DCT

1:18-cv-00515

Diem LLC v. BigCommerce Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:17-cv-00186, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in Texas. The complaint acknowledges the Supreme Court's recent TC Heartland decision but argues venue remains appropriate because BigCommerce is incorporated in Texas, the state where the suit was initiated.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform for creating and managing online stores infringes a patent related to a "codeless" method for dynamically creating and hosting websites.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns client-server systems for website creation, where a user can modify a web template locally and have only the modification data, rather than a full web page file, transmitted to a server for storage and subsequent display to visitors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed four days after the Supreme Court's May 22, 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which significantly altered the standard for patent venue. The complaint includes a preemptive argument asserting that venue remains proper under the new standard.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-04-29 ’122 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2010-08-03 ’122 Patent Issue Date
2017-05-26 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,770,122 - "CODELESS DYNAMIC WEBSITES INCLUDING GENERAL FACILITIES"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty for non-technical individuals to develop and host full-featured websites, noting that existing template-based editors still presented challenges in creating dynamic, facility-rich sites without coding knowledge (’122 Patent, col. 1:12-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a server sends a template web page to a user's computer. The user modifies the template visually. Upon completion, instead of uploading a complete, modified HTML file, the system packages only the data corresponding to the changes (e.g., new text, colors, positions) into a "request object containing no html file." This data-only object is sent back to the server, which stores the content and attributes as text in a database. The server then uses this database information to construct and serve the final web page to visitors on demand (’122 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 13B).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture separates website content from its presentation structure, which can reduce data transmission between the user and server and centralize content management in a database rather than in static files (’122 Patent, col. 36:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Causing a user computer to request and receive a "template web page code file" from a server.
    • Storing this code file in the user computer's "temporary computer memory."
    • Modifying the displayed template based on user input, creating a modified set of visible items.
    • Receiving a user selection of a "host button."
    • In response, taking the content and attributes of the modified items, placing them into hidden fields, and wrapping them in a "request object containing no html file."
    • Sending this object to the server computer.
    • At the server, receiving the object, storing its contents as text in a database.
    • Upon request from a "visitor computer," retrieving the contents from the database and transmitting them with print instructions to the visitor computer for display.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Storefront Manager" service, an e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Storefront Manager allows users to create, edit, publish, and host websites through a graphical user interface without writing code (Compl. ¶13). Users can select website templates, referred to as "themes" or "styles," and modify their appearance and layout (Compl. ¶16). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for selecting and customizing a website theme (Compl. p. 5). After making edits, users can publish the website by selecting a "Launch Store" button (Compl. ¶¶17, 25). The complaint includes a screenshot of the user interface containing this "Launch Store" button (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’122 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
causing a user computer to request a template web page computer code file from a server... A user utilizes a web browser to visit the BigCommerce website and selects a template ("theme" or "style") to edit, causing the user's computer to request the template from the BigCommerce server. ¶16 col. 37:6-9
supplying the template web page computer code file...wherein the code file includes...a host button, and a fourth plurality of hidden fields BigCommerce provides a template file that renders in the user's browser with control buttons for editing, visible items, and a "host button" (the "Launch Store" button). The file allegedly contains hidden fields (e.g., HTML hidden boxes or script variables) for communicating changes back to the server. ¶17 col. 37:10-17
storing the template web page computer code file in a temporary computer memory of the user computer The Storefront Manager service allegedly stores the template code file in the user's temporary memory, such as random access memory (RAM). ¶18 col. 37:18-20
modifying the template web page display...by modifying one or more of the second plurality of visible items... A user utilizes the service's control buttons and editing utilities to alter the content, appearance, and layout of the provided template. ¶22 col. 37:34-40
receiving at the user computer, a user selection of the host button of the modified template web page display After editing, the user selects the "Launch Store" button displayed on their monitor. ¶25 col. 37:49-51
further causing the content and attributes...to be taken from the hidden fields...wrapped in a request object containing no html file, and sending the request object...to the server computer Upon selection of the "Launch Store" button, the system allegedly takes the data for the modified content and attributes, bundles it into a request object that does not contain a complete HTML file, and sends it to the BigCommerce server. ¶27 col. 37:58-65
receiving the request object containing no html file at the server computer The BigCommerce server receives the request object sent from the user's computer. ¶28 col. 37:66-67
take the contents and attributes...out of the request object and store them as text in a database The BigCommerce server allegedly extracts the content and attribute data from the request object and stores it as text in a database (e.g., Oracle, MySQL). ¶30 col. 38:3-7
retrieving the contents and attributes...from the database and transmitting them to a visitor computer... When a third-party visitor requests to view the user's created store, the BigCommerce server retrieves the stored contents from its database and sends them to the visitor's computer. ¶31 col. 38:8-13
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The negative limitation "request object containing no html file" will be a central point of dispute. The analysis will question whether the data packet sent by the accused service is truly devoid of any structure that could be construed as an "html file," or if it contains HTML fragments that might fall outside the scope of this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, "upon information and belief," that data is stored in "temporary memory" on both the user's and the defendant's server computers (Compl. ¶¶18, 29). A key evidentiary question is what proof exists that the accused system performs these specific storage steps in temporary memory (e.g., RAM) as opposed to other forms of storage like disk-based caches.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "temporary computer memory"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 in reference to both the user computer and the server computer. Its definition is critical because infringement requires showing that specific data (the template code file and the request object) is stored in a non-permanent medium at distinct points in the claimed process. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether standard web caching or transient file storage meets this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering various forms of non-permanent or volatile storage.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example, stating "User computer stores the template web page computer code file in temporary memory of the user computer, such as in RAM" (’122 Patent, Fig. 13A, step 1306). A party could argue this example limits the term's scope to Random Access Memory or functionally identical volatile memory, excluding other transient storage mechanisms.

  • The Term: "request object containing no html file"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a core technical differentiator of the invention. The infringement case rests on demonstrating that the accused service sends only modification data, not a file. The definition will determine whether a data packet containing any HTML tags or file-like structure can be considered infringing.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring patentee): A party could argue this term means the object is not a complete, self-contained HTML document file that could be saved with an .html extension. The specification states the server stores attributes "as text in a database," suggesting a focus on raw data rather than formatted files (’122 Patent, col. 38:6-7).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring accused): A party could argue the plain meaning requires the object to be completely free of HTML markup. The specification's distinction—"The request object containing no html file does not contain any html files, but...has only plain text" (’122 Patent, col. 36:50-55)—may be used to argue that the presence of even a single HTML tag violates the limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that BigCommerce provides instructions through "Internet demonstrations, training videos, brochures and...user guides" that direct its customers to use the Storefront Manager in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶35-36). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Storefront Manager software is a material part of the patented invention and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶37-38).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on notice of the ’122 Patent provided by, at the latest, the service of the initial complaint, suggesting a theory of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶39).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof and technical fact: What is the precise composition of the data packet transmitted from a user's browser to BigCommerce's server when a user publishes a store? The outcome may depend on whether discovery shows this transmission is an "object containing no html file," as required by the claim, or if it contains structures that a court would define as an "html file."
  • Another core issue will be one of claim construction: How narrowly will the court define "temporary computer memory"? The viability of the infringement claim may turn on whether this term is limited to volatile memory like RAM, as exemplified in the patent, or if it can be construed to cover other forms of transient data handling common in web architectures.