DCT
6:20-cv-00555
USC IP Partnership LP v. Facebook Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: USC IP Partnership, L.P. (Texas)
- Defendant: Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00555, W.D. Tex., 06/22/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook News Feed infringes a patent related to systems and methods for inferring a website visitor's intent and recommending content based on that intent.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns online user engagement and content personalization, a core function for social media platforms and e-commerce sites seeking to increase user retention and interaction.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on June 22, 2020. Subsequent to the complaint filing, two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) were filed against the asserted patent on October 7, 2020. According to the provided IPR certificate, these proceedings resulted in a determination that all claims of the asserted patent (1-17) are cancelled. This development raises the foundational question of whether an enforceable patent right remains for adjudication.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-07-20 | ’300 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-02-04 | ’300 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-06-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-10-07 | IPR Petitions Filed Against ’300 Patent (IPR2021-00033/34) |
| 2024-03-29 | IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All Claims of ’300 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 - System and Method for Intent Data Processing
Issued February 4, 2014 (’300 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where visitors to websites often cannot "readily identify and navigate to the pages within the website that contain the information or perform the functions that correspond to the visitor's intent" ('300 Patent, col. 1:12-16). This leads to a suboptimal user experience.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system featuring an "intent engine" that analyzes user data (such as the current webpage URL) to infer a visitor's purpose, or "intent" ('300 Patent, col. 3:37-45). This inferred intent is then used to recommend other webpages. The system also incorporates a feedback loop, prompting users to confirm their intent and rate how well a page matches that intent, with this data being stored to improve future recommendations for other users ('300 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-48). The technology is embodied in an "intent tool" or widget that can be integrated into a website's pages ('300 Patent, col. 2:60-63).
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to create a dynamic, "self-learning and self-populating navigation assistance tool" that moves beyond static links or simple search functions to proactively guide users to relevant content ('300 Patent, col. 6:47-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include:
- Receiving at least one input parameter (e.g., a URL) from a web browser into an "intent engine."
- Processing the input to determine an "inferred intent."
- Displaying the inferred intent to the visitor.
- Prompting the visitor to "confirm" their intent.
- Receiving the "confirmed intent" into the intent engine.
- Processing the confirmed intent to determine and display a link to a "recommended webpage."
- Prompting the visitor to "rank the webpage for the inferred intent."
- Receiving the rank and storing a datapoint containing the webpage's identity, the inferred intent, and the rank.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶50).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Facebook News Feed" and the "computing infrastructure to provide" it are the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the News Feed performs a method of personalizing content for users. This involves receiving "input parameters" and "signals" related to a visitor, including URLs, cookies, and user interactions ("reactions") (Compl. ¶¶36-38). The system allegedly processes these signals to "infer intent" and assigns a "relevancy score" to stories (webpages) to determine their ranking in the feed (Compl. ¶¶37, 40). The complaint asserts that the system then prompts users to "confirm" this intent by reacting to or providing feedback on stories, and subsequently displays recommended content, such as advertisements, that match the confirmed intent (Compl. ¶¶41-42). A video still included in the complaint shows the term "SIGNALS" being used to describe inputs into the News Feed ranking system (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’300 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving into an intent engine at least one input parameter from a web browser... | Defendant's system receives input parameters from a user's browser, including the requested URL, cookies, and browser user agent. | ¶36 | col. 3:37-40 |
| processing the at least one input parameter... to determine at least one inferred intent | Defendant's system processes "signals," including user input parameters and "reactions," to infer a visitor's intent. The complaint includes a video still that visually represents "SIGNALS" as inputs to the ranking algorithm (Compl. p. 9). | ¶¶37-38 | col. 3:41-45 |
| providing the at least one inferred intent to the web browser to cause [it] to be displayed... | The complaint alleges that stories are ranked by a "relevancy score" that "matches the visitor's inferred intent," and these ranked stories are then displayed. | ¶40 | col. 3:43-45 |
| prompting the visitor to confirm the visitor's intent | The complaint alleges that Defendant prompts the visitor to confirm intent by allowing them to react to displayed stories or provide other feedback. An image shows the "Like" and other reaction buttons (Compl. p. 10). | ¶41 | col. 18:45-47 |
| receiving a confirmed intent into the intent engine | Defendant's system allegedly receives the confirmed intent when a user reacts to a story. | ¶41 | col. 18:48-49 |
| processing the confirmed intent... to determine at least one recommended webpage... | The system processes the confirmed intent to recommend and display a link to at least one webpage, such as an advertisement, that matches the intent. The complaint provides a screenshot of a sponsored post as an example (Compl. p. 12). | ¶42 | col. 18:50-54 |
| causing the webpage... to display at least one link to the at least one recommended webpage | The system displays a link to a recommended webpage, such as an advertisement. | ¶42 | col. 18:55-57 |
| prompting the visitor to rank the webpage for the inferred intent | Defendant prompts the visitor to rank the webpage for the inferred intent by allowing reactions or by providing feedback options. A screenshot shows a detailed "Give feedback on this post" menu (Compl. p. 11). | ¶43 | col. 18:58-59 |
| receiving a rank from the web browser | The system receives the ranking when a visitor reacts to the webpage or provides feedback. | ¶44 | col. 18:60 |
| storing a datapoint comprising an identity of the webpage, the inferred intent and the received rank | The system receives the ranking from the browser and subsequently stores it in a datapoint along with the identity of the webpage and the inferred intent. | ¶44 | col. 18:61-63 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Facebook's integrated News Feed ranking algorithm constitutes an "intent engine" as described in the patent. The patent repeatedly depicts the invention as a discrete "intent tool" or "widget" with specific user interface fields ('300 Patent, Fig. 4), whereas the accused instrumentality is a complex, background system.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether a user's "reaction" (e.g., a "Like") to a post can simultaneously satisfy multiple distinct claim steps: "confirming" a machine-inferred intent, and "ranking" the webpage for that same intent. The court may need to determine if these general user interactions perform the specific functions required by the claim language. Another question is whether the general "Give feedback on this post" feature (Compl. p. 11) is equivalent to the claimed step of prompting a user to "rank the webpage for the inferred intent."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "intent engine"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute, as infringement hinges on whether Facebook's News Feed infrastructure falls within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specific embodiments appear narrower than the accused system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the engine at a high level as a system that "collects and analyzes intent data from visitors as they browse webpages" ('300 Patent, col. 2:59-61), which could be argued to encompass any system that analyzes user behavior to personalize content.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates the invention as a distinct, user-facing "intent tool" or "widget" that is "embedded in the page" and has explicit fields for "Current Intent," "Destination recommendations," and "Page Rating" ('300 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 5:19-26, col. 6:19-33). This may support a narrower construction limited to a specific type of user interface tool, rather than a general background algorithm.
The Term: "confirm the visitor's intent"
- Context and Importance: The definition is critical for determining whether a user's general interaction with a post, such as a "Like," meets this specific claim limitation. The claim requires a sequence of inferring an intent, then receiving a confirmation of that intent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint's theory suggests any positive interaction with content that was served based on an inferred interest could be seen as an implicit confirmation of that interest (Compl. ¶41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure separates "determin[ing] at least one inferred intent" from "receiving a confirmed intent," which may suggest two distinct actions are required. The specification notes that once a visitor "selected/declared their intent, the indicated intent becomes the Current Intent" ('300 Patent, col. 5:15-17), implying a more deliberate action by the user than simply reacting to content.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by Facebook's users and other third parties. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant provides instructions and "advising or directing others to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶¶50-51). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the theory that the "intent engine" is a special feature with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶52).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶53). The complaint further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue for the court will be one of viability: can this action proceed given that all asserted patent claims were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings that concluded after the complaint was filed? Unless the cancellation is overturned on appeal, there may be no enforceable patent rights left to litigate.
- Assuming the claims were valid, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: can the term "intent engine", which the patent illustrates as a discrete, user-facing "widget," be construed broadly enough to read on Facebook's complex and integrated back-end News Feed ranking algorithm?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does a user's general interaction with content, such as a "Like" or other "Reaction," perform the specific, multi-step sequence required by Claim 1, which includes distinctly "confirming" a machine-inferred intent and separately "ranking" content for that intent?