DCT

6:20-cv-01161

Aeritas LLC v. W

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01161, W.D. Tex., 12/18/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s WestJet App for mobile devices infringes seven patents related to mixed-mode (voice and data) user interactions, location-based notifications, and wireless e-commerce transactions.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to early methods for enhancing user interaction with mobile applications by combining voice commands with data displays and leveraging device location to provide relevant, timely notifications and facilitate transactions like mobile check-in.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents all claim priority to the same provisional application filed in 2000, indicating they are part of a single, long-prosecuted patent family.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-13 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2007-04-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,209,903 Issues
2010-04-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,706,819 Issues
2011-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,589 Issues
2013-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,620,364 Issues
2016-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,390,435 Issues
2018-02-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,888,107 Issues
2019-07-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,362,160 Issues
2020-12-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,706,819 - MIXED-MODE INTERACTION

  • Issued: April 27, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inconvenience of accessing the internet on early wireless devices due to their small display screens and difficult text-entry keypads, which created a barrier to the adoption of internet-type services (’819 Patent, col. 1:21-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “mixed-mode” method that leverages the distinct capabilities of early mobile devices. A user initiates a query with a convenient spoken input, and the system processes this request and delivers back a non-verbal data response (such as a menu) to the device’s screen, which is better suited for displaying information than spoken responses (’819 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4). This approach combines the ease of voice for input with the efficiency of a screen for output.
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to make mobile data services more user-friendly in an era before the widespread adoption of large touchscreens, sophisticated on-screen keyboards, and advanced voice assistants.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • receiving spoken input from a wireless communication device;
    • obtaining data identifying a current location of the wireless communication device;
    • based on the current location and the spoken input, retrieving information;
    • delivering, by a notification server, a non-verbal response to the spoken input, with the response including a drill-down menu for obtaining additional information; and
    • providing additional information in response to receipt of at least one additional input provided via the drill-down menu.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,362,160 - MIXED-MODE INTERACTION

  • Issued: July 23, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’819 Patent: the inherent difficulties of navigating web sites and accessing internet services on wireless devices with small interfaces and keypads (’160 Patent, col. 1:47-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus and method where a user first grants permission for an application to provide notifications. The system then uses predefined "notification criteria" and the device's current location to proactively send the user a relevant notification, such as a purchasing opportunity. The user can then interact with that notification to receive more detailed information, creating a responsive, context-aware user experience (’160 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:39-53).
  • Technical Importance: This technology describes a foundational architecture for modern location-aware mobile applications that deliver proactive, context-sensitive alerts to drive user engagement.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus comprising a processor and computer memory holding instructions to:
    • receive first data indicating a permission to provide a mobile device user a notification, with the notification having associated notification criteria;
    • at a given time, receive information identifying a determined location of a mobile device;
    • based at least in part on the location and the notification criteria, provide the notification to the mobile device (associated with an audible, visual, or tactile alert);
    • receive second data as a result of an input being received at the mobile device following the notification;
    • retrieve information associated with the input and the determined location; and
    • provide to the mobile device a response to the input based on the retrieved information.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Other Asserted Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,390,435, entitled MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued February 6, 2018.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is closely related to the ’160 Patent, describing an apparatus that uses a processor and memory to execute instructions for providing location-based notifications. It claims a system that receives permission from a user, determines the mobile device's location at a given time, and provides a notification based on both the location and predefined notification criteria (Compl. ¶31).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WestJet App’s functions for requesting user permission for notifications and location access, and then providing alerts such as check-in reminders or flight delay information, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶32).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,888,107, entitled MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued February 6, 2018.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent builds upon the location-based notification system of the ’160 and ’435 Patents. Its claims add a specific architectural element: the computer program instructions comprise a "rules engine" with a first component that evaluates notification criteria and a second component that executes notification rules (Compl. ¶39).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶39).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WestJet App provides notifications based on a rules engine that evaluates notification criteria, such as matching a flight notification with a user's saved flight based on location (Compl. ¶40).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,620,364, entitled MIXED-MODE INTERACTION, issued December 31, 2013.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes a system with a "rules engine," but claims it in more detail. The claimed rules engine correlates multiple data types: device location, consumer interest data (e.g., expressed interest in a product), inventory attributes, and notification criteria. Based on these inputs, it generates a message identifying suppliers with relevant inventory in the user's location (Compl. ¶47).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the WestJet App infringes by storing consumer interest data (booked/tracked flights), inventory data (flight availability), and notification criteria, and using a rules engine to generate and deliver messages identifying a supplier (e.g., an airport) (Compl. ¶48).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,933,589, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATION OF WIRELESS E-COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS, issued April 26, 2011.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for facilitating a wireless transaction that grants physical access. The method involves transmitting a two-dimensional (2D) image (e.g., a barcode) to a wireless device, which is then optically scanned at a physical location to partially complete a transaction. A subsequent optical scan of the same code is used to complete the transaction and authorize personal entry (Compl. ¶55).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 39 (Compl. ¶55).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the mobile boarding pass feature of the WestJet App, which includes a 2D barcode, infringes this patent. It alleges the barcode is scanned once for access to a secure airport area and subsequently for boarding the plane (Compl. ¶56).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,209,903, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATION OF WIRELESS E_COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS, issued April 24, 2007.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for facilitating a wireless transaction involving a transaction fulfillment system. The system receives a request, verifies the user's identity, and communicates a transaction code to the user's wireless device. The transaction is fulfilled when the fulfillment system optically scans that code from the device's display (’903 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 22 (Compl. ¶63).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the WestJet App's mobile boarding pass functionality, where a user provides identification during booking (verification) and is issued a 2D barcode (transaction code) that is later scanned to gain access to the plane (fulfillment) (Compl. ¶64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The WestJet App, available for iOS and Android mobile devices (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the WestJet App is a software application that allows customers to perform various travel-related functions, including booking flights, managing trips, checking in, and accessing a digital boarding pass (Compl. ¶¶7-9; p. 6). The complaint includes a screenshot from the app showing a digital boarding pass, which contains passenger information, flight details, and a QR code. (Compl. p. 21).
  • The app is alleged to require an internet connection to a server to operate (Compl. ¶9). It is also alleged to request and use the device's location to provide location-based information, such as fares from nearby airports (Compl. ¶¶9, 16). The complaint provides a screenshot of the app's iOS permission request to "access your location." (Compl. p. 14).
  • A central feature accused of infringement is the app's notification system. The complaint alleges the app requests permission to send notifications to the user for events such as check-in reminders, flight delays, and cancellations (Compl. ¶¶9, 24). A screenshot shows the iOS permission prompt: "'WestJet' Would Like to Send You Notifications." (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’819 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving spoken input from a wireless communication device; A user allegedly searches for a location or airport using voice input on their mobile device. ¶16 col. 2:5-7
obtaining data identifying a current location of the wireless communication device; The app allegedly obtains the device's location after the user grants permission to do so. ¶16 col. 8:15-25
based on the current location of the wireless communication device and the spoken input, retrieving information; The app allegedly retrieves information about a nearby airport that is the subject of the voice search. ¶16 col. 4:61-65
delivering, to the wireless communication device by a notification server, a non-verbal response to the spoken input, the non-verbal response based on the retrieved information and including a drill-down menu by which additional information related to the retrieved information can be obtained; The app allegedly delivers and displays a "scroll-down menu" containing the nearby airport identified in the voice search. ¶16 col. 11:1-5
and providing additional information related to the retrieved information in response to receipt of at least one additional input provided via the drill-down menu. When the user selects an option from the menu, the app allegedly provides additional flight information, such as price and availability. ¶16 col. 6:13-16
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the use of "spoken input," but provides no screenshots or other evidence showing that the WestJet App actually incorporates voice search functionality. The provided visuals illustrate text-based inputs and notification features. A central factual question will be whether the accused product implements the voice input required by the claim.
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires a "drill-down menu." A potential point of dispute is whether a simple list of search results, as alleged by the complaint, meets the definition of a "drill-down menu," which may imply a more structured, hierarchical interface than a flat list.

’160 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receive first data indicating a permission to provide a mobile device user a notification, the notification having an associated notification criteria; The app allegedly asks the user for permission to provide notifications. A screenshot depicts this request. ¶24 col. 2:15-19
at a given time, receive information identifying a determined location of a mobile device; The app allegedly obtains the user's location after permission is granted. ¶24 col. 12:36-41
based at least in part on a determined location of the mobile device and the notification criteria, to provide to the mobile device the notification... When location access is granted, the app allegedly provides notifications to the user about flight delays, cancellations, or check-in opportunities. ¶24 col. 8:3-12
receive second data as a result of an input being received at the mobile device following the notification; The user allegedly responds to the notification with a touchscreen input. ¶24 col. 12:41-45
retrieve information associated with the input and the determined location of the mobile device; The user's input allegedly launches a page within the app that corresponds to the content of the notification. ¶24 col. 12:46-50
and provide to the mobile device a response to the input, the response based on the retrieved information. The app allegedly displays the relevant page and provides additional information related to the notification. ¶24 col. 12:50-52
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be one of causation. The claim requires the notification to be provided "based at least in part on a determined location." The complaint alleges that when location access is granted, notifications are provided. However, it does not specify whether the location triggers the notification (e.g., a check-in reminder sent upon arrival at the airport) or if the notifications are merely time-based (e.g., a check-in reminder 24 hours before a flight) and sent to a device that happens to have its location known.
    • Scope Questions: What constitutes "notification criteria"? The patent describes this as criteria selected by the user to define when notifications should be sent (’160 Patent, col. 2:15-19). The dispute may focus on whether the general act of enabling notifications in an app for a specific flight establishes the "notification criteria" required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "drill-down menu" (from ’819 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the ’819 Patent. The complaint alleges that a list of search results constitutes a "drill-down menu" (Compl. ¶16). The viability of this infringement theory may depend on whether this construction is accepted.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which a plaintiff might argue allows the term to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any interactive list that leads to more information.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses providing "session oriented notifications" that allow a user to "'drill-down' through multiple menu levels" (’819 Patent, col. 6:13-16). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a hierarchical structure, which a defendant could argue is distinct from a simple, flat list of search results.

  • Term: "based at least in part on a determined location of the mobile device" (from ’160 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase establishes the required link between the device's location and the act of providing a notification. The infringement analysis for the family of notification patents (’160, ’435, ’107, ’364) will likely depend heavily on the construction of this causal relationship.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "at least in part" suggests that location need only be one of several factors in the decision to send a notification. The complaint’s theory appears to rely on this broader reading (Compl. ¶24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed description frame the invention around identifying "purchasing opportunities that are geographically relevant" (’160 Patent, col. 8:22-25) and ensuring "only relevant information is delivered" (col. 8:28-29). This context suggests that location is intended to be a substantive filter or trigger for the notification, not merely an incidental piece of data that is known at the time a time-based notification is sent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "encourag[es] users of the WestJet App to use the user's iOS or Android devices with the WestJet App to practice the claims" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶14, 22, 30). The factual basis for these allegations is not detailed beyond this general statement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has notice of each patent "at least as of the date of service of this complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶14, 22, 30). There are no facts alleged that would support pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit, suggesting that any claim for willful infringement would be based on conduct occurring after the lawsuit was filed.

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

  • A central issue will be one of causality for notifications: Does the WestJet App's notification system use a device's location as a substantive trigger for sending alerts, as required by the claims of the ’160, ’435, ’107, and ’364 patents, or are the notifications primarily event-driven (e.g., a flight is delayed) and sent irrespective of the user's real-time geographical location?
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "drill-down menu," as used in the ’819 Patent from the pre-smartphone era, be construed to cover a modern application's dynamic list of search results, or does the patent's own language require a more structured, hierarchical interface?
  • A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused WestJet App actually incorporates the "spoken input" functionality that is a predicate for infringement of claim 1 of the ’819 Patent. The complaint alleges this feature but provides no visual or factual support for its existence in the accused product.