribute" to trigger a specific "action".
3. A third question relates to intent: given that the complaint only alleges knowledge of the patent as of the filing date, the viability of the willful and induced infringement claims will depend on what evidence emerges in discovery regarding Defendant’s pre-suit awareness of the patent or its post-suit conduct.