M4siz Ltd v. Albertson's LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: M4siz Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: Albertsons, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00602, W.D. Tex., 06/10/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s branded websites infringe a patent related to methods for initiating a database search via a web browser's address field.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a method for simplifying web searches by allowing a user to input a composite string (containing both a search engine address and search terms) into a browser's address bar, using the resulting address resolution error to trigger the search.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was conveyed to Plaintiff M4siz Limited on May 14, 2007, with the assignment recorded at the USPTO on May 28, 2010.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-10-27	’402 Patent Priority Date
2003-02-25	’402 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402 - "Searching procedures"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402, "Searching procedures", issued February 25, 2003.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional internet searching in the year 2000 as a multi-step, time-consuming process. A user had to navigate to a search engine's website, enter search terms into a specific form field, and then manually sort through a large volume of unfiltered results ('402 Patent, col. 1:7-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more "seamless" procedure where a user enters a single "request string" directly into the browser's address field. This string is a composite of a search engine’s URL and the desired search terms (e.g., "www.searchengine.com/search term") ('402 Patent, col. 4:22-26). Because this composite string is not a valid web address, it generates an error signal. The system is designed to "trap" this error signal and use it as a trigger to parse the string, extract the search terms, submit them to the specified search engine, and return the results to the user ('402 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:39-42). Figure 3 illustrates this process, showing the "Error Trapping CGI Initiated" (40) step leading to the parsing of the submitted address (41).
• Technical Importance: This method sought to streamline the user experience by reducing the number of steps required to initiate a search, effectively turning the browser's address bar into a direct command line for search engines ('402 Patent, col. 1:26-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A database searching procedure using a search engine.
  • 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.
  • Passing at least some of the returned data back to the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but states infringement of "one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Albertsons-branded websites," with https://www.albertsons.com provided as an example (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these websites provide search functionality that infringes the ’402 patent (Compl. ¶17). However, it does not describe the specific architecture or operation of the accused search feature. The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" for details on infringement, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶25). Therefore, the complaint itself lacks a specific description of how the accused websites' search functions operate.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶25). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's general allegations. The core allegation is that the Defendant's websites, by providing search functionality to customers, practice the method of the ’402 patent (Compl. ¶17-18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A principal question will be whether the term "error signal," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the standard operation of a modern website's internal search bar. The patent specification consistently links the "error signal" to the submission of a deliberately "invalid" or "non-existent" web address ('402 Patent, col. 4:28-34). It is a point for determination whether the standard query-response mechanism of a website search function, which typically does not involve an address resolution error, generates such a signal.
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the factual question of how the Albertsons website's search function is implemented. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused website performs the specific steps of (1) receiving a composite request string in the manner described, (2) generating an "error signal" from it, and (3) using that specific signal to "trigger parsing" of the string? The complaint itself does not offer this technical evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "error signal"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the linchpin of the inventive concept. The entire claimed process is initiated by "monitoring for the generation of an error signal" and "using the error signal to trigger parsing." The viability of the infringement claim will likely depend on whether the routine operation of the accused website's search function can be shown to generate what the court determines is an "error signal."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of error signal. A party might argue that any internal server-side signal indicating that a string is a search query rather than a direct content address could qualify as an "error signal" in the context of a content-delivery system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and explicitly frames the "error signal" as a message resulting from a deliberately "invalid" or "non-existent" web address entered into a browser's address field ('402 Patent, col. 4:28-34, "the syntax is deliberately invalid. Such a non-existent address will force an error message"). This context suggests the term refers to a specific type of failure in the standard web page retrieval process (e.g., a 404 error), which is then co-opted for a new purpose.

• The Term: "request string comprising a valid pointer to a specified search engine and a search string"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific format of the user input that initiates the claimed process. Infringement requires showing that the accused system processes a string with this composite structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern website search bars typically receive only the "search string" (the user's query), with the "pointer" (the server-side search script) being implicit in the form's action attribute, rather than being part of the user's direct input.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the HTTP request generated by a website's search form (e.g., GET /search?q=myquery HTTP/1.1) is a "request string" that contains both a pointer (/search) and a search string (myquery).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the user entering the composite string "in the address or location field of an Internet or intranet browser" ('402 Patent, col. 2:28-32). This supports a narrower construction limited to a string typed directly into the browser's main address bar, not a query typed into an HTML form field on an already-loaded page.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused search functionality (Compl. ¶19). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertions 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 facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the accused search function on the Albertsons website operate by generating and trapping an "error signal" resulting from an invalid URL, as detailed in the '402 patent? Or does it use a conventional web form submission process that does not rely on such a mechanism, creating a fundamental mismatch in operation?
• A second key question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "error signal," which the patent specification ties to a "non-existent address," be construed broadly enough to encompass the routine server-side processing of a valid search query submitted through a website's search box? The answer to this construction question may be dispositive.