M4siz Ltd v. Macys

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: M4siz Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: Macy's Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00170, W.D. Tex., 02/18/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for initiating a database search by parsing a composite, invalid URL entered by a user.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns web search interfaces, specifically a method intended to streamline the search process by using a browser's address bar as a direct input for search queries, thereby bypassing the need to first load a search engine's homepage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the plaintiff, M4siz Limited, in 2007. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, are mentioned in the complaint.

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 multi-step process that is often "time consuming and hard to use" because it requires a user to first navigate to a search engine's website, enter terms into specific fields, and then manually sort through large quantities of results (ʼ402 Patent, col. 1:9-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more "seamless" search procedure where a user enters a single "request string" directly into a browser's address or location field (ʼ402 Patent, col. 2:26-31). This string combines a valid pointer to a search engine (e.g., its URL) with a search string (e.g., the query terms), forming a composite address that is deliberately invalid (ʼ402 Patent, col. 3:26-31). Because the address does not point to an existing page, it generates an "error signal." The invention's method "traps" this error signal and uses it to trigger a program that parses the invalid address, separating the search engine's URL from the user's query. The query is then submitted to the specified search engine, and the results are returned to the user (ʼ402 Patent, col. 3:32-41; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This method aimed to simplify the web search experience by allowing a search to be initiated from any browser window's address bar, eliminating the intermediate step of loading a search engine's homepage.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent 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 and the search string;
  • submitting the search string to the search engine; and
  • passing at least some of the returned data back to the user.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Macy's-branded websites," with https://www.macys.com cited as an example (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused website infringes the '402 patent but does not describe the specific technical operation of the website's search functionality (Compl. ¶¶15, 17). It makes general allegations that Defendant makes, uses, and sells products and services that practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the website's commercial importance or market position.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an attached claim chart, designated as Exhibit B, describes how the elements of claim 1 are infringed by the Accused Products (Compl. ¶24). However, Exhibit B was not included with the publicly filed complaint. The body of the complaint does not provide a narrative description of the infringement theory or map specific features of the accused website to the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided document.

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent's description and the general nature of modern e-commerce websites, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.

• Technical Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused Macy's website operates in the manner described by the patent. For example, does a user search on macys.com involve entering a deliberately invalid URL into the browser's address bar? What evidence does the complaint provide that the website's search processing relies on generating and "trapping" an "error signal" to "trigger parsing," as opposed to using standard web forms and scripting (e.g., AJAX) to submit and process search queries?
• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the claim term "request string." Does this term, as used in the patent, read on a query entered into a dedicated search box on a webpage, or is its meaning limited to a composite string entered into the browser's address bar that combines a URL and a query?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"error signal"

• Context and Importance: The generation and use of an "error signal" is the lynchpin of the claimed method, serving as the trigger for the parsing step. The definition of this term is critical to determining whether the routine processing of a valid search query on a modern website could be considered infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the signal "may comprise an error code or message," which could suggest a wider range of signals beyond a specific HTTP status code (ʼ402 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The invention is consistently described in the context of a user submitting a "non-existent address" that is "deliberately invalid" to force an error (ʼ402 Patent, col. 3:26-31). This context suggests the "error signal" is specifically the result of a failed attempt to navigate to a webpage, such as an HTTP 404 "Not Found" error.

"request string comprising a valid pointer ... and a search string"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific input that initiates the claimed process. Whether a standard search query submitted via a website's search box meets this structural limitation will be a key point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties seeking a broader construction might argue that any data packet containing both destination information (a pointer) and a query (a search string) satisfies the limitation, regardless of how it is entered by the user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly explains that the search criteria are entered "in the address or location field of an Internet or intranet browser" as if it "was a normal Internet or intranet address" (ʼ402 Patent, col. 2:26-31). This strongly supports an interpretation limiting the term to a string manually entered into a browser's navigation address bar.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶18). The factual basis for these claims is the allegation that Defendant provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused website in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19).

Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the ‘402 Patent were invalid" (Compl. ¶¶20-21). The complaint does not allege specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant.

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

• A central issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused Macy's website, which presumably utilizes a graphical search field to handle user queries via standard web protocols, function in the same way as the patented method, which is premised on a user entering a syntactically invalid URL into the browser's address bar to intentionally trigger a server error?
• The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "error signal", which the patent describes as resulting from a failed navigation attempt, be construed to cover the routine, error-free processing of a valid data query submitted through a website's dedicated search interface?
• An early evidentiary question will be one of factual support: given the absence of a claim chart or detailed technical allegations in the complaint, what evidence will Plaintiff produce to show that the accused website performs each of the specific steps required by claim 1, particularly the generation and use of an "error signal" to "trigger parsing"?