6:22-cv-00174
M4siz Ltd v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: M4siz Limited (England)
- Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00174, W.D. Tex., 02/18/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district and maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, including a specific location in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for initiating a database search by generating and processing an error signal.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a procedure for simplifying web searches by allowing a user to initiate a search directly from a browser's address bar, using a composite string that is intentionally invalid as a web address to trigger the search process.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff in 2007. The complaint states the patent issued on October 11, 2016, whereas the patent document itself indicates an issue date of February 25, 2003. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-10-27 | '402 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-02-25 | U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402 Issues |
| 2007-05-14 | '402 Patent allegedly conveyed to M4siz Limited |
| 2022-02-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402 - "Searching procedures"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional internet searching as a cumbersome process requiring a user to first navigate to a search engine's homepage, enter terms into designated fields, and then manually sort through voluminous results, involving an "unnecessary amount of user input and steps" (’402 Patent, col. 1:13-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user enters a single "request string" into a browser's address bar. This string is intentionally structured to be an invalid web address but contains both a pointer to a search engine (its URL) and the desired search terms. Because the address is invalid, it generates an error signal. The system "traps" this error signal, which then "trigger[s] parsing of the request string" into the search engine's address and the search terms. The parsed search terms are then submitted to the correct engine, and results are returned to the user (’402 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-53).
- Technical Importance: The described procedure aims to create a more "seamless" user experience by allowing a search to be initiated directly from a browser's command line, bypassing the intermediate step of loading a search engine's homepage (’402 Patent, col. 2:26-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "database searching procedure" with the following essential elements:
- 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;
- submitting the search string to the search engine; and
- passing at least some of the returned data back to the user.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves its right to amend its infringement contentions to include other claims (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Walmart-branded websites," with "https://www.walmart.com" provided as an example (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Walmart "develops, designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services" in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4). However, the complaint provides no specific details about the technical operation of the search functionality on the Walmart website. It broadly accuses the website of infringing the patent without describing how the search bar, back-end servers, or data processing methods operate (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that purportedly describes the infringement of claim 1 (Compl. ¶26). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the patent and the sparse allegations.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| submitting a request string comprising a valid pointer to a specified search engine and a search string for specified data | The complaint does not specify how this element is met. The infringement theory may be that a user entering terms into the search bar on Walmart.com initiates the creation of a data packet or request that includes both the search terms and an internal pointer to Walmart's search service. | ¶18 | col. 8:1-4 |
| monitoring for the generation of an error signal, from the search engine | The complaint provides no allegations regarding the generation or monitoring of an "error signal." This step is central to the patented method, which relies on trapping an error from an invalid URL to initiate parsing. | ¶18 | col. 8:5-6 |
| 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 | The complaint does not allege that an error signal is used to trigger parsing. The absence of factual allegations supporting this core mechanism of the invention raises a significant question about the infringement theory. | ¶18 | col. 8:7-10 |
| submitting the search string to the search engine | Plaintiff's theory appears to be that after a user enters a query on Walmart.com, the search term is ultimately submitted to a back-end search engine for processing. | ¶18 | col. 8:11-12 |
| passing at least some of the returned data returned from the search engine, back to the user | The Walmart website displays product search results to the user after a query is submitted, which allegedly constitutes passing back returned data. | ¶18 | col. 8:13-16 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be factual and evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiff provide that the accused Walmart.com search function operates by intentionally generating an "error signal" from an invalid request and then "trapping" that signal to parse and execute a search? The complaint lacks any factual allegations to support this central claim limitation.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the phrase "request string," which the patent specification consistently describes as a composite string typed into a browser's main address bar (’402 Patent, col. 3:18-20), can be construed to read on search terms entered into a dedicated search field within a webpage.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "error signal"
Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed invention. The entire process of parsing the request string is "trigger[ed]" by this signal. If the accused system does not generate and use an "error signal" in the manner claimed, a finding of non-infringement may be likely. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern web search functions typically rely on direct data submission (e.g., via APIs) rather than the error-trapping mechanism described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the signal "may comprise an error code or message," which is general language (’402 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contextualizes the "error signal" as the specific result of a browser attempting to access a deliberately "invalid" or "non-existent" web address. For example, "as the page address is invalid overall, an error message is generated" and this message is "instead 'trapped'" (’402 Patent, col. 3:21-36). This suggests the term refers to a specific type of network-level or HTTP error, not a generic software or application-level error.
The Term: "submitting a request string"
Context and Importance: The nature of the "request string" and the method of its submission are foundational. The dispute may focus on whether a user typing into a website's search bar performs the same action as the one described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any user action that transmits search criteria to a search engine.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a very specific context, stating, "the user would enter the request string in the address line of the browser being used" (’402 Patent, col. 3:18-20). Multiple examples show the string formatted as a single line combining a URL and search terms, such as "www.searchengine.com/fishing/float" (’402 Patent, col. 5:60-61). This could support a narrower construction limited to inputs in a browser's address bar, not a webpage's form field.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶19). The factual basis for inducement is that Walmart provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use Defendant's Accused Products" (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the conclusory statement that "M4siz has been damaged as the result of Defendant's willful infringement" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not plead any specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge of the patent or post-suit continuation of infringement despite a high likelihood of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present two fundamental questions for the court, hinging on potential mismatches between the patent's claims and the accused technology.
A central issue will be one of technical operation: Does the Walmart.com search functionality rely on the claimed method of generating and trapping an "error signal" from an invalid web request to initiate a search, or does it use a conventional, direct data submission architecture that falls outside the claim scope? The complaint provides no facts to support the former.
A critical dispute will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent's description of a "request string" submitted via a browser's address bar be construed broadly enough to cover a user's query entered into a dedicated search field within a webpage? The patent's specific embodiments appear to point toward a narrower interpretation.