M4siz Ltd v. Kroger Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: M4siz Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: The Kroger Company (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00605, W.D. Tex., 06/10/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's regular and established places of business within the district, including a specific e-commerce and grocery delivery facility located in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer-facing website infringes a patent related to a method for processing web-based search queries.
• Technical Context: The technology involves a method for initiating a search by entering a composite string, containing both a search engine address and search terms, into a browser's address bar, which triggers an error-handling routine to parse and execute the search.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff M4siz Limited in 2007. The complaint states an issue date of October 11, 2016, for the patent, which is inconsistent with the February 25, 2003, issue date shown on the face of the patent document itself.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Issued: February 25, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional internet searching as a multi-step process that is cumbersome and inefficient. It notes that users must first navigate to a search engine's website and then enter search terms, a process which suffers from "an unnecessary amount of user input and steps" and can return "large amounts of uncontrolled, spurious and unrelated information" (ʼ402 Patent, col. 1:13-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more "seamless" search procedure where a user can enter a single request string directly into the browser's address field. This string combines a pointer to a search engine (its URL) with the desired search terms, forming a deliberately "invalid" web address (ʼ402 Patent, col. 3:25-32). The browser's attempt to access this invalid address generates an error signal, which is "trapped" by a program. This program then parses the invalid address to separate the search engine's URL from the search string, submits the search query to the engine, and returns the results to the user (ʼ402 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to streamline the user's interaction with search engines by integrating the search query submission directly into the browser's address bar, bypassing the need to first load a search engine's homepage (ʼ402 Patent, col. 1:26-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint broadly accuses the Kroger website of infringement but does not describe the specific technical operation of the website's search functionality (Compl. ¶17). The allegations state that infringement occurs through Defendant's acts of "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused search feature's underlying mechanism.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that purports to describe how the elements of claim 1 are infringed (Compl. ¶25). However, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The complaint's narrative allegations of infringement are conclusory and do not explain how the accused website's search functionality is alleged to meet the specific limitations of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the search function on the Kroger website operates using the specific error-trapping mechanism recited in the claims. The patent requires that an "error signal" be generated from an invalid address and that this signal "trigger[s] parsing" of the request (ʼ402 Patent, col. 6:61-64). The infringement case may depend on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused website's search relies on such a mechanism, as opposed to conventional web form submission and server-side scripting.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the term "request string." A key question is whether a search query entered into a search box on a webpage, which is then typically transmitted to a server via standard HTTP protocols, can be considered a "request string comprising a valid pointer to a specified search engine and a search string" that subsequently generates an "error signal" in the manner described by the patent (ʼ402 Patent, col. 6:58-60).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "monitoring for the generation of an error signal"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the technical heart of the claimed invention. Infringement appears to require the presence of this specific error-generation-and-trapping sequence. Practitioners may focus on this term because standard on-site search functions typically do not rely on generating and trapping errors to operate.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not limit the "error signal" to a specific type, stating it "may comprise an error code or message" (ʼ402 Patent, col. 2:7-8). A party could argue this covers any internal server logic that handles a malformed or unrecognized query.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the process as starting with a "deliberately invalid" address that will "force an error message," which is then "trapped" to prevent it from being returned to the user (ʼ402 Patent, col. 3:29-40). This context, particularly the flow chart in Figure 3 initiated by "Error Trapping CGI Initiated," suggests the "error signal" is a specific, externally detectable event (like a "page not found" error) rather than a routine server-side logic path.

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

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term dictates what user action could constitute the first step of infringement. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether user interactions with the Kroger website create such a string.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an example format like "www.searchengine.com/fishing/float," where terms follow the URL in a path-like structure (ʼ402 Patent, col. 5:58-62). A party might argue this covers any URL generated by a search that includes the search terms, such as in a query parameter.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly explains that the search string is "entered in the address or location field of an Internet or intranet browser" (ʼ402 Patent, col. 2:28-32). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "request string" to be one that is manually entered into the browser's main address bar, as this is the action that creates the "invalid" address central to the invention's described operation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by third-party customers. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's provision of "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use Defendant’s Accused Products" (Compl. ¶19). Conclusory allegations of contributory infringement are also made (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes allegations intended to support a finding of willfulness, stating that on information and belief, Defendant "has 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).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused Kroger website's search function operates by generating and trapping an "error signal" from an invalid URL to trigger parsing, as required by Claim 1, or does the website use conventional web technologies that present a fundamental mismatch with the patent's teachings?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringing acts: does the complaint, or subsequent discovery, establish a factual basis for alleging that users of the Kroger website perform an action that creates a "request string" meeting the specific claim limitations, and that this string is then processed via the claimed error-trapping method? The case may depend on whether a standard query entered into an on-page search box can satisfy the claim elements.