DCT
6:21-cv-01260
Recog IP LLC v. Macys
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Recog IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Macy's, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01260, W.D. Tex., 12/03/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates retail stores in the district, including a specific location in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to a method for generating a temporary presentation of a user's browsing history to help them re-locate previously viewed pages.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses user navigation on websites, particularly in e-commerce, where users often wish to return to product pages they have previously visited within a single browsing session.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-30 | '062 Patent Priority Date (German Application) |
| 2002-03-28 | '062 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2007-11-13 | '062 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-12-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 - Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-locating an Information Page that has Already Been Called
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062, issued November 13, 2007 (’062 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the common problem where internet users, after "surfing for a longer time," find it difficult to re-locate a specific webpage they had previously visited, noting that standard browser "back" buttons and history lists are "only conditionally suited" for this task (Compl. ¶9; ’062 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a vendor server first registers a user (e.g., via a cookie) when they visit a home page. The server then registers the sequence of information pages the user calls. Crucially, the server then "only temporarily" generates a presentation (e.g., a graphical site map or a list of links) that allows the user to see their path and re-locate a specific page. This presentation is then deleted from the vendor server, with no data stored, after the user ends their session (’062 Patent, col. 2:17-28; col. 4:32-39).
- Technical Importance: This method aims to improve user navigation on content-rich websites by providing a purpose-built, session-specific tool for re-finding information, thereby reducing user frustration and improving usability (’062 Patent, col. 2:30-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct and induced infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶13, 17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Calling a home page of an information vendor and registering the user at the vendor server.
- At the vendor server, registering the information pages called by the user.
- At the vendor server, only temporarily generating a displayable presentation which visually identifies the sequence of called pages.
- Deleting the presentation from the vendor server, with no storage of the presentation or information pages at the vendor server, when the user exits the information session.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s website, www.macys.com (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint focuses on the website’s “Recently Viewed” feature. This functionality tracks the product pages a user visits during a browsing session and displays them in a dedicated section or dialog box, providing links for the user to return to those pages (Compl. ¶¶13, 15). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows this feature as a horizontally scrolling list of previously visited products. (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2). Another screenshot shows the underlying HTML code for the links within this section (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 3). The complaint alleges this feature is part of the user experience on a major national retailer's e-commerce platform.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'062 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| when a user, via a user computer in communication with said vendor server, calls a home page, comprising home page contents, of an information vendor, registering said user at said vendor server; | The Macy's website allows users to visit the home page, and the user is registered on the vendor server "via cookies" (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 4:32-39 |
| at said vendor server registering information pages of said information vendor called by said user directly and indirectly proceeding from said home page; | The website "temporarily stores the visited information product pages on a server" and analyzes a "Recently Viewed Cookie" to build the "Recently Viewed" section (Compl. ¶15). | ¶15 | col. 5:5-9 |
| at said vendor server only temporarily generating a displayable presentation... which visually identifies a sequence of said information pages... and deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage... when said user exits an information session... | The "Recently Viewed" dialog box is alleged to be temporary because it is no longer shown if a user browses in incognito mode or after clearing cookies, which the complaint posits as evidence of deletion with no storage from the server (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 6:35-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's primary evidence for the "deleting... with no storage" limitation is the observation that the "Recently Viewed" list disappears when client-side cookies are cleared or a user browses in incognito mode (Compl. ¶16; p. 7, Fig. 4). A central question will be whether this external behavior accurately reflects the internal operations of Macy's server. Discovery will be needed to determine if Macy's servers in fact delete all records of the session's browsing path or if that data is retained for other purposes (e.g., analytics, long-term personalization), which would suggest a mismatch with the "no storage" limitation.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server." The court will need to determine if this requires complete erasure of the underlying browsing path data from all server systems, or if it can be read more narrowly to mean merely deleting the specific temporary file or data structure used to generate the "Recently Viewed" display for that session, even if the raw data is archived elsewhere.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the most restrictive element of the claim and appears to be the focal point of the infringement dispute. The viability of the infringement claim depends entirely on whether the accused system's data handling practices fall within this narrow definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern e-commerce systems typically store user browsing data for analytics and personalization, which appears to conflict with the plain language of "no storage."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "deleting... from said vendor server" refers specifically to the part of the server responsible for generating the presentation, and that "no storage" applies only to the formatted "presentation" itself, not the underlying page-view data which could be stored elsewhere for different purposes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server" is severe. This language, combined with the patent's stated goal of reducing "memory outlay of data for the service," suggests an intent to require complete, ephemeral operation where the user's path is truly forgotten by the server after the session ends (’062 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Macy's intends for customers to use its website in an infringing manner by providing "access to support for, training and instructions" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not, however, cite specific user manuals or instructions that direct users to perform the claimed steps.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the ’062 Patent. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is the statutory basis for an award of attorney's fees (Compl. ¶D, p. 9).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of factual proof: Can the plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence that the Macy's server architecture actually practices the "deleting... with no storage" limitation of claim 1? The case hinges on whether the disappearance of the "Recently Viewed" items from the user's view corresponds to a genuine and complete deletion of the underlying browsing path data from the defendant's servers.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: What is the proper legal scope of "with no storage"? The court's interpretation of this phrase—whether it means absolutely no retention of the browsing path data for any purpose, or something less restrictive—will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.