Recog IP LLC v. Williams Sonoma Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Recog IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00047, W.D. Tex., 01/25/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district and maintaining a regular and established place of business, specifically a retail store, in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for generating a temporary presentation of previously viewed items to help users re-locate them.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses user interface and experience (UI/UX) challenges in online retail, specifically helping shoppers track and return to products viewed during a browsing session.
• 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

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 - "Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-locating an Information Page that has Already Been Called"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty internet users face when trying to re-locate a specific webpage they have previously visited, especially when the page was reached through a series of non-obvious hyperlinks rather than a direct address. Standard browser "back" buttons and history lists are described as "only conditionally suited" for this task. (’062 Patent, col. 1:13-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-side method to solve this problem. When a user visits a vendor's website, the server registers the user (e.g., via a cookie) and tracks the sequence of "information pages" they visit. (’062 Patent, col. 4:32-39). The server then generates a "displayable presentation," such as a visual map of the user's path, which allows the user to easily recognize and return to a previously viewed page. (’062 Patent, col. 2:30-38). A key aspect is that this presentation is created only temporarily and is deleted from the vendor server, with no persistent storage, once the user's session ends. (’062 Patent, col. 2:55-63).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve website usability and e-commerce effectiveness by providing a more intuitive navigation aid than standard browser tools, potentially increasing user engagement and sales. (’062 Patent, col. 4:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential steps:
  • Registering a user at a vendor server when the user calls a home page.
  • Registering, at the vendor server, the information pages called by the user.
  • At the vendor server, "only temporarily generating" a displayable presentation that visually identifies a sequence of the called pages.
  • "deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server, when said user exits an information session with said information vendor."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the website of the Defendant, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on a specific feature of the Williams-Sonoma website: a dialog box or section labeled "Take Another Look." (Compl. ¶13, Fig. 2). This feature is alleged to appear after a user has viewed more than one product page. (Compl. ¶13, Figs. 1-2). The "Take Another Look" section displays images of recently viewed products, which act as links to those product pages. (Compl. ¶13, Fig. 3). Figure 2 of the complaint provides a screenshot showing the "Take Another Look" section appearing on a product page, containing a previously viewed item. (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2). The functionality is presented as a way to enhance the shopping experience on a major retail website.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'062 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint relies on client-side evidence (clearing cookies, using incognito mode) to allege that the presentation is "delet[ed]... from said vendor server" with "no storage." (Compl. ¶16). This raises the evidentiary question of whether this client-side behavior accurately reflects the required server-side actions, or if the server retains user browsing data for other purposes like analytics or personalization.
• Scope Question: The claim requires the presentation to identify a "sequence" of pages. The patent figures illustrate this with arrows showing a navigation path. (’062 Patent, Fig. 3). The accused "Take Another Look" feature, as depicted in the complaint, appears to present a collection of items. (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2). A potential dispute is whether displaying a collection of previously viewed items meets the "sequence" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term:

  ...only temporarily generating... and deleting said presentation from said vendor server, with no storage of said presentation or said information pages at said vendor server, when said user exits an information session...

• Context and Importance: This series of negative limitations is the most restrictive language in the claim and will likely be the central focus of claim construction. The case may turn on whether the accused system's data handling practices fall within this narrow definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern e-commerce platforms often retain browsing data for analytics and personalization, which could place them outside the scope of a "no storage" limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "no storage" should be interpreted in the context of the invention's purpose, which is to create a "temporarily generated bookmark." (’062 Patent, col. 6:3-5). This could support a reading where the limitation is met as long as the specific presentation for re-location is deleted, even if the underlying browsing data is retained on the server for a different purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the plain language "with no storage of... said information pages at said vendor server" is absolute. Any retention of the visited page data on the server after the session ends, for any reason, would mean this limitation is not met. The patent's explicit goal of "reduc[ing] the memory outlay of data for the service" could support this stricter interpretation. (’062 Patent, col. 2:57-59).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Williams-Sonoma intends for its customers to use its website in an infringing manner by "providing access to support for, training and instructions for, its website." (Compl. ¶17).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement. (Compl. p. 8, ¶D). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the ’062 Patent, suggesting any willfulness claim may be based on conduct occurring after the filing of the complaint.

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

This dispute will likely center on the stringent requirements of the asserted claim and the actual operation of modern e-commerce architecture. The key questions for the court will be:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the strict limitation "with no storage of said... information pages at said vendor server" be met by a modern e-commerce platform that likely retains user browsing data for analytics, personalization, or other business purposes after a user session ends?
• A key evidentiary question will be: what proof can Plaintiff offer that the accused system performs the server-side action of "deleting said presentation... from said vendor server" when a session ends? The complaint’s current allegations are based on observable client-side behavior, which may not be sufficient to establish the server-side functionality required by the claim.