Linfo IP LLC v. Shop LC Global Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Shop LC Global, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00442, W.D. Tex., 06/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce systems, which facilitate the discovery and presentation of information, infringe a patent related to computer-assisted methods for analyzing and displaying information from text content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses information overload by automatically analyzing unstructured text (such as user reviews) to identify and present information based on semantic attributes like topics or sentiment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the problem of "information overload," where users find it difficult and time-consuming to locate specific, relevant information within large volumes of unstructured text data, such as online product reviews, news articles, or technical documents (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-24). For example, a user may want to find all negative comments about a specific aspect of a hotel, like its room service, without reading hundreds of reviews (’428 Patent, col. 1:24-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-assisted system that analyzes text by breaking it into tokens (words or phrases) and associating various attributes (e.g., grammatical, semantic, contextual) with those tokens (’428 Patent, col. 3:16-24). It then provides a user interface that allows a user to select a specific attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action (e.g., "highlight" or "extract"), causing the system to manipulate the display of text to feature only the information the user is interested in (’428 Patent, col. 3:21-29; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method to make large datasets more digestible by automating the process of identifying, organizing, and selectively displaying key concepts and sentiments, which is valuable for e-commerce and data analysis (’428 Patent, col. 2:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). The lead independent claims appear to be claim 1 (a method) and claim 14 (a system).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Selecting first and second semantic attributes for a user to choose from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with those semantic attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" with a label representing the name of a semantic attribute.
  • Allowing the user to select one of the semantic attributes.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims by alleging infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product by name. It refers generally to "systems that facilitate discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats" that are maintained, operated, and administered by the Defendant (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused systems are used for "conducting electronic commerce" (Compl. ¶7). It further alleges these systems infringe by allowing for the discovery and presentation of information from text content in various formats (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific details about how the accused systems operate or what their market position is. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exhibit B" containing support for its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit in the provided filing (Compl. ¶9). Therefore, the infringement theory is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems for e-commerce infringe the ’428 patent by "discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats" (Compl. ¶8). This allegation is conclusory and mirrors the general subject matter of the patent. The complaint lacks specific factual assertions that map features of an accused system to the discrete elements of any asserted claim. For example, it does not specify what "semantic attributes" the accused system allegedly uses, what "actionable user interface object" is provided to users, or how users are allegedly instructed to perform the claimed steps.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence during discovery to demonstrate that Defendant's systems practice each limitation of the asserted claims. The complaint's lack of factual detail suggests that the initial dispute will center on the actual functionality of the accused systems.
• Scope Questions: A legal question may arise over whether the functionality of Defendant's e-commerce platform, which may include conventional filtering (e.g., by price or brand), falls within the scope of the patent's claims, which require specific actions based on selected "semantic attributes."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of the claims. The definition will determine what type of information categorization and filtering is covered by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether standard e-commerce features (like sorting by star rating) infringe, or if the claim is limited to more complex linguistic analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that attributes can be "grammatical, semantic, contextual, or topical" (’428 Patent, col. 6:8-9) and gives examples including "opinion," the name of a drug, or being an "over-the-count drug" (’428 Patent, col. 8:24-29). This suggests the term could encompass a wide variety of data classifications.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples and figures heavily emphasize the analysis of "opinion" (positive, negative, neutral) as the key semantic attribute (’428 Patent, Figs. 9A, 9B, 11). A party might argue that the term should be construed in light of these specific embodiments to mean a linguistic or conceptual property, rather than any arbitrary data tag.

"actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism through which a user interacts with the patented system. The dispute will likely concern how specific this interface element must be.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad list of examples, including a "dropdown menu, clickable buttons, radio buttons, or any sort of interface objects that allow a user to specify an option" (’428 Patent, col. 11:47-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the object to be "associated with a label representing the first name or description or the second name or description" of the semantic attribute (’428 Patent, col. 16:11-14). A party could argue this requires a specific label (e.g., "Show positive comments") rather than a generic button, thereby narrowing the scope of infringing interfaces.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use the infringing systems (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). The factual basis for these allegations is limited to the general operation of the accused systems.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement" but does request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and seeks treble damages for any future infringement (Compl. ¶V.d-e). Knowledge is alleged based on the filing of the lawsuit, suggesting a theory of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶10).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidence: given the complaint's conclusory allegations, what facts will emerge during discovery to show that Defendant’s commercial website actually performs the specific, multi-step method of identifying and acting upon "semantic attributes" as required by the claims, rather than employing conventional keyword or metadata filtering?
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim term "semantic attribute," which the patent illustrates with examples of complex linguistic analysis like opinion mining, be construed broadly enough to read on the types of user-selectable sorting and filtering options commonly found on e-commerce websites? The answer to this claim construction question may be dispositive.