M4siz Ltd v. Walgreen Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: M4siz Limited (England)
  • Defendant: Walgreen Co. (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00747, W.D. Tex., 01/12/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the district, including a specific retail location in Waco, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to a method for processing web-based search queries.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a specific method for initiating a web search by combining a search engine's address with search terms into a single string, which is then processed by trapping a resulting error signal.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint, a Second Amended Complaint, states that the patent-in-suit was conveyed to Plaintiff M4siz Limited on May 14, 2007, with the assignment recorded at the USPTO on May 28, 2010.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402, "Searching procedures" (Issued Feb. 25, 2003)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional internet searching of the time as a cumbersome, multi-step process. Users were required to navigate to a search engine's homepage, enter search terms into designated fields, and then manually sift through "frequently huge quantities of results," which often included "spurious and unrelated information" ('402 Patent, col. 1:8-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more direct searching method. A user submits a single "request string" directly into a browser's address field. This string combines a valid pointer to a search engine (its URL) with a search string (the user's query), creating what is intentionally an invalid web address ('402 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-34). The resulting error signal is "trapped" by a program, which then parses the invalid address to extract the search string, submits it to the specified search engine, and passes the results back to the user, potentially after filtering or sorting them ('402 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:65-col. 5:10).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to create a more "seamless" and simplified search experience by reducing the number of user steps and enabling a single-line command to initiate a search from a browser's address bar ('402 Patent, col. 1:26-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • submitting a request string comprising a valid pointer to a specified search engine and a search string for specified data;
  • monitoring for the generation of an error signal, from the search engine;
  • using the error signal to trigger parsing of the request string into the pointer to the search engine and the search string to be searched by the search engine;
  • submitting the search string to the search engine; and
  • passing at least some of the returned data returned from the search engine, back to the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Walgreens-branded websites," with https://www.walgreens.com provided as an example (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant "develops, designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services," including the accused websites (Compl. ¶3). However, the complaint provides no specific technical details regarding how the search functionality on the accused websites operates. It is alleged that these websites are available to customers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that purports to describe how the accused products infringe Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27). This exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint. The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the '402 Patent by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). It does not, however, articulate a specific technical theory of infringement or explain how the search function on the Walgreens website is alleged to meet the claim limitations, such as the requirements for monitoring an "error signal" and using that signal to "trigger parsing" of a request string. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be one of fact: does the search functionality on the Walgreens website operate according to the specific method claimed in the patent? What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused website's search mechanism relies on generating and trapping an "error signal" from a deliberately invalid URL to initiate a search, as opposed to using a conventional architecture (e.g., submitting a query from a form field to a dedicated server-side script or API)?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For example, does the routine server-side handling of a user's search query from a website's search bar constitute "monitoring for the generation of an error signal" and "using the error signal to trigger parsing"? The patent's specification appears to describe a distinct process of intercepting a failure state (a page-not-found error), raising the question of whether a standard, successful data submission process falls within the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "error signal"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused system generates and uses a signal that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's viability against modern web architecture depends on its scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to an "error code or message," which could suggest any non-standard response from a server ('402 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the process in the context of a deliberately "invalid" or "non-existent" address that would otherwise return a standard error page to the user ('402 Patent, col. 4:28-42). This context suggests the "error signal" is specifically the response to a failed attempt to locate a resource, such as an HTTP 404 error.

• The Term: "using the error signal to trigger parsing"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific causal relationship. The error signal must be the event that initiates the parsing of the user's request. The presence of an error, in isolation, is insufficient.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system logic that handles an invalid input and then extracts information from it is "using" the error state to "trigger" parsing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart, Figure 3, shows a distinct step where "Error Trapping CGI Initiated" (40) is followed by "Parse Submitted address" (41) ('402 Patent, Fig. 3). This depiction suggests an explicit, event-driven sequence where the act of trapping the error is the direct cause for invoking the parsing logic, rather than a routine part of processing all inputs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused websites, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement (Compl. ¶19). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging Defendant supplied a "material part of an infringing method and/or system" (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the '402 patent "since at least the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, stating Defendant "knew that there was a high probability" that its activities infringed but "took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts" (Compl. ¶19).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused Walgreens website search function operate by generating and trapping an "error signal" from an invalid, composite URL to trigger the parsing of a search query, as described in the '402 patent? Or does it employ a conventional search architecture where user queries are submitted to a valid endpoint without relying on an error-trapping mechanism?
• The case will also likely involve a key question of claim scope: Can the term "error signal," which the patent describes in the context of a failed page request, be construed to cover the routine server-side processing of search terms submitted through a standard web form on the accused e-commerce site? The answer will likely determine whether the patent can read on modern web search implementations.