DCT
6:19-cv-00351
Arunachalam v. Berry Aviation Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (Menlo Park, CA)
- Defendant: Berry Aviation, Inc. (San Marcos, TX)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00351, W.D. Tex., 06/03/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular, established place of business in the district and has conducted infringing business activities within the state and district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s web application for "real time" flight following infringes a patent related to a network transaction portal for controlling transactions among multiple service providers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns centrally managed e-commerce systems that coordinate complex online transactions involving multiple, independent vendors or service providers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was put on notice of its infringement in early 2019, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2011-04-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 Issue Date |
| Early 2019 | Defendant allegedly put on notice of infringement |
| 2019-06-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340 - *"Network Transaction Portal to Control Multi-Service Provider Transactions"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340, "Network Transaction Portal to Control Multi-Service Provider Transactions", issued April 19, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art internet transactions as being limited to simple interactions with a single service provider (e.g., browsing a single website) or "deferred" purchases. (’340 Patent, col. 1:42-44). It notes a "lack of cooperation, control, and interaction" when a user attempts to engage multiple service providers (like a car dealer and a bank) to complete a single, unified transaction. (’340 Patent, col. 2:19-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system, or "hub," that manages and controls a transaction involving multiple service providers. This hub features a "network transactional application" that "holds the transaction captive" and uses a router to connect a user to different "remote distributed software objects" located at the service providers' respective network "nodes." (’340 Patent, Abstract). This architecture, depicted in Figure 3, is designed to allow one entity to manage the flow of a complex, multi-party transaction from start to finish. (’340 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to facilitate more sophisticated, real-time e-commerce by enabling a single, seamless user experience for transactions that require coordination among multiple, otherwise disconnected, online services. (’340 Patent, col. 2:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "the claims of the '340 patent" without specifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶10). The following analysis is based on independent claim 1 as a representative example.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "real-time on-line two-way transaction system" comprising:
- A first server with a "context manager" that supports a web page allowing a user to access web transactions from multiple merchants.
- A "user transaction manager" allowing the user to enter a transaction via a second web page.
- An "account settling manager" that allows the user to communicate with a "payment program" on a remote second server to settle an account for the transaction.
- A "switching component" that temporarily switches the user from the first server to the second server for account settlement.
- An "object router" through which the user directly communicates with the payment program, with the system providing "interaction and management between the first and second servers."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendant’s "real time" flight following service, offered via a web application named "Flight Explorer," as the primary accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶2, 10). It also makes broader allegations against "other logistics and on-demand freight maintenance and tracking and FBO operations Web apps and services" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused web application provides "position and weather updates while providing the exact location of all charter flights at all times" (Compl. ¶2, 10). The complaint alleges that Defendant is a "leader in private aviation" and serves government agencies, private corporations, and university athletic teams (Compl. ¶2, 9).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions that map specific product features to the elements of any asserted claim. The infringement allegations are made globally at a high level (Compl. ¶10). The following chart is an analytical construction of a potential infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the limited information provided.
’340 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first server comprising memory and a processor; | Defendant’s servers that host its website and the Flight Explorer web application. | ¶10 | col. 40:43-44 |
| a context manager executing on the first server supporting a first web page on the World Wide Web, the context manager allowing access by a user... to a plurality of possible Web transactions... | The user interface of the Flight Explorer web application, which presents the flight following service to users. | ¶10 | col. 40:45-50 |
| a user transaction manager in the Web application allowing the user to enter into a first transaction using a second web page; | The functionality within the Flight Explorer web application that allows a user to initiate a request to track a specific flight. | ¶10 | col. 40:51-53 |
| an account settling manager in the Web application allowing the user to communicate with a payment program running on a second server remote from the first server... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 40:54-58 | |
| a switching component in the Web application that temporarily switches the user from the first server to the second server to allow settling of the account... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 40:59-62 | |
| wherein the user directly communicates with the payment program on the second server via an object router, the object router allowing the user to perform a real-time transaction... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 40:62-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A principal issue may be whether the accused flight-tracking service, which provides information, qualifies as a "transaction system" under the patent. Claim 1 recites specific components for "settling an account" with a "payment program," which suggests a commercial or financial exchange that the complaint does not describe in the context of the accused flight-following service.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not allege any facts regarding the underlying architecture of the accused web application. This raises the question of what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the accused system contains the specific software components recited in Claim 1, such as an "account settling manager," a "switching component," and an "object router."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "transaction system"
- Context and Importance: The entire preamble of Claim 1 recites a "transaction system." The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether providing an informational service like flight tracking constitutes a "transaction" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s explicit examples and other claim limitations appear to tie the term to financial or commercial exchanges.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions the invention can be used for a "myriad of network services," including "advertising, customer service, bill management, and others," which extends beyond simple purchases (’340 Patent, col. 5:50-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself requires an "account settling manager" and a "payment program," linking the system to financial settlement (’340 Patent, col. 40:54-58). The specification’s detailed examples focus on commercial purchases, such as buying a car and obtaining a loan and insurance (’340 Patent, col. 7:27-8:56).
The Term: "object router"
- Context and Importance: This term describes a specific, technical component of the claimed architecture. Infringement requires finding this element in the accused system, yet the complaint offers no factual allegations regarding the system’s underlying software architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "router" is broadly defined in the specification as software that creates a link to "potentially remote and geographically distributed software" (’340 Patent, col. 6:47-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific definition, describing an "object router that uses objects and class information rather than unrelated functions and data" and provides a "stub" and "skeleton" for remote access, indicating a specific object-oriented architecture (’340 Patent, col. 6:50-56).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶12). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as identifying specific instructions or user manuals that would encourage infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been willful based on pre-suit notice provided to Defendant's CEO and another executive in "early 2019" (Compl. ¶11).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transaction system," as used in a patent that heavily details financial account settlement and payment programs, be construed to cover an informational service like the accused flight-tracking web application?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual sufficiency: given the complaint's high-level and non-technical allegations, what evidence can be produced to show that Defendant’s system incorporates the specific, structurally-claimed software components of the patent, such as the "account settling manager" and "object router," whose functions are not apparent from the product's public-facing description?