Locket IP LLC v. Dollar General Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Locket IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dollar General Corporation (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00550, W.D. Tex., 05/31/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s corporate website infringes two patents related to user interface methods for automatically organizing and displaying content based on user-specific regions of interest.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the dynamic rearrangement of on-screen "cards" or "windows" to highlight information relevant to a user's preferences, aiming to simplify navigation in content-rich interfaces.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer over the '112 Patent, linking their terms and potential enforceability. The patents originated with Thomson Licensing and were subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff, Locket IP LLC.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112 - "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCATING REGIONS OF INTEREST IN A USER INTERFACE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCATING REGIONS OF INTEREST IN A USER INTERFACE," issued June 5, 2018. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of users finding it "cumbersome" to manually scroll through multiple on-screen windows or cards to locate specific topics of interest, particularly when the content within those cards exceeds the visible display area. (’112 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where, upon a user command, the user interface automatically rearranges multiple content "cards" to display the "region of interest" within each card. This process can include removing cards without relevant information and repositioning the remaining cards to make the points of interest visible without requiring the user to manipulate each card individually. (’112 Patent, col. 1:40-45; col. 9:11-21).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to streamline content discovery in increasingly dense user interfaces, such as electronic program guides, by reducing the manual input required to find personalized information. (’112 Patent, col. 1:19-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶13).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • generating a plurality of cards for display;
  • in response to a user command, determining regions of interest within each of the plurality of cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences; and
  • updating for display the plurality of cards to visibly show in a display area... the at least one region of interest of multiple cards included in a first group of the plurality of cards, wherein said updating includes repositioning the plurality of cards to remove cards not included in the first group from the display area and to visibly display the at least one region of interest within all of the multiple cards included in the first group within the display area of the display device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832 - "METHOD FOR LOCATING REGIONS OF INTEREST IN A USER INTERFACE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832, "METHOD FOR LOCATING REGIONS OF INTEREST IN A USER INTERFACE," issued December 24, 2019. (Compl. ¶19).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '112 Patent's application, the '832 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency for a user to manually find specific points of interest across multiple content windows or cards. (’832 Patent, col. 1:29-38).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is a method to automatically show regions of interest in response to activating an "interest feature." This involves rearranging the cards so that the relevant portion of each card is displayed, potentially based on a user profile or other preference indicators. (’832 Patent, col. 1:40-45; col. 10:11-25).
• Technical Importance: The approach provides a method for media devices to personalize and simplify content presentation, reducing user interaction and search time. (’832 Patent, col. 1:19-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • determining, in response to a user command, regions of interest within each of a plurality of cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences; and
  • updating for display the plurality of cards to visibly show in a display area... the at least one region of interest of multiple cards included in a first group of the plurality of cards, wherein said updating includes repositioning the plurality of cards to remove cards not included in the first group from the display area and to visibly display the at least one region of interest within all of the multiple cards included in the first group within the display area of the display device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Dollar General Website, located at https://www.dollargeneral.com ("the Accused Website"). (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint’s sole description of the Accused Website’s functionality is that it "provides the user the ability to search for a store in any desired location." (Compl. ¶8).
• No other technical features of the website are described, and the complaint provides no information regarding the website's commercial importance or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement by incorporating by reference claim chart exhibits (PX-112-C and PX-832-C) that were not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory is limited to conclusory statements that the Accused Website practices the inventions. (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).

’112 Patent Infringement Allegations

’832 Patent Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue is whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, given that its substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within unfiled exhibits.
  • Technical Questions: A key question is how the described functionality of a "store locator" (Compl. ¶8) could meet the claim limitations. What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Website performs the claimed steps of determining "regions of interest" based on "previous user preferences" and then "repositioning" a "plurality of cards" accordingly?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "regions of interest"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purpose. The definition will determine what type of information the accused system must identify and display. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will dictate whether a standard search result can be considered a "region of interest."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that regions of interest can be "topics, metadata, graphics, and the like" determined in accordance with user preference information. (’832 Patent, col. 10:12-14).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments describe developing regions of interest based on a "user profile where a user can indicate that they have particular interests in actors, television shows, directors, sports teams, music, and the like." (’832 Patent, col. 9:22-26). This suggests a specific, personalized function rather than generic information.

• The Term: "plurality of cards"

  • Context and Importance: The claims operate on "cards." Whether the display elements on the Accused Website qualify as "cards" is fundamental to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the terms "windows/cards" interchangeably, which could support an argument that any distinct UI element containing information meets the limitation. (’832 Patent, col. 1:20-21).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures exclusively depict structured, card-based layouts for media, such as an electronic program guide (Fig. 5) or a media library (Fig. 6), which may be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes simple text-based search results.

• The Term: "previous user preferences"

  • Context and Importance: The determination of "regions of interest" is explicitly driven by this information. The dispute will likely involve whether a single search query on the Accused Website constitutes "previous user preferences."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that user preference information can be determined from "how a user interfaces with media device... where video and audio media that are accessed more are assumed to be more relevant to a user." (’832 Patent, col. 10:19-24).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more deliberate system where a "user explicitly lists keywords or indicates various subjects that the user has interest (i.e., I like baseball, I hate hockey)." (’832 Patent, col. 10:15-18). This points toward a stored, persistent profile rather than a transient user action.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: Will the court find the complaint's allegations plausible when all specific factual support for infringement is incorporated by reference into exhibits that were not provided to the court or the Defendant?
2. Technical Applicability: A central issue will be whether the functionality of a website's store locator can be credibly mapped to the claimed methods. The case raises a key question of functional mismatch: does a list of store addresses generated from a search query perform the specific, multi-step process of determining "regions of interest" from "user preferences" and "repositioning" a set of "cards," as detailed in the patents?
3. Definitional Scope: The outcome will likely depend on claim construction. A critical question for the court will be one of scope: can terms like "regions of interest" and "previous user preferences", which are described in the patent in the context of personalized media guides, be construed broadly enough to read on the generic input and output of a website's store search function?