DCT
6:20-cv-00674
DataWidget LLC v. Tecra
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DataWidget, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Tecra Systems, Inc. (Michigan/Texas) and Propago, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC; Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O.
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00674, W.D. Tex., 07/24/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants each have a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce platforms and web-to-print storefronts infringe a patent related to a system for embedding a widget on a third-party website to enable the integrated sale of data subsets and other services.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of third-party data services, such as mailing list providers, directly into an e-commerce vendor's website, creating a seamless process for an end-user to purchase both data and a related product or service in a single transaction.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the patent-in-suit via letters dated September 11, 2019. The complaint also alleges that a non-party, Compact Information Systems, which is asserted to be connected to the Defendants' supply chain, was notified of the pending patent application as early as January 2010.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-11-20 | ’557 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-01-20 | Alleged notice to non-party Compact of pending patent application |
| 2018-10-16 | ’557 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-09-11 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendants of the ’557 Patent |
| 2020-07-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,102,557, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELLING CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC DATA SUBSETS ON A THIRD-PARTY WEBSITE USING A WEB WIDGET,” issued October 16, 2018.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency faced by customers of an e-commerce site (e.g., a "web-to-print" service) who need to acquire a related data subset (e.g., a targeted mailing list) to use with the vendor's service. The patent describes the problem of the e-commerce site not being in the business of providing that data, forcing the customer to engage in a separate, disconnected transaction with a data seller ('557 Patent, col. 3:38-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that allows an e-commerce vendor to embed a "data seller widget" on its website. This widget acts as an interface to a remote data seller's database, allowing a customer to search, customize, and select a data subset directly within the vendor's site. The system architecture enables the customer to purchase both the vendor's service (e.g., printing) and the data subset in what appears to be a single, integrated transaction ('557 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-40). Figure 1 illustrates the three-party system involving the ecommerce vendor, the customer, and the data seller, connected through the widget.
- Technical Importance: This system allows an e-commerce vendor to offer value-added services without the cost and complexity of hosting and maintaining large, specialized databases, while creating a more efficient and seamless experience for the end customer ('557 Patent, col. 3:17-29).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('557 Patent, col. 12:1-58; Compl. ¶¶ 54, 61).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An ecommerce vendor configured to sell printing services via an ecommerce website.
- A data seller with a database server and a database.
- A data extraction widget on the ecommerce website, which comprises:
- A first direct connection to the ecommerce server.
- A second direct connection to the database server, enabling the customer to extract a data subset.
- A third direct connection from the database server to the ecommerce server to provide a sales price.
- The widget is further configured to provide the customer with direct access to the database for searching and direct access to the ecommerce vendor for printing services.
- The ecommerce vendor is configured to charge the customer for both the extracted data and the printing services in a single transaction.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the e-commerce platforms and "web-to-print storefronts" ("Storefronts") that Defendants Tecra and Propago operate, build for customers, and license (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37, 41, 43).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants build and operate e-commerce websites that integrate software to provide seamless access to third-party data (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37, 41-43). These "Storefronts" are alleged to partner with data providers like Accudata and USAData, allowing end-users to search remote databases, purchase or license a data subset (like a mailing list), and order printing services from the storefront operator's website "in the same transaction" (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38d, 42, 44d). The platforms are marketed as systems that "provide web-to-print storefronts for integration into or function as e-commerce websites" (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 41).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’557 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an ecommerce vendor... configured to sell printing services to a customer via an ecommerce website | Defendants Tecra and Propago are identified as e-commerce vendors and platform builders that provide web-to-print storefronts. | ¶¶35, 41 | col. 12:2-8 |
| a data seller, the data seller comprising a database server and a database | Defendants allegedly partner with data sellers like Accudata, which operate databases and servers. | ¶¶34, 36, 42 | col. 12:9-13 |
| a data extraction widget located within the ecommerce website | Defendants allegedly build storefronts that integrate a "software application" that "replicates the features of the Widget." | ¶¶37, 43 | col. 12:17-18 |
| a first direct connection between the data extraction widget and the ecommerce server | The storefronts are alleged to be configured to have a direct connection between the software application and the storefront operator's server. | ¶¶38a, 44a | col. 12:19-24 |
| a second direct connection between the data extraction widget and the database server...further configured to enable the customer to extract a subset of data directly from the database | The storefronts are alleged to have a direct connection between the software application and the data seller's server to allow users to query and purchase a subset of data. | ¶¶38b, 38d, 44b, 44d | col. 12:25-32 |
| a third direct connection between the database server and the ecommerce server...configured to enable the data seller to provide a sales price to the ecommerce vendor | The storefronts are alleged to have a direct connection from the data seller's server to the storefront operator's server to communicate information for providing a sales price. | ¶¶38c, 44c | col. 12:33-37 |
| provide the customer direct access to the database such that the customer is enabled to search and extract a subset of data | The storefronts allegedly allow users to search the data sellers' databases and purchase or license a subset of data. | ¶¶38d, 44d | col. 12:41-44 |
| wherein the ecommerce vendor is further configured to charge the customer for data extracted from the database and for printing services provided by the ecommerce vendor in a single transaction | The storefronts allegedly allow users to "order printing services in the same transaction" as the data purchase. | ¶¶38d, 44d | col. 12:51-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "direct connection." The claim recites three distinct connections. The dispute could turn on whether the accused systems, where communication may be routed through the client-side browser, meet the "direct" limitation, particularly for the third connection "between the database server and the ecommerce server," which suggests a server-to-server communication path.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's core technical allegations regarding the structure and operation of the accused platforms are made "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 38, 43, 44). A key question for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to substantiate that the accused "software application" is in fact a "data extraction widget" and that the platform architecture implements the three specific "direct connections" as recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "data extraction widget"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central software component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the "software application" allegedly integrated into Defendants' platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 43) falls within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be defined functionally by the connections and capabilities recited in the claim, covering any software module that performs those roles, regardless of its specific implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines a "web widget" as a "stand-alone application that can be embedded into a web page" and a "portable chunk of code... without requiring additional compilation" ('557 Patent, col. 4:38-42). A party may argue this definition limits the term to distinct, portable code modules and excludes software that is more deeply or natively integrated into a platform.
The Term: "direct connection"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires three separate "direct connections" that form the system's architecture. The meaning of "direct" is critical to determining whether the accused systems, which may use various client- and server-side communication methods, infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific communication pathways are a core part of the claimed invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "direct" merely requires a functional data path between the two specified components, even if it is technically routed via the user's browser (client-side).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue "direct" implies an unmediated, server-to-server communication link, especially for the third connection between the "database server and the ecommerce server" ('557 Patent, col. 12:33-34). Figure 2, which shows distinct communication links (55 and 75), could be used to argue that the patent contemplates specific, separate architectural pathways, not a single client-mediated channel.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes counts for direct infringement only (Compl. ¶¶ 52-58, 59-65). While the prayer for relief contains boilerplate language regarding contributory and inducing infringement, no specific counts for indirect infringement are pleaded.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the '557 Patent since at least September 11, 2019, the date Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letters to Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 50). The allegation of willfulness is based on Defendants' purported continued infringement after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶51).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the term "direct connection", as used to define three distinct communication paths in Claim 1, be construed to cover systems where communication between the vendor's server, the data seller's server, and the embedded software is primarily mediated through the end-user's client-side browser, or does it require specific server-to-server links?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical substantiation: as the central infringement allegations are made "upon information and belief," the case will likely depend on what evidence emerges in discovery to prove that Defendants' accused "Storefronts" and integrated "software application" actually implement the specific three-part connection architecture and perform the functions of the "data extraction widget" as required by the patent's claims.