TG 2006 Holdings LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TG--2006 Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00065, W.D. Tex., 02/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s products infringe patents related to a system for visually tracking business information using a hierarchical folder interface where folder attributes change based on time-triggered events.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to project and process management software, where visual cues in a user interface are used to provide at-a-glance status updates for complex, multi-step tasks.
• Key Procedural History: The '741 Patent is a continuation of the application that issued as the '514 Patent, suggesting a shared specification and a related, but distinct, scope of claimed subject matter.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,583,514: System and method for tracking information in a business environment (Issued Nov. 12, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that tracking business information can be "time consuming and confusing," and if not displayed clearly, the tracking system "defeats it own purpose." (’514 Patent, col. 1:12-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a hierarchical "tree view" of folders to represent tasks and processes. The key innovation is that "visual attributes of the parent folders are altered in response to conditions of the items contained within the folders and subfolders," such as time triggers and deadlines. (’514 Patent, col. 1:30-33). For example, if a task (child folder) exceeds a set time limit, its parent folder automatically changes color, providing a visual alert to a user even if the folder hierarchy is collapsed. (’514 Patent, col. 4:51-62).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides an intuitive, visual method for managing complex processes (e.g., production, sales) by allowing managers to quickly identify bottlenecks or delays without manually inspecting every individual task. (’514 Patent, col. 1:33-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary claims without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶12); independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
  • Establishing a parent folder and an associated child element (e.g., another folder or document).
  • Correlating the child element with a time-critical task.
  • Associating a time trigger with that task.
  • Providing a means to clear the time trigger upon task completion.
  • Changing an attribute (e.g., color, size, animation) of the parent folder based on the state of the child element when the time trigger is met before completion.

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741: System and method for tracking information in a business environment (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '514 Patent's application, the '741 Patent addresses the same problem of confusing and inefficient business information tracking. ('741 Patent, col. 1:12-21).
• The Patented Solution: The '741 Patent describes the same hierarchical folder system where visual attributes change based on timed events. However, its claims are more specific. The invention is illustrated in the context of creating an "in-house product" (IHP) which has defined tasks, associated products, and labor codes, all of which are tracked through the system. ('741 Patent, col. 3:25-28, 5:1-6). The solution involves changing the color of a child folder when a time alert is triggered, which in turn causes the parent folder's color to change. ('741 Patent, claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent refines the broader concept of the '514 Patent by detailing its application within a specific manufacturing or production context, linking tasks to concrete elements like products and labor codes. ('741 Patent, col. 5:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary claims without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶21); independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
  • Establishing parent and child folders.
  • Establishing an "in-house product" and associating it with tasks, products, and labor codes.
  • Associating an alert interval and a time trigger with the in-house product.
  • Starting a system clock.
  • Changing the color of the child folder when the system time meets or exceeds the alert interval.
  • Changing the color of the parent folder when the child folder's color changes.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific Microsoft products. It refers to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). These exhibits were not filed with the public version of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the exhibits, the specific functionality of the accused products cannot be described. The complaint further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct users how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided. Therefore, a claim chart cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'514 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the '514 Patent by providing a system that satisfies all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17). The narrative theory suggests these products implement a hierarchical structure where tasks can be established with associated time triggers, and where the visual attributes of a parent container are changed in response to the status of a child element contained within it. (Compl. ¶17-18).

'741 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the '741 Patent by practicing the claimed method. (Compl. ¶26). This theory implies the accused products provide a system for tracking "in-house products" with associated tasks, and that this system uses a system clock to monitor alert intervals, triggering color changes in child folders that subsequently propagate to parent folders. (Compl. ¶26-27).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's accused products, likely general-purpose project management or software development tools, fall within the scope of the patents, which describe the invention in the context of a "business environment" with specific examples related to manufacturing, inventory, and sales. (’514 Patent, col. 1:33-41). The construction of "in-house product" in the '741 Patent may be particularly relevant, as the patent specification links the term to physical production subassemblies. (’741 Patent, col.1:40-42).
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the functionality of the accused products matches the specific mechanism claimed. For the '514 Patent, this involves determining if the products "chang[e] an attribute of the parent folder based upon the state of the child element." For the more specific '741 Patent, the question will be whether the products perform the sequential two-step process of first "changing the color of the child folder" and then "changing the color of the parent folder" in response.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "changing an attribute of the parent folder based upon the state of the child element" (’514 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core functional output of the invention. The infringement analysis for the '514 Patent will likely depend on whether the accused products' notification or status-display features meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this is not limited to one type of change, stating the alert "may also include audible and textual information" and "will typically comprise a change in the color, size, animation, or other visual attribute of the folder." (’514 Patent, col. 4:51-55).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes a direct, cascading visual change where folder icons themselves change color (e.g., from green to red). (’514 Patent, col. 4:1-4). A party could argue the term requires a direct modification of the folder's properties in the hierarchy, not merely a separate, non-integrated notification.

The Term: "in-house product" ('741 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the '741 Patent's claims and appears to narrow their applicability. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the patent reads on software development and project management tools or is limited to systems for tracking the manufacture of physical goods.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with limiting language, which may support an argument that it covers any work product created internally by a company, including software or project plans.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the invention in a manufacturing context, describing "in-house products" as "production subassemblies" and discussing related activities like "sales and shipping of end-products to customers," "inventory," and "supplies." ('741 Patent, col. 1:38-44).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents. (Compl. ¶16, ¶25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the patents-in-suit since the service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). This forms the basis for an allegation of post-filing willful infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "in-house product" and "business environment", which are described in the patents with examples from physical manufacturing and inventory management, be construed broadly enough to encompass the potentially different context of Defendant's modern software and project management products?
2. A key evidentiary question will concern the technical mechanism of infringement: What evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, cascading visual-attribute changes claimed in the patents—particularly the two-step color change required by the '741 Patent—as opposed to operating as a more generic notification or status-alert system?
3. The case may also turn on a question of claim differentiation: Given that the '741 Patent is a continuation with more specific claim language (e.g., "color," "in-house product") than the '514 Patent, a court will have to determine if the accused products infringe the broader claims of the '514 patent, the narrower claims of the '741 patent, both, or neither.