DCT
1:20-cv-00777
Intelligent Agency, LLC v
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intelligent Agency, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Neighborfavor, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE EMANUELSON FIRM
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00039, W.D. Tex., 05/25/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “Favor” on-demand delivery service, including its network and mobile applications, infringes three patents related to location-based mobile commerce, user-density analytics, and machine-assisted interactions in geofenced areas.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for coordinating mobile users with mobile service providers based on location, user attributes, and platform-defined rules, which is a foundational element of the modern "gig economy" and on-demand service platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint details the extensive background of the named inventor, Mr. Federico Fraccaroli, including technical publications and recognition for innovation, but does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-04 | Earliest Priority Date for '610 Patent and '476 Patent |
| 2012-12-16 | Earliest Priority Date for '035 Patent |
| 2016-03-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,286,610 Issues |
| 2016-09-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,439,035 Issues |
| 2018-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,894,476 Issues |
| 2020-05-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,286,610 - “Method and Apparatus for a Principal / Agent Based Mobile Commerce,” issued March 15, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a commercial opportunity to better integrate internet-based commerce with businesses having physical premises by leveraging emerging wireless and location-based technologies on mobile devices (’610 Patent, col. 1:18-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for mobile commerce built on a "principal-agent" model. A central server, controlled by a "principal" (e.g., a business owner), uses a matching algorithm to connect a "user" (customer) with an "agent" (e.g., a brand representative) based on factors like their geographic proximity. The system then generates notifications ("indicia") to facilitate a transaction, with the principal retaining control over the terms of the offer and the conditions under which an agent can participate in the system (’610 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-33).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a formal framework for coordinating on-demand services by defining the roles of the platform (principal), service provider (agent), and consumer (user), and using location data as a primary mechanism for matching and engagement (’610 Patent, col. 1:11-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48, 76).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A machine-implemented method for facilitating a business transaction between a principal, agent, and user.
- At least partially causing the generation of indicia indicating that a user's mobile device and an agent's mobile device meet a location-based criterion.
- Regulating the generation of these indicia through an agent-user matching algorithm that uses predefined data (such as user proclivities, transaction terms controlled by the principal, or agent-associated brands).
- Regulating the generation of these indicia through a principal-controlled participation condition that selectably enables the agent's mobile device to participate in the method.
U.S. Patent No. 9,439,035 - “Method, System, and Apparatus for Managing Attributes and Functionalities of Areas Exhibiting Density of Users,” issued September 6, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing and analyzing interactions within location-based networking sessions, both temporary and permanent, by creating a system to understand the attributes and density of users within a defined geographic area (’035 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a computer system that compiles a set of attributes for a first user who is part of a "predetermined group" and is located in proximity to other users from the same group, thereby achieving a "set density." The system then facilitates providing indicia (e.g., a notification or data visualization) about a subset of the first user's attributes to a second user, who may or may not be part of the group contributing to the density. This allows for the management of interactions based on the real-time presence and density of specific user types within a "session area" (’035 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:55-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for dynamically monitoring and visualizing user density (e.g., through "heat maps") to manage supply and demand or facilitate networking in location-based services (’035 Patent, col. 5:35-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶83, 110).
- Essential elements of Claim 8 include:
- A computer system with instructions in a non-transitory medium, formed into modules.
- A process for facilitating the compiling of a set of attributes related to a first user from a predetermined group, where that user is in proximity to other users from the same group, achieving a set density.
- A process for providing indicia of a subset of the first user's attributes to a second user, who may be a user that contributes to achieving the set density.
- The subset of attributes comprises a real-time presence attribute associated with a session area.
U.S. Patent No. 9,894,476 - “Method, System and Apparatus for Location-Based Machine-Assisted Interactions,” issued February 13, 2018
Technology Synopsis
The patent discloses a method for facilitating interactions within a defined "session area" accessible via a mobile application. The system manages user association with the area based on distance from a reference point and regulates the quality of interactions between different pluralities of users. A key feature is the use of a timer, where failure to accomplish a task within the timer's expiration can temporarily inhibit a user's association, thereby managing interaction quality (Compl. ¶20-27; ’476 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶114, 135).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Favor’s "Neighborhoods" feature infringes by defining session areas, associating customers and runners based on proximity, and regulating interactions through a timer, such as the time limit given to a Runner to accept a delivery request (Compl. ¶115, 122, 130).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "Favor Infringing Instrumentalities," which collectively refer to Defendant's service-delivery logistical service operating under the brand "Favor." This includes the backend "Favor Network," the "Favor Customer Mobile App" for users placing orders, and the "Favor Runner Mobile App" for delivery personnel (Compl. ¶28-29).
Functionality and Market Context
The Favor service allows customers to use a mobile app to request on-demand deliveries of goods ("Requested Favors") from various restaurants and stores (Compl. ¶31-32). The Favor Network receives these requests and, based on information such as the location of the customer, vendor, and available "Favor Runners," it selects and enables a specific Runner to fulfill the transaction via their mobile app (Compl. ¶34-35). The system provides Runners with tools like a "Heat Map" and "Hot Spots" to visualize areas with a high density of delivery requests (Compl. ¶41, 43). The complaint positions the service as a major player in on-demand local delivery, promising delivery "in under an hour" (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,286,610 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a machine implemented method for facilitating a prospective business transaction involving a principal, an agent, and a user | The Favor Network facilitates a "Requested Favor" (prospective business transaction), where Favor is the "principal," a Favor Runner is the "agent," and a Favor Customer is the "user." | ¶50-54 | col. 1:11-17 |
| at least partially causing the generation of indicia that a first mobile equipment ... and a second mobile equipment ... meet a location based criterion | The Favor Network generates visual and digital indicia on customer and runner devices when they are determined to be in the same geographic area, such as a "Favor Neighborhood." | ¶55-61, 64 | col. 13:60-66 |
| wherein said generation of indicia is regulated by at least: an agent-user matching algorithm using predefined data ... related to locations associated with said prospective business transaction, wherein said locations are controlled by said principal | The Favor Network's algorithm for matching Runners to customer requests allegedly uses predefined data, such as vendor locations, which are controlled by Favor. | ¶67-71 | col. 6:8-14 |
| a principal-controlled participation condition ... wherein said principal-controlled participation condition selectably enables said second mobile equipment ... to participate | The Favor Network selectively enables or disables Runners from receiving requests based on conditions controlled by Favor, such as responsiveness to requests, prior performance, or on-demand availability. | ¶72-75 | col. 6:42-54 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,439,035 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computer system having a set of instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium | The Favor Network, which allegedly operates on a plurality of servers (e.g., Amazon CloudFront) running "Favor Software" stored on non-transitory media. | ¶83-88 | col. 8:49-54 |
| a process for ... facilitating compiling by a computer apparatus a set of attributes related to a first user who belongs to a predetermined group and is determined to be positioned in proximity to other users ... whereby a set density ... is achieved | The Favor system allegedly compiles attributes of Favor Customers ("first user"), such as their locations, when they are in proximity within a geofenced area, thereby achieving a density of requests. The complaint points to the "Heat Map" feature as evidence of this. A screenshot of the "Heat Map" is provided to illustrate the visualization of this density (Compl. p. 9). | ¶89-96 | col. 5:40-43 |
| a process for facilitating providing of indicia ... of at least one subset of said set of attributes related to the first user to at least a second user | The Favor Network provides indicia, such as "Heat Maps" and "Hot Spots," to Favor Runners ("second user"). These indicia allegedly relate to a subset of the customers' attributes (i.e., their collective density in an area). The complaint includes a screenshot of a "Hot Spot" indicating a high density of requests (Compl. p. 10). | ¶97-104 | col. 5:45-56 |
| wherein said subset of said set of attributes comprises a real-time presence attribute associated with a session area | The complaint alleges that data indicating the presence of a customer and their request within a defined "Favor Neighborhood" ("session area") constitutes a "real-time presence attribute." | ¶105-109 | col. 5:46-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Definitional Scope ('610 Patent): A primary legal question is whether the "principal," "agent," and "user" roles, as contemplated in the patent, can be mapped directly onto the platform ("Favor"), gig-worker ("Runner"), and "Customer" relationship of the accused service. The nature and degree of control Favor exerts over Runners will be central to determining if the relationship fits the claimed "principal-agent" model.
- Functional Scope ('035 Patent): A key technical question is whether the accused "Heat Map" functionality performs the specific steps recited in claim 8. The analysis may focus on whether aggregating user locations to show demand density constitutes "compiling a set of attributes related to a first user" and providing a "subset of the set of attributes" to a second user, or if there is a functional mismatch between the claim's requirements and the accused product's operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from '610 Patent, Claim 1: "principal-controlled participation condition"
Context and Importance
This term is central to the infringement analysis because it defines the mechanism of control the "principal" has over the "agent's" ability to participate in the system. The complaint alleges that Favor's policies for enabling or disabling Runners based on their performance or availability meet this limitation (Compl. ¶73-75). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether standard operational rules of a gig-economy platform fall within the patent's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a principal can "render Agent Equipment 160 active or inactive, modify certain parameters and data," and that the principal is the "master of the offer" ('610 Patent, col. 6:46-51). This language could support an interpretation that covers any business or policy rule that affects a Runner's ability to receive tasks.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language links the condition to the "agent digital identifier" and states that it "selectably enables said second mobile equipment." This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific technical signal sent from the principal's system to the agent's device to toggle its participation status, rather than a higher-level account deactivation based on business policies.
Term from '035 Patent, Claim 8: "session area"
Context and Importance
This term appears in all three patents and defines the geographical space where the claimed methods operate. The complaint equates Favor’s "Neighborhoods," "Heat Maps," and "Hot Spots" with this term (Compl. ¶107). The viability of the infringement case for the '035 patent, and others, depends on whether these dynamically generated, demand-based zones qualify as a "session area."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a "session area" as a zone that can be in an "active status and passive status" and can be centered on a "public place, an event place..., a business place where a meeting may occur or a private address" ('035 Patent, col. 10:60-65). This flexible definition may support including the various types of zones created by the Favor platform.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many embodiments describe the session area in the context of a "location based group session event" where users "check-in" ('035 Patent, col. 5:1-3; col. 11:15-24). This could support an argument that a "session area" requires a more formal, event-based structure with user check-ins, rather than the fluid, algorithmically-defined demand zones alleged to be used by Favor.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement and focuses its allegations on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by Defendant for operating the accused system (Compl. ¶80, 112, 137).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on notice provided by the filing of the lawsuit itself. It seeks enhanced damages for Defendant's continued infringement "at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Compl., p. 24, ¶f). There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional mapping: can the patent's "principal-agent" framework, conceived for mobile commerce, be construed to cover the distinct three-sided market relationship between a modern gig-economy platform (Favor), its independent-contractor service providers (Runners), and its customers?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused "Heat Map" feature, which visualizes aggregate user demand, perform the specific, multi-step process of "compiling a set of attributes related to a first user" and providing a "subset" of those attributes to a second, as required by claim 8 of the '035 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- A central claim construction question across the portfolio will be the scope of "session area": will the court construe this term broadly to include algorithmically-defined and transient demand zones like "Heat Maps" and "Hot Spots," or will it be limited to more formally defined event-based locations requiring user "check-ins" as described in certain patent embodiments?