Locket IP LLC v. Office Depot LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Locket IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Office Depot, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00522, W.D. Tex., 05/31/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infringes two patents related to user interface methods for automatically identifying and repositioning content "cards" to display regions of interest based on user preferences.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses user interfaces with multiple content windows or cards, aiming to reduce the need for manual scrolling by automatically highlighting and rearranging content based on a user's inferred or stated interests.
• 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. The face of the '832 patent notes it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, a procedural tool used during prosecution to overcome a non-statutory double patenting rejection, which may have implications for the patent's effective term.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112

• 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the task of individually scrolling through multiple windows or content "cards" on a media device to find specific topics of interest as "cumbersome," particularly when the content areas exceed the visible display area (’112 Patent, col. 1:28-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where, in response to a user command, the system automatically determines "regions of interest" within a plurality of cards by analyzing user preference information. It then updates the display by repositioning the cards to make those regions of interest visible, and may also remove cards that lack such regions from the display area (’112 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-45).
• Technical Importance: This method purports to create a more efficient user experience by reducing manual input and automatically surfacing relevant information from multiple sources within a single interface (’112 Patent, col. 1:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).
• Claim 1 requires a method comprising the following essential elements:
  • 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, which includes repositioning the cards to remove cards not in the first group and to visibly display the region of interest within all cards that are in the first group.

U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As the '832 Patent shares its specification with the '112 Patent, it addresses the same problem of user difficulty in locating specific information across multiple on-screen windows or cards (’832 Patent, col. 1:25-37).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described in the '112 Patent: a user-initiated process that identifies and displays "regions of interest" by rearranging content cards based on user preferences, as illustrated in the shared detailed description and figures (’832 Patent, col. 10:5-11; FIG. 17).
• Technical Importance: The technical contribution is identical to that of the '112 Patent, focused on streamlining user interaction with interfaces containing multiple content sources (’832 Patent, col. 1:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22, ¶23).
• Claim 1 of the '832 Patent is notably different from claim 1 of the '112 Patent in that it omits the initial "generating a plurality of cards" step. Its essential elements are:
  • 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, which includes repositioning the cards to remove cards not in the first group and to visibly display the region of interest within all cards that are in the first group.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Office Depot website located at https://www.officedepot.com ("the Accused Website") (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Website provides users "the ability to search for a store in any desired location" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or technical operation of the accused feature. The infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Website practices the inventions of the patents-in-suit and incorporates by reference Exhibits PX-112-C and PX-832-C as claim charts comparing claim 1 of each patent to the website (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the complaint's limited allegations and the patent language, the infringement analysis raises several questions:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Website performs the claimed functions. A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the website, in response to a user command, "determin[es] regions of interest... by searching information indicating previous user preferences" as required by both asserted claims. It is unclear how a store locator function, which typically responds to a new user input like a zip code, would use "previous user preferences."
  • Scope Questions: The patents' specifications are grounded in the context of navigating media content like electronic program guides and video libraries (’832 Patent, FIG. 5, FIG. 6). A potential point of contention is whether the term "cards" as used in the claims can be construed to read on the search results or other elements of an e-commerce website's store locator.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "regions of interest"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central object of the claimed method; its definition dictates what type of content must be identified and displayed. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether a feature on the accused store locator, such as a map pin or a store's address, qualifies as a "region of interest."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope, stating that regions of interest can be determined from "text, pictures, and the like" based on user interests in "actors, television shows, directors, sports teams, music, and the like" (’832 Patent, col. 9:22-28).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The exemplary embodiments consistently depict "regions of interest" within the context of media content, such as a specific time slot in an electronic program guide or a thumbnail for a movie (’832 Patent, FIG. 5, FIG. 13). This context may support an argument for a narrower construction limited to elements within media listings.

• The Term: "previous user preferences"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the information source for determining the "regions of interest." To prove infringement, Plaintiff must show that the Accused Website searches this specific type of information.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes determining preferences through implicit means, such as by monitoring which "video and audio media are accessed more" frequently by a user, suggesting that general usage history could qualify (’832 Patent, col. 10:19-24).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes using a "user profile where a user explicitly lists keywords" or a "usage database" to track habits (’832 Patent, col. 10:15-17; FIG. 1, element 120). This may support a narrower interpretation requiring a stored profile or explicit user input, rather than just transient session data or a single search query.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect infringement or willful infringement.

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidence and specificity: As the complaint makes its infringement allegations by reference to unattached exhibits, a key question is what specific functionality of the Office Depot website is accused of meeting each limitation of the asserted claims. The case may depend on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that a feature like the store locator performs the claimed steps of searching "previous user preferences" and "repositioning" content "cards."

2. The case will likely involve a dispute over claim scope and applicability: Can the claims, which originate from a technical disclosure focused on navigating media content in user interfaces like TV guides, be properly construed to cover the functions of an e-commerce store locator? The construction of key terms such as "cards" and "regions of interest" will be critical to resolving this question.

3. A central point of contention may be one of functional operation: Does the accused website's store locator operate by searching for and using "previous user preferences" to rearrange content for the user, as the claims require, or does it simply respond to a user's contemporaneous search query (e.g., a city or zip code) without reference to past behavior, suggesting a potential mismatch with the patented method?