Linfo IP LLC v. Untuckit LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Untuckit, LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00393, W.D. Tex., 07/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for presenting information infringes a patent related to discovering, analyzing, and displaying information within text content.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of information overload by providing computer-assisted methods and user interfaces to automatically identify and act upon specific attributes within large bodies of text, such as user reviews.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint asserts that these prior licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they did not involve an admission of infringement or an agreement to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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 describes the problem of "data overload," where finding specific information within large volumes of text (such as hundreds of hotel reviews) is difficult and time-consuming using conventional methods ('428 Patent, col. 1:12-24). Users may wish to find comments on a specific topic (e.g., "room service") and further filter those comments by sentiment (e.g., positive or negative), a task that is inefficient with standard keyword searches ('428 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, or contextual attributes of words and phrases. It then provides user interface objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to specify an attribute of interest (such as "positive opinion" or "drug name") and perform an action (like extracting, hiding, or highlighting) on all text segments possessing that attribute ('428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-28). Figure 1 illustrates a system architecture including a linguistic analysis module (120) that labels text content and a user interface (150) with attribute and action selectors (160, 170) to manipulate the display ('428 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a more sophisticated and efficient way to navigate and digest large textual datasets by moving beyond simple keyword matching to attribute-based analysis and presentation ('428 Patent, col. 1:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the '428 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A computer-assisted method for discovering and presenting information in text.
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Displaying an actionable user interface object for selecting between at least a first and second semantic attribute.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected semantic attribute.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the identified words or phrases.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not identify a specific product by name (e.g., the UNTUCKIT website) or describe its functionality with technical specificity. It alleges in general terms that Defendant's system provides users with interface objects to act on discovered information, such as "extracting, displaying, or hiding, or highlighting, or un-highlighting words or phrases" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Defendant's actions put the claimed inventions into service for commercial benefit (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶10). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'428 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The complaint's primary challenge will be to produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant's system performs the specific functions required by the claims. As no specific product features, screenshots, or operational details are provided, a core question is whether discovery will substantiate the general allegations of providing a UI to select "semantic attributes" and perform actions like "highlighting" or "hiding."
  • Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether common e-commerce features, such as sorting reviews by "most helpful" or filtering by star rating, meet the definition of selecting a "semantic attribute" and performing an "action" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like analyzing for positive/negative opinions ('428 Patent, col. 9:1-5) and highlighting specific terms in place ('428 Patent, Fig. 11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic attribute"

• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the invention. Its construction will determine what types of information filtering and analysis fall within the claim scope. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to the specific linguistic and contextual meanings described in the patent (e.g., positive/negative opinion, topic relevance) or if it can be read more broadly to cover any data tag associated with text (e.g., a star rating, a "verified purchase" tag).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself does not limit the term to specific examples, referring generally to a "first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute." Plaintiff may argue this suggests any two distinct, meaning-based classifiers would suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples focused on linguistic analysis, such as "opinion" ('428 Patent, col. 8:30-34), "connotation" ('428 Patent, col. 8:25-27), and determinations based on dictionaries and contextual rules ('428 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 9:29-56). Defendant may argue these examples limit the term's scope to this type of sophisticated linguistic processing.

• The Term: "actionable user interface object"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the user interaction is critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define whether a simple hyperlink or a standard filter button constitutes the claimed "object." The infringement analysis depends on whether Defendant's UI provides the specific type of interactive control claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "object" is general, and Plaintiff may argue that any clickable UI element (button, link, checkbox) that triggers a claimed "action" (displaying, hiding, etc.) meets the definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the object as allowing a user to select an attribute and an action ('428 Patent, col. 5:2-15). Figures show distinct UI elements like dropdown menus for selection (Fig. 7) and buttons that explicitly state both the attribute and action, such as "extract important terms and display in topic tree" (Fig. 4, 420). Defendant could argue this implies a more complex UI element than a simple filter.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement on the same basis (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the '428 patent and its underlying technology "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). This forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement, for which Plaintiff seeks treble damages (Compl. VI.e).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central question is factual: can Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence that Defendant's unspecified system actually performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1? The complaint's lack of detail regarding the accused instrumentality's operation makes this the primary issue to be developed.
2. Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be the construction of "semantic attribute." The case may turn on whether this term is broad enough to encompass common e-commerce review filtering/sorting mechanisms or if it is limited to the more complex linguistic and contextual analysis, such as opinion mining, that is detailed in the patent's specification.
3. Procedural Posture: A key non-technical question will be the impact of Plaintiff's status as a non-practicing entity and its history of prior settlements. This may influence strategic considerations related to damages, willfulness, and potential challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 287 concerning patent marking.