DCT
6:23-cv-00565
Recog IP LLC v. Nordstrom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Recog IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Nordstrom, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00565, W.D. Tex., 08/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically a retail store in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "Recently Viewed" items feature on Defendant's e-commerce website infringes a patent related to methods for generating a temporary, navigable history of a user's session.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of helping website users re-locate previously visited pages within a single website, particularly in complex e-commerce environments, by creating a dynamic and visual "site map" of their journey.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 |
| 2007-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062 Issued |
| 2023-08-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,296,062, “Method for Generating a Presentation for Re-locating an Information Page that has Already Been Called,” issued November 13, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty internet users face when trying to return to a specific page visited during a browsing session, noting that standard browser "back" buttons and address lists are "only conditionally suited" for this task, especially after extensive "surfing" within a single vendor's site (’062 Patent, col. 1:12-41, 1:42-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a vendor's server registers a user (e.g., via a cookie) upon visiting a home page, logs the sequence of pages the user visits, and then "temporarily" generates a "displayable presentation" (e.g., a dynamic site map) that visually represents the user's path, allowing them to easily recognize and re-locate a previously visited page ('062 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-28). The system is designed to delete this presentation from the server after the user's session ends to conserve resources ('062 Patent, col. 2:55-63).
- Technical Importance: The method provided a way to improve user navigation and site "stickiness" by offering a more intuitive and context-aware history function than was standard in web browsers at the time ('062 Patent, col. 1:12-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- (a) Registering a user at a vendor server when the user calls a home page.
- (b) Registering the information pages called by the user proceeding from the home page.
- (c) At the vendor server, "only temporarily generating" a displayable presentation that visually identifies the sequence of called pages, and "deleting said presentation from said vendor server... when said user exits an information session".
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Nordstrom.com website and the method it employs to generate a "Recently Viewed" section or dialog box (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that when a user navigates from the Nordstrom home page to various product pages, the website's server tracks these viewed items (Compl. ¶15). After a user visits at least one product page and navigates to another, a "Recently Viewed" section appears, displaying thumbnail images of the previously viewed products (Compl. ¶13). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the appearance of this "Recently Viewed" section after a user has visited more than one product page. (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 4). The complaint alleges this feature is temporary, as its contents are not shown if a user clears their browser cookies or browses in incognito mode (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’062 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) when a user, via a user computer in communication with said vendor server, calls a home page, comprising home page contents, of an information vendor, registering said user at said vendor server; | Nordstrom’s website allegedly allows users to visit its home page, and the user is registered on the vendor server via cookies. | ¶14 | col. 4:32-39 |
| (b) at said vendor server registering information pages of said information vendor called by said user directly and indirectly proceeding from said home page; | Nordstrom’s website allegedly stores the visited product information pages on a server and analyzes a "Recently Viewed Cookie" to build a new page that integrates the "Recently Viewed" section. | ¶15 | col. 5:5-9 |
| (c) at said vendor server only temporarily generating a displayable presentation, for display at said user computer which visually identifies a sequence of said information pages... and deleting said presentation from said vendor server... when said user exits an information session... | The "Recently Viewed" dialog box is alleged to be a temporary presentation. The complaint provides a screenshot showing that the box contains links to product pages. (Compl. Fig. 3, p. 5). It further alleges this presentation is deleted, evidenced by the fact that it no longer appears after a user clears cookies or browses in incognito mode. A screenshot demonstrates that previously viewed items are not shown if cookies are cleared. (Compl. Fig. 4, p. 6). | ¶16 | col. 6:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint uses client-side evidence (clearing cookies makes the "Recently Viewed" section disappear) to support the claim limitation of "deleting said presentation from said vendor server." A central question will be whether the data constituting the "presentation" is actually deleted from Nordstrom's server when a user's session ends, or if it is merely no longer displayed to that user while the data persists on the server for other purposes, such as analytics.
- Scope Question: The claim recites deletion occurs when a user "exits an information session." The definition of this phrase is not provided in the patent. The case may turn on what actions (e.g., closing a browser tab, clearing cookies, a period of inactivity) constitute "exiting" a session, and whether the accused system's behavior aligns with the timing required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "deleting said presentation from said vendor server"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on it. The complaint's evidence of deletion is the disappearance of the "Recently Viewed" section on the user's computer after clearing cookies (Compl. ¶16). The defense may argue that this client-side action does not prove that the underlying data was actually "deleted" from Nordstrom's server, as required by the plain language of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the patent’s emphasis is on making the presentation temporary to "reduce the memory outlay of data for the service" ('062 Patent, col. 2:58-60). From this perspective, any server-side process that renders the specific user's presentation data inaccessible or marks it for eventual deletion could be argued to meet the spirit of the "deleting" limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires an affirmative step of "deleting" from the "vendor server." The defense may argue this requires permanent removal of the data record itself, not just the dissociation of a cookie from that data, and that the complaint provides no direct evidence of such server-side deletion.
The Term: "information session"
- Context and Importance: The timing of the required "deleting" step is tied to when a user "exits an information session." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is ambiguous. Whether infringement occurs depends on whether the accused system deletes the presentation at the moment the session, as defined, is considered to have ended.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass a range of events like closing the browser, navigating to a different domain, or a server-side timeout.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the presentation is "deleted after the user has ended his information session with the information vendor" ('062 Patent, col. 6:3-5). This language could be used to argue for a specific, discrete event rather than a prolonged state, potentially limiting how the term is construed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Nordstrom provides its website with the intent that customers use it in a manner that performs the claimed steps, and that "Nordstrom's actions have solely caused all of the steps to be performed" even when performed jointly with the customer (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Nordstrom has known about the '062 patent since at least the filing of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶17). This allegation supports a claim for willful infringement based only on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on two central questions:
- An evidentiary question of technical operation: What direct evidence can be produced to show that Nordstrom's server affirmatively "deletes" a user's viewing history presentation, as required by Claim 1, rather than merely ceasing to display it based on the absence of a client-side cookie? The complaint's current allegations rely on an inference from client-side behavior.
- A definitional question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "exits an information session"? The answer will determine the specific moment when the claimed "deleting" must occur, and whether the accused system's architecture and data retention policies meet that temporal requirement.