DCT
6:23-cv-00760
Kioba Processing LLC v. Compass Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kioba Processing LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Compass, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daignault Iyer LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00760, W.D. Tex., 11/09/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains employees and a regular and established place of business in the district, transacts business there, and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online real estate search platform infringes a patent related to computer-implemented methods for displaying real estate value data on a map.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the visual representation of real estate data, a core feature of modern online property search portals used by consumers and real estate professionals.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s Interim Co-General Counsel on February 7, 2020, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and an infringement claim chart. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-09-18 | ’017 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-11-08 | ’017 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-02-07 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter and claim chart to Defendant |
| 2020-02-26 | Defendant allegedly acknowledged receipt of letter and stated review was ongoing |
| 2020-05-22 | Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly sent follow-up correspondence to Defendant |
| 2023-11-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,056,017 - “Real Estate Value Map Computer System,” issued November 8, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies an inefficiency in then-current online real estate databases, which typically displayed property information in a text-only format (e.g., lists of addresses and prices). This format, the patent asserts, made it difficult for a user to understand how property sale prices vary across different geographic areas (’017 Patent, col. 1:24-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer system and method that generates a map image displaying symbols at various geographic locations corresponding to real estate parcels. Each symbol represents a specific range of property values, allowing a user to visually and quickly perceive trends in real estate prices across a geographic region (’017 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:34-58). The patent describes using symbols with different colors and shapes, where color indicates a broad value range and shape indicates a narrower sub-range within that color's range (’017 Patent, col. 1:49-53; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to replace inefficient text-based data displays with a more intuitive, at-a-glance graphical interface for analyzing real estate market data.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method of operating a computer server, comprising:
- accessing at least one value within a value database, the value associated with a geographic location, in response to receiving a data input requesting information for a first geographic area;
- associating at least one symbol with the geographic location, where the association is based at least in part on the value; and
- generating output data for the first geographic area, where the data is configured to be processed by a remote computing device and is based on the symbol, the geographic location, and the value.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Compass Real Estate Research Products and Services," which include the Compass website (www.compass.com) and the "Compass Real Estate Research System" (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused system is a web-based platform that allows users to search for real estate listings (Compl. ¶29-30). A user can input a geographic area (e.g., city, zip code), and the system displays a map of that area populated with the locations of available properties (Compl. ¶30).
- The system displays property values directly on the map, often using interactive icons or tags. For example, the complaint includes a screenshot of a map of Waco, TX, where individual property locations are marked with price tags, such as a green tag labeled "247K" (Compl. ¶31, p. 12). This visual is described as a map view showing numerous property values overlaid as distinct, priced icons (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges that this functionality provides an interactive, visual method for conducting real estate research (Compl. ¶31-32).
- The complaint asserts that Compass is a major real estate brokerage service, operating hundreds of offices across the United States (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’017 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of operating a computer server, comprising: | The Compass Real Estate Research System is alleged to be a website and database operated by Compass that employs and provides a method for operating a computer server. | ¶29 | col. 5:5-6 |
| accessing at least one value within a value database, the at least one value associated with at least one geographic location, in response to receiving a data input... | The system allegedly accesses a home value from a database, associated with a listing location, in response to a user's search query for a geographic area (e.g., Waco, TX). | ¶30 | col. 5:7-12 |
| associating at least one symbol with the at least one geographic location wherein the associating is based at least in part on the at least one value associated with the at least one geographic location; and | The system allegedly associates a symbol (e.g., a price tag icon such as "247K") with a geographic location (a listing) based on the value (the home price) for that location. A screenshot shows price tags like "247K" on a map. | ¶31, p. 14 | col. 5:13-17 |
| generating output data for the first geographic area, the data configured to be processed by a remote computing device... the data based at least in part on at least one of the at least one symbol, at least one of the at least one geographic location, and at least one of the at least one value... | The system allegedly generates and sends output data (the map view with prices) to the user's remote device (e.g., a computer or phone browser), with the data including the symbol, location, and value for each listing. | ¶32 | col. 5:18-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "symbol." The complaint alleges that a price tag icon (e.g., "247K") is a "symbol." The defense may argue that the term, in the context of the patent, requires a non-textual graphic element (e.g., a specific shape and color) that corresponds to a pre-defined value range as shown in the patent's figures and legend, rather than a direct numerical representation of the price.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused system's display of a numerical price tag constitutes "associating at least one symbol" as required by the claim. The question for the court will be whether this claimed step requires the specific two-tiered system of value ranges and sub-ranges (represented by color and shape) described in the patent's preferred embodiment or if it can be read more broadly.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "symbol"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends almost entirely on whether the price tags displayed on the accused Compass map (e.g., "247K") meet the definition of a "symbol" as used in claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification provides significant detail on what a "symbol" entails in the preferred embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "symbol" without express limitations to shape or color, stating only that the association is "based at least in part on the at least one value" (’017 Patent, col. 5:13-17). Plaintiff may argue that this broad language encompasses any visual element, including a numerical price tag, that represents value.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes symbols as having distinct characteristics to represent value ranges, not just the values themselves. It states, "Each color is associated with a different range of sales prices. Each range is further divided in to subranges, with each shape within each color associated with one of the sub-ranges" (’017 Patent, col. 1:49-53). Figure 2 and its accompanying description detail a legend where specific shapes and colors are explicitly mapped to value ranges (e.g., white circle for $170k-$180k) (’017 Patent, col. 3:36-43). The defense could argue this context limits "symbol" to a graphical indicator representing a range, not a textual display of a specific value.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Compass induces infringement by instructing and encouraging its customers to use the accused Compass Real Estate Research System through its websites and marketing materials (Compl. ¶34, 36).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Compass’s purported knowledge of the ’017 patent since at least February 7, 2020, when Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly sent a notice letter with a claim chart to Compass’s in-house counsel (Compl. ¶20, 25). The complaint further alleges that Compass acknowledged receipt of the letter but did not provide a substantive response, suggesting continued infringement despite knowledge (Compl. ¶22, 24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "symbol," which is described in the patent specification as a graphical element with a shape and color corresponding to a pre-defined value range, be construed to cover the textual price tags used in the accused real estate mapping system?
A key legal question will be one of infringement: assuming the term "symbol" is construed broadly enough to read on the accused functionality, does the evidence show that the Compass system performs each step of the claimed method, particularly "associating" a symbol and "generating output data" in the manner required by the claim language?