6:22-cv-01139
Tron Holdings LLC v. Trivago NV
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tron Holdings LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Trivago N.V. (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01139, W.D. Tex., 10/31/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a foreign corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online travel metasearch services infringe patents related to methods for displaying advertising to a user during the time content is loading.
- Technical Context: The patents address the monetization of user wait-time, a common feature in web and application design where content loading creates a brief, captive audience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents-in-suit. Both asserted patents are subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-03-02 | Priority Date for '513 and '575 Patents |
| 2013-10-21 | Application filed for '513 Patent |
| 2016-11-11 | Application filed for '575 Patent |
| 2016-12-20 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,524,513 |
| 2018-01-16 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,870,575 |
| 2022-10-31 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,524,513 - "System and method of advertising for use on internet and/or digital networking capable devices," Issued Dec. 20, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge of advertising on devices with limited visual space, such as mobile phones, where traditional banner or pop-up ads can be "annoying and potentially aggravating to a user" who is trying to perform a task ('513 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes utilizing the "underutilized 'loading space'" that occurs when a user requests content and must wait for it to load ('513 Patent, col. 2:38-40). The method involves displaying advertising content in the foreground while the user-requested content (e.g., a software application) loads in a background operation. Once the background loading is complete, the system ceases displaying the advertisement and redirects the user to their requested content ('513 Patent, col. 8:28-54; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to make advertising less intrusive by placing it within a necessary functional delay, rather than interrupting an active user session.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referring to "Exemplary '513 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- Displaying, by a web browser, advertisement content in a foreground operation in response to the web browser initiating a loading of user requested content in a background operation.
- Monitoring, by the web browser, the loading of the user requested content.
- Determining, by the web browser, that the loading has concluded, which defines a "user requested content stop event."
- Ceasing the display of the advertisement in response to the stop event.
- Redirecting the user to the requested content.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,870,575 - "Advertising during the loading of content," Issued Jan. 16, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '513 Patent, the '575 Patent addresses the same problem of making advertising on internet-capable devices less intrusive to the user experience ('575 Patent, col. 1:47-55).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the '513 Patent: displaying advertising during the time a user waits for requested content to load. The system then redirects the user to the content once loading is complete ('575 Patent, col. 8:1-19).
- Technical Importance: This patent continues the same technical theme of monetizing user wait-time during content-loading periods.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring to "Exemplary '575 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- Displaying, by a web browser, advertisement content in response to the web browser initiating a loading of user requested content.
- Determining, by the web browser, that the loading has concluded, which defines a "stop event."
- Ceasing the display of the advertisement in response to the stop event.
- Redirecting the user to the requested content.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service in its body. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" that are incorporated by reference as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). Trivago N.V. operates a travel metasearch engine via its website and mobile applications.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit but provides no specific description of their functionality (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Based on the technology at issue, the accused functionality would presumably involve the display of advertisements on the Trivago website or app while a user's search results for hotels or travel are loading. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific mapping of claim elements to accused functionality by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The following tables summarize the infringement theory for representative independent claim 1 of each patent, noting that the complaint's support for each element is a conclusory allegation that refers to these missing exhibits.
'513 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying, by a web browser, advertisement content having a predetermined duration on a screen in a foreground operation on an internet capable device, in response to the web browser initiating a loading of user requested content in a background operation on the internet capable device; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 3. | ¶17 | col. 8:31-39 |
| monitoring, by the web browser and in response to the displaying, the loading of the user requested content in the background operation; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 3. | ¶17 | col. 8:40-42 |
| determining, by the web browser and based on the monitoring, that the loading of the user requested content has concluded in the background operation to define a user requested content stop event; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 3. | ¶17 | col. 8:43-47 |
| ceasing, by the web browser, displaying in the foreground operation the advertisement content in response to the user requested content stop event...; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 3. | ¶17 | col. 8:48-52 |
| and redirecting, by the web browser and in response to the ceasing, the user to the user requested content. | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 3. | ¶17 | col. 8:53-54 |
'575 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying, by a web browser, advertisement content having a predetermined duration on a display device, in response to the web browser initiating a loading of user requested content on the display device; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 4. | ¶26 | col. 8:1-5 |
| determining, by the web browser, that the loading of the user requested content has concluded to define a stop event for the user requested content; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 4. | ¶26 | col. 8:6-9 |
| ceasing, by the web browser, displaying the advertisement content in response to the stop event...; | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 4. | ¶26 | col. 8:10-14 |
| and redirecting, by the web browser and in response to the ceasing, the user to the user requested content. | The complaint alleges that Defendant's products perform this step, relying on an analysis in the missing Exhibit 4. | ¶26 | col. 8:15-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for both patents will be whether the accused Trivago services, which may include native mobile applications, meet the "by a web browser" limitation. Further, for the '513 Patent, a key dispute may arise over whether the accused system performs a distinct "background operation" for content loading that is separate from the "foreground operation" of displaying the ad, as the claim language requires.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs the specific functions of "monitoring" the loading process and "determining" its conclusion to trigger the cessation of the advertisement? The complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on external documents not provided in the pleading.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "web browser" (asserted in independent claim 1 of both patents)
Context and Importance
This term's construction is critical because it may define whether the claims read on modern mobile applications, which often use embedded web-view components rather than standalone browser applications. The infringement analysis hinges on whether Trivago's app or website architecture falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the methods can be implemented via "a device application (or 'app')" ('513 Patent, col. 7:57-58), which may support an argument that "web browser" should be interpreted broadly enough to include the web-rendering components within such an app.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument for a narrower construction could focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of "web browser" at the time of the invention, potentially limiting it to standalone applications like Chrome, Safari, or Internet Explorer, and excluding other software components.
The Term: "background operation" ('513 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term distinguishes the '513 Patent's claims from those of the '575 Patent and is central to the infringement analysis for the '513 Patent. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused Trivago system uses a technically distinct background process for loading content, or if ad display and content loading are part of a single, integrated process.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any content loading that is not directly visible to the user constitutes a "background operation," even if it occurs within the same primary software process as the visible ad.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 explicitly depicts "LOAD USER INITIATED PROCESS IN BACKGROUND" as a separate step (element 120) from displaying the advertisement ('513 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, parallel software process for loading the user-requested content.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). Knowledge for this claim is alleged to exist "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶25).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of infringement acquired upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). This allegation appears to be based on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "web browser", as used in the claims, be construed to cover the specific software architecture of Defendant's website and mobile applications, particularly any in-app web-rendering components?
Operational Mismatch: A key question for the '513 Patent will be factual and technical: does the accused Trivago system perform a distinct "background operation" for loading content that is separate from the "foreground operation" of displaying an advertisement, as required by the claim language, or does it use a single, integrated process?
Evidentiary Sufficiency: Since the complaint's infringement allegations are wholly conclusory and defer all technical detail to missing exhibits, a dispositive issue will be whether discovery yields evidence to support the assertion that the accused products perform the specific "monitoring", "determining", and "redirecting" steps recited in the claims.