DCT
6:22-cv-00257
Recog IP LLC v. Recreational Equipment Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Recog IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Recreational Equipment, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00257, W.D. Tex., 03/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly maintaining a "regular and established place of business" in the district, specifically a retail store in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to a method for generating a temporary presentation of previously visited webpages to help a user relocate them.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses user navigation and session history tracking on websites, a common feature in the e-commerce sector for enhancing user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a German patent application filed in 2001. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-30 | '062 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-11-13 | '062 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-03-10 | 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, "Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-locating an Information Page that has Already Been Called," issued November 13, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty internet users face in relocating a specific webpage within an information vendor's site after a period of "surfing," noting that standard browser tools like the "back" button or address lists are often inadequate for this task (ʼ062 Patent, col. 1:13-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-side method to solve this problem. When a user visits a vendor's site, the server registers the user (e.g., via a cookie) and tracks the sequence of pages they visit. It then generates a "displayable presentation," such as a site map, that visually represents the user's navigation path, allowing them to easily recognize and return to a previously called page. This presentation is described as being temporarily generated and deleted when the user's session ends ('062 Patent, col. 2:17-28; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The described method aimed to provide a more intuitive, context-specific navigation history within the vendor's own website, improving usability over generic browser-level history functions ('062 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- Registering a user at a vendor server when the user calls a home page.
- At the vendor server, registering the information pages called by the user.
- At the vendor server, only temporarily generating a displayable presentation that visually identifies a sequence of the user's called pages, and deleting that presentation from the server with no storage of the presentation or pages when the user exits the session.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's website, "www.REI.com", and specifically its "Recently Viewed" items feature (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused website implements a method where, after a user views multiple product pages, a "Recently Viewed" section is displayed (Compl. ¶13). This section contains links to the product pages the user visited during their session (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a screenshot showing the appearance of a "Recently viewed" section after a user has navigated to more than one product page (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 4). This history is alleged to be temporary and session-dependent, relying on cookies that can be cleared by the user (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint does not provide specific details on the commercial importance of this feature, beyond its implementation on the website of a major retailer.
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... calls a home page... registering said user at said vendor server | Defendant’s website allows users to visit its home page and registers them on the vendor server via cookies. | ¶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 | Defendant's website temporarily stores visited product pages on a server and uses a "Recently Viewed cookie" to build a new page that includes the "Recently Viewed" section. | ¶15 | col. 4:65-5:1 |
| at said vendor server only temporarily generating a displayable presentation... which visually identifies a sequence of said information pages... and deleting said presentation from the vendor server, with no storage... when said user exits an information session | The "Recently Viewed" dialog box is alleged to be temporary because the list of products is no longer shown if a user browses in incognito mode or clears cookies. A screenshot is provided to show that previously viewed items do not appear in a new session (Compl. Fig. 4, p. 6). | ¶16 | col. 6:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent claims a presentation that "visually identifies a sequence of said information pages," and the specification's figures depict a structured, branching site map ('062 Patent, Fig. 3). The accused functionality is a linear list of "Recently Viewed" items. This raises the question of whether a simple chronological list meets the "sequence" limitation as described and claimed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "deleting said presentation from the vendor server, with no storage" when a session ends. The complaint's infringement theory rests on the functionality of browser-side cookies being cleared. A key technical question will be whether this client-side action satisfies the claim's requirement for an affirmative deletion action occurring at the vendor server with no storage.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a sequence of said information pages"
- Context and Importance: The patent's specification illustrates the invention with a multi-level, branching site map showing the user's navigation path. The accused "Recently Viewed" feature is a simple list. The construction of "sequence" will be critical to determining whether a linear list of items infringes a claim that may be interpreted to require a more structured, path-based representation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "sequence" could be argued to encompass any ordered set of items, including a reverse-chronological list of viewed products. The claim language itself does not explicitly mandate a graphical, hierarchical, or branching structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the presentation with reference to figures showing numbered steps and branching paths, which may suggest a more complex relationship than a simple list ('062 Patent, col. 5:15-22, Fig. 3). The use of the term "site map" could also support a narrower construction requiring a structured, graphical layout ('062 Patent, col. 5:6).
The Term: "deleting said presentation from the vendor server, with no storage ... when said user exits an information session"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the temporary nature of the presentation. The infringement allegation relies on the fact that the "Recently Viewed" list disappears when cookies are cleared. The central dispute will be whether this mechanism, which depends on a client-side cookie, meets the claim's requirement for the server to perform the deletion with no storage.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the functional outcome is what matters. If the presentation is effectively deleted from the user's view after the session ends, the mechanism (e.g., using a session cookie that expires) could be seen as satisfying the claim's intent to create a temporary "bookmark" ('062 Patent, col. 6:3-5).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies the action ("deleting") and the location ("from the vendor server"). A party may argue this requires an affirmative deletion process on the server's own storage, and that offloading the history to a client-side cookie constitutes a form of "storage" outside the server's direct control, thereby failing to meet the "no storage" and "deleting from the vendor server" limitations.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that REI induces infringement by "providing access to support for, training and instructions for, its website to its customers" to enable them to use the site in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead facts sufficient to support an allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "sequence," which the patent specification illustrates with structured, branching navigational maps, be construed to cover the simple, linear list of products in the accused "Recently Viewed" feature?
- A key technical question will be one of locus of infringement: Does the accused system, which relies on a client-side cookie that a user's browser deletes or ignores in a new session, satisfy the claim limitation requiring the vendor server to affirmatively delete the presentation with no storage when a session concludes?