Linfo IP LLC v. Vuori Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Vuori, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01290, W.D. Tex., 12/19/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a "regular and established place of business" in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and conducting substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system and user interface for presenting information infringes a patent related to discovering, organizing, and displaying information from text content based on semantic attributes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for analyzing and presenting large volumes of text, such as online user reviews, by allowing users to filter, highlight, or extract information based on attributes like sentiment (e.g., positive or negative opinions).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	’428 Patent Priority Date
2015-07-28	’428 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 - "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content," issued July 28, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "data overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, needed information within large amounts of unstructured text, such as numerous online hotel reviews (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-21). Conventional methods for sifting through this data are described as "very time-consuming" (’428 Patent, col. 1:30-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-assisted method that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words or phrases (’428 Patent, col. 3:18-22). It then provides a user interface that allows a user to select a specific attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action (e.g., "extract" or "highlight"). The system then performs this action on the text, presenting the relevant information in an organized manner, such as in a hierarchical topic tree or a list (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:23-33). Figure 1 illustrates the overall system architecture, including a user interface (150) with an attribute selector (160) and an action selector (170) that processes text content (’428 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a more efficient tool for users to analyze qualitative data by enabling them to filter or organize content based on its meaning or sentiment, rather than relying solely on keyword searches (’428 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
• Analogy: The system functions like an advanced filter for a document. Instead of just filtering by keyword (e.g., "room service"), a user can filter by a concept (e.g., "all negative comments") and have the system automatically find and display only the sentences or phrases expressing that concept.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-assisted method comprising the essential elements of:
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first and second semantic attribute for a user to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with either semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object."
  • Allowing the user to select one of the attributes.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint does not specifically identify which dependent claims it intends to assert.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It generally accuses "a system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details on the functionality of the accused system. It alleges in general terms that the system allows for "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’428 patent (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not describe the accused system’s market position or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations can be found in a preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). As this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint, the infringement theory is limited to the general narrative assertions. The complaint alleges that Defendant's system performs the steps of "discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" and that these actions infringe one or more claims of the ’428 patent (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be evidentiary. What specific features of Defendant's system are accused of infringement? The complaint's lack of specificity raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that Defendant's system performs each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the steps of identifying "semantic attributes" and allowing a user to select an action to be performed based on those attributes.
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the scope of the term "semantic attribute." The question may arise whether the functionality in Defendant's system, which might involve sorting or filtering by criteria like "newest" or "most popular," falls within the definition of "semantic attribute" as contemplated by the patent, which provides detailed examples related to sentiment and opinion analysis (’428 Patent, col. 9:1-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is fundamental to the patent's contribution over prior art. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused system's functionalities are found to be "semantic attributes." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine the scope of the claim and, consequently, whether there is infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the concept broadly, stating the invention associates "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes" with text tokens (’428 Patent, col. 3:20-22). This could support an interpretation that "semantic attribute" encompasses any meaning-based property of a word or phrase, not just opinion.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures focus heavily on "opinion" as the primary example of a semantic attribute, with entire sections and figures dedicated to processing positive and negative comments (’428 Patent, Fig. 6-9B; col. 8:29-34). Dependent claim 3 explicitly recites "sentiment or opinion," which could be argued to narrow the independent claim's scope, or conversely, used to argue via claim differentiation that claim 1 must be broader. A party could argue the specification's consistent focus on sentiment analysis limits the term to that context.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). It also makes a parallel allegation for contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). This allegation appears to primarily target potential post-filing conduct, as the complaint includes a footnote reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10, n.1).

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

1. A critical evidentiary question will be one of specificity: What concrete evidence will Plaintiff offer to show that an unspecified feature of Defendant’s system performs each step of the claimed method? The absence of a detailed infringement theory or accused product identification in the complaint makes this the primary uncertainty.
2. The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: How will the term "semantic attribute" be construed? The resolution of whether this term is limited to the patent's core examples of opinion and sentiment analysis, or whether it covers more general text filtering and organization, will be central to the infringement and validity analyses.