DCT
6:22-cv-00111
Hitel Tech LLC v. Guess
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hitel Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: GUESS?, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00111, W.D. Tex., 01/31/2022
- 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 e-commerce website infringes a patent related to dynamic learning systems for website navigation and search.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of website search functionality, specifically systems that learn from user behavior to handle search queries containing terms not previously known to the system.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-02-25 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,689,617 |
| 2010-03-30 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,689,617 |
| 2022-01-31 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,689,617 - "DYNAMIC LEARNING FOR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS" (issued Mar. 30, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a common limitation in search and navigation systems where searches fail if a user's query does not contain a pre-defined keyword ('617 Patent, col. 2:1-7). For instance, a search for "vintage car" might not return a document that only uses the term "antique automobile," because the system lacks the association between the two terms ('617 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where, upon receiving an "unknown word," the system guides the user through navigation to a relevant document or node. The system then "learns" by creating an association between the initial unknown word and the keywords contained within the document the user ultimately selected ('617 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14). This learned association is then used to improve future search results for the same unknown word ('617 Patent, col. 7:15-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a search system to dynamically expand its vocabulary and "comprehension" based on real user interactions, rather than relying solely on a static, pre-programmed set of keywords and synonyms ('617 Patent, col. 11:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the ’617 Patent (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method in a system with user navigable nodes, documents, and keywords.
- Receiving an input from a user.
- Determining the input contains an "unknown word".
- Navigating to a "current node" based on at least one additional user input.
- Presenting a response to the user based on documents at that current node.
- "Learning" one or more associations between the unknown word and keywords from the documents at the current node.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff infringes "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert other claims later (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The GUESS? Website, located at https://www.guess.com/us/en/home (the "Accused Website") (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Website provides search and navigation capabilities for its e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶8). The specific accused functionality involves the website's response to search queries that do not directly match an existing category or keyword. The complaint alleges that when a user enters such a term, the website recognizes it as "unknown," prompts the user for additional input to clarify their intent, and then "learns the association between the unknown word and the keywords associated with the item category for which a direct relationship is formed" (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11). The complaint illustrates this with a user searching for "PASTN," which is alleged to be an unknown word, and subsequently selecting a product from a recommended category (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’617 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method performed in a system comprising user navigable nodes, documents attached to the user navigable nodes, keywords associated with the user navigable nodes and having search and navigation capability... | The Accused Website allegedly comprises navigable nodes (links), documents (product pages), and associated keywords, with search and navigation capabilities (Compl. ¶19-20). | ¶19-20 | col. 5:36-43 |
| receiving input from a user | A user provides input by typing a search term, such as "PASTN", into the website's search box (Compl. ¶9, ¶21). The complaint provides a screenshot showing a search for the term "PASTN" (Compl. p. 3). | ¶21 | col. 5:26-28 |
| determining that the input contains an unknown word | The Accused Website allegedly determines that the entered search term "does not directly match an existing category" and is therefore an "unknown" word (Compl. ¶9, ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 6:62-64 |
| subsequent to the determining, navigating through the system to a current node from the user navigable node based upon at least one additional input from the user... | After the initial search, the website allegedly receives additional input when the user selects a desired category or item from the recommended results, thereby navigating to a new node (e.g., a product page) (Compl. ¶10, ¶23). | ¶23 | col. 6:65-col. 7:1 |
| presenting at least one response to the user based upon the documents attached to the current node resulting from the navigation | The website presents a response, such as a product page for "Pastel Sexy Curve Skinny Jeans," based on the user's selection from the recommended results (Compl. ¶10, ¶24). This is shown in a screenshot (Compl. p. 4). | ¶24 | col. 7:20-25 |
| ...learning one or more associations between the unknown word and one or more keywords from the documents attached to the current node, such that a direct relationship is formed... | The Accused Website allegedly "learns the association between the unknown word and the keywords associated with the item category for which a direct relationship is formed" (Compl. ¶11, ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 7:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "unknown word." The dispute could turn on whether this term, as used in the patent, covers the functionality of a modern fuzzy search or "did you mean" algorithm, or if it requires a specific, binary determination that a word is formally "unknown" to the system's index, thereby triggering a distinct learning protocol.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the system "learns" an association (Compl. ¶11, ¶25). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Accused Website performs this "learning" step as required by the claim. The analysis will likely focus on whether the system creates a persistent or semi-persistent data association that alters its behavior in future searches, or whether the alleged "learning" is merely a transient, session-based refinement of search results.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "unknown word"
- Context and Importance: This term is the predicate for the entire claimed method. Its definition is critical to determining whether the accused functionality—which the complaint alleges is triggered when a search "does not directly match an existing category" (Compl. ¶9)—falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an unknown word as "a word that is neither a keyword or an existing synonym" ('617 Patent, col. 2:65-66). This could be argued to encompass any user query that fails to produce a direct hit in a pre-existing index.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's overall context suggests a word for which the system has no pre-existing associations, which then triggers a specific, novel learning process ('617 Patent, col. 6:62-64). A defendant may argue this is distinct from a system that simply offers alternative suggestions for a misspelled word or a term with close lexical neighbors.
The Term: "learning one or more associations"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the core inventive concept. The dispute will likely hinge on what level of permanence and what type of data modification constitutes "learning" under the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the duration or mechanism of the learned association, which could support an argument that even a temporary, session-level association meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to storing the new associations "for future use" ('617 Patent, col. 12:5-7) and includes flowcharts where a distinct step is to "Store the new associations and scoring information" ('617 Patent, FIG. 5, step 550). This suggests that "learning" implies a persistent update to the system's underlying data structure that affects subsequent, independent user sessions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages its customers "to use the Accused Website to practice the claims of the '617 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The factual basis provided is the act of making the website and its search functionality available to users.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s determination of the following central questions:
A question of definitional scope: Can the term "unknown word," as described in a 2005-priority patent, be properly construed to read on the functionality of a modern e-commerce "fuzzy search" or "recommended results" feature? Or does the patent require a more distinct, binary process of identifying a term as completely unrecognized before initiating a specific learning protocol?
An evidentiary and technical question: What factual evidence will support the allegation that the Accused Website performs the claimed step of "learning one or more associations"? The case may turn on discovery into the website's architecture to determine whether it creates a persistent data relationship that informs future, independent searches, or if it merely executes a transient, session-based navigational query.