Linfo IP LLC v. Tommy John Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Tommy John, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-03867, 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 the Houston Galleria), has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for discovering, extracting, and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to computer-assisted text analysis and user interfaces.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for programmatically analyzing text to identify attributes of words or phrases (e.g., positive or negative sentiment) and providing user interfaces to filter, display, or highlight content based on those attributes.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint notes these prior licenses did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of a patented article, which may be an attempt to preemptively address potential defenses related to patent marking 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," issued July 28, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of "information overload," where users struggle to find specific, relevant information within large volumes of text, such as thousands of hotel reviews. Conventional search methods are described as time-consuming for tasks like isolating all negative comments about a specific topic (e.g., "room service") (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to associate "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes" with words or phrases (’428 Patent, col. 3:21-23). It then provides user interface objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to select a desired attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and perform an action (e.g., "extract," "highlight") on the corresponding text, presenting the filtered results in various formats like a topic tree or word cloud (’428 Patent, col. 3:23-33; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide a more sophisticated and efficient way to navigate and digest unstructured text by moving beyond simple keyword search to a more attribute-driven analysis and presentation. (’428 Patent, col. 1:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20, which includes independent claims 1 (method), 14 (system), and 18 (system) (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first and a second semantic attribute for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with those attributes.
  • Displaying an actionable user interface object.
  • Allowing a user to select one of the attributes via the interface object.
  • 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 dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused "Products" as "menswear clothing products" sold by Defendant Tommy John, Inc. (Compl. ¶3). However, the substantive infringement allegations refer to a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused system in detail. It alleges the infringement involves methods for "discovering information in a text content" and providing "interface objects to act on the discovered information, such as extracting, displaying, or hiding, or highlighting" words or phrases (Compl. ¶8). The complaint points to a product page for an undershirt on Defendant's website as evidence of Defendant's business operations and later as an example of where an "infringing use" is suggested (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). A separate allegation concerning contributory infringement confusingly references review platforms on a third-party website, "www.ctshirts.com" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific technical operation. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes claims 1-20 of the ’428 patent but does not include the referenced "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" that purportedly supports the allegations (Compl. ¶10). In the absence of this exhibit, the infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations. The central allegation is that Defendant operates a system that allows for the discovery and presentation of information from text, infringing the patented methods (Compl. ¶9).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be identifying the actual accused instrumentality. The complaint’s reference to "menswear clothing products" (Compl. ¶3) appears disconnected from the patent's subject matter. The dispute will likely focus on features of Defendant's e-commerce website, such as its product review, search, or filtering functionalities.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused website features perform the specific steps of the claims. For example, does the system identify "semantic attributes" as defined by the patent and provide "actionable user interface objects" for users to select between competing attributes (e.g., positive vs. negative opinions) to trigger an action, as required by claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the claim. Infringement will depend on whether the information processed by the accused system qualifies as a "semantic attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether standard e-commerce filtering (e.g., by star rating) falls within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that meanings of a word or phrase can be named "semantic attributes" and provides a list of examples, suggesting the term is not exhaustive (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently uses "opinion" (e.g., positive, negative, neutral) as a primary example of a semantic attribute, along with concepts like a word being the name of a "drug" (’428 Patent, col. 8:25-28, col. 9:4-6). An argument could be made that the term is limited to such conceptual or qualitative properties, rather than simple metadata.

• The Term: "actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines how the user interacts with the system. The dispute will likely center on whether the user interface elements on Defendant's website meet the functional requirements of this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the object as one that "allows a user to selectively indicate an option," giving examples like "a set of radio buttons, a slider, or any sort of object" (’428 Patent, col. 9:1-3). This could be read to cover many common UI elements.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the object to allow a user to select between a "first" and "second" semantic attribute. The patent further explains its novelty lies in enabling users to "dynamically and selectively" act on content "without user typing in the criterion" (’428 Patent, col. 15:5-10). This may support a construction requiring the UI object to present a choice between distinct, pre-defined semantic concepts, rather than just initiating a search.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its services to infringe (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is based on similar allegations of instruction, coupled with the assertion that the accused product/service is "not a staple commercial product" and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willfulness and treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

1. Identity of the Accused Instrumentality: The case will first require clarification of what is actually being accused. A central issue is whether the Plaintiff can connect the patent's text-analysis technology to the operations of a menswear company, presumably through features on its e-commerce website, despite the complaint’s imprecise language.
2. Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely turn on claim construction, particularly whether the accused website's functionality (e.g., filtering reviews by star rating) meets the specific requirements of terms like "semantic attribute" and "actionable user interface object" that allows a user to select between two such attributes.
3. Sufficiency of Allegations: Given the lack of specific factual detail connecting the accused products to the patent claims and the missing Exhibit B, an early question for the court may be whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement.