GreatGigz Solutions LLC v. Target

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GreatGigz Solutions, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00768, W.D. Tex., 03/02/22
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the District, including multiple retail stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Shipt same-day delivery platform infringes four patents related to computer-based systems for job searching, recruitment, and scheduling.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves networked computer systems designed to automate the process of connecting individuals seeking work assignments with entities requiring their services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the ’864 Patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and found the claims to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter, not an abstract idea.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,662,194 - "Apparatus and Method for Providing Recruitment Information"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional job searching and recruitment activities as often being costly and limited in scope due to reliance on intermediaries such as employment agencies and "headhunters" ('194 Patent, col. 2:7-17). These processes could also be hampered by time delays, lack of pre-screening, and difficulties in maintaining confidentiality (Compl. ¶¶24-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-based apparatus that serves as a centralized system for recruitment information ('194 Patent, col. 3:23-45). It includes a memory for storing information about job openings and job search requests, a processing device to match them upon a "searching event," and a transmitter to send a responsive message to an individual's communication device in real-time, thereby streamlining the connection between opportunities and individuals ('194 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to overcome the inefficiencies of traditional recruitment by using a networked computer system to disintermediate and automate the process of matching candidates to opportunities (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶49).
• The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
  • a memory device for storing information regarding at least one of a job opening, a position, an assignment, a contract, and a project, and information regarding a job search request;
  • a processing device for processing information regarding the job search request upon a detection of an occurrence of a searching event;
  • wherein the processing device utilizes information regarding the job opening stored in the memory device;
  • and further wherein the processing device generates a message containing information regarding the job opening, wherein the message is responsive to the job search request; and
  • a transmitter for transmitting the message to a communication device associated with an individual in real-time.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,490,086 - "Apparatus and Method for Providing Job Searching Services Recruitment Services and/or Recruitment-Related Services"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’086 Patent addresses the same general problems of inefficiency and high costs in the recruitment market as the ’194 Patent (’086 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that stores job and job-seeker information and, upon an automatic detection of a "searching event," processes the information and generates a responsive message ('086 Patent, Abstract). The patent specifies that a "searching event" can be broad, including not just a job posting but also a news release, an economic report, or any event that creates an interest to fill or seek a position, suggesting a more proactive system than a simple search engine ('086 Patent, Abstract; col. 29:30-41).
• Technical Importance: The invention claims a system that can automatically trigger a matching process based on a wide variety of real-world events, not just a direct user query (Compl. ¶67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 18 (Compl. ¶62).
• The essential elements of Claim 18 include:
  • a memory device which stores information regarding a job opening and information regarding a job search request or inquiry;
  • a processing device which processes the information upon an automatic detection of an occurrence of a searching event;
  • wherein the searching event is an occurrence of at least one of a job posting, a posting of new or revised data, a news release, an employment-related event, an economic report, or an event which creates an interest to fill a position;
  • and generates a message containing information regarding the job opening, responsive to the job search request; and
  • a transmitter which transmits the message to a communication device associated with an individual.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,760,864 - "Apparatus and Method for Providing Job Searching Services, Recruitment Services and/or Recruitment-Related Services"

The Invention Explained

This patent describes an apparatus from the perspective of an individual seeking work. The system includes a memory for storing an individual's work schedule, a transmitter for sending a job search request to a computer, a receiver for getting a responsive message about a job opening, and a display to show the information (Compl. ¶16; ’864 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Shipt platform, particularly the Shipt Shopper App, infringes by allowing shoppers (individuals) to set their work availability (schedule information), which the system then uses to match them with customer orders (job openings) (Compl. ¶¶76, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 10,096,000 - "Apparatus and Method for Providing Job Searching Services, Recruitment Services and/or Recruitment-Related Services"

The Invention Explained

This patent describes an apparatus that stores work schedule information for various parties (employers, individuals, contractors) and manages a two-step request process. It receives a first request for schedule information from a first device, generates and transmits a message containing that schedule information, and then processes a second request based on the information in that first message (Compl. ¶17; ’000 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).
• Accused Features: The complaint maps this invention to the customer-facing side of the Shipt platform. A Target customer using the Shipt Consumer App generates a "first request" to see available delivery times; the platform returns available slots based on shopper schedules (the "first message"); the customer then submits an order for a specific slot (the "second request") (Compl. ¶¶90-91).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Shipt" platform, which includes the Shipt website (www.shipt.com), the associated Shipt application for consumers, and the Shipt application for shoppers (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

The Shipt platform is a same-day delivery service that Target acquired for $550 million in 2017 to "bolster fulfillment capabilities" (Compl. Fig. 4, p. 17). The system uses a network of independent contractors ("Shipt Shoppers") to fulfill customer orders from Target stores (Compl. ¶52, ¶56). Technically, the complaint alleges the platform comprises servers, hardware, and software, including Amazon Web Services ("AWS") data centers and the use of DynamoDB as a database (Compl. ¶50, Fig. 5, p. 18). A key alleged feature is the "Order Offering Service," which matches customer orders to available shoppers based on their pre-set schedules for specific geographic zones and time slots (Compl. Fig. 8, p. 21). Shoppers use an app to set their availability, and customers use a separate app to select from the resulting delivery windows (Compl. ¶¶52, 53).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,662,194 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,490,086 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the terminology of the patents, drafted in the context of traditional employment and online job boards, can be construed to cover the on-demand, gig-economy model of the accused platform. The dispute may center on whether a customer's grocery order is a "job opening" or "recruitment information," and whether a gig worker setting their availability is making a "job search request."
• Technical Questions: For the ’086 Patent, a key factual question may be what the claim term "automatic detection" requires and whether the Shipt platform's process for receiving a customer order and initiating a search for a shopper meets that requirement. A diagram in the complaint describes the "Order Offer Service" as the component that "finds all the shoppers who are on schedule for this metro/zone/time slot" after receiving an order, which may be a focus of discovery (Compl. Fig. 8, p. 21).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "searching event"

(appearing in claims of the ’194 and ’086 Patents)

• Context and Importance: The detection of a "searching event" is the trigger for the claimed systems' core functionality. The definition of this term is critical because the infringement theory hinges on equating a customer placing a delivery order with the "searching events" contemplated by the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent scope extends beyond traditional recruitment to on-demand service platforms.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 18 of the ’086 Patent explicitly defines a "searching event" with a broad, non-exhaustive list, including "a job posting," "a news release of a business event," "an employment-related event," and "an event which creates an interest to fill a position" (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 29:30-41). This language may support an interpretation broad enough to cover a customer order.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background sections of the patents repeatedly frame the invention as a solution to problems in "job searching activities and recruitment activities," referencing intermediaries like "recruiters, so-called ‘headhunters’" (’194 Patent, col. 2:7-17). This context could support an argument that a "searching event" must be related to a more traditional employment or contracting relationship.

The Term: "work schedule information and scheduling information"

(appearing in claims of the ’864 and ’000 Patents)

• Context and Importance: The storage and use of schedule information is a key element of the later two patents. The infringement theory relies on the Shipt Shopper's ability to "set [their] own hours" constituting the claimed "work schedule information" (Compl. Fig. 7, p. 20). The case may turn on whether a gig worker's flexible availability settings are equivalent to the "schedule information" described in the patents.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims of the ’000 Patent refer to storing schedule information for an "individual, independent contractor, temporary worker, or freelancer," suggesting a scope beyond traditional full-time employment (’000 Patent, Abstract). The specification also describes managing schedules "for allowing an individual, an employer and/or hiring entity to determine the state of the job market and/or to utilize this information in any appropriate manner" (’000 Patent, col. 6:59-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict more structured processes than a simple on/off availability toggle, which could be argued to imply a more detailed or formal "schedule" than what is alleged. A screenshot from the Shipt Consumer App shows customers selecting one-hour delivery windows, which is presented as the output of this scheduling system (Compl. Fig. 9, p. 22).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts focus on allegations of direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶49, 62, 73, 85).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual notice" of each asserted patent "at least as early as the date it received service of this Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶47, 60, 72, 84). This allegation establishes a basis for potential willful infringement for any infringing conduct occurring after the date of service.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims, which use terms like "recruitment," "job search," and "job opening" rooted in the 1999 context of online human resources, be construed to cover the modern gig-economy model where a "customer order" is matched with an "on-demand shopper"?
• A central legal question will be one of patent eligibility: although Plaintiff highlights a favorable examination history for the ’864 patent, a court will need to determine whether the claims, as a whole, are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (such as matching a buyer and seller) or to a specific, patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what are the specific technical operations of the accused "Order Offering Service," and does its method of receiving customer orders and notifying available shoppers meet the precise functional requirements of the asserted claims, including the "automatic detection" of a "searching event"?