DCT
7:24-cv-00107
Linfo IP LLC v. JRSK Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: JRSK, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00107, W.D. Tex., 04/22/2024
- 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 acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for analyzing and presenting information within text content infringes a patent related to methods for discovering, filtering, and displaying information based on its semantic attributes.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses information overload by providing tools to automatically analyze large volumes of text (e.g., product reviews, articles) and allow users to selectively view or highlight content based on characteristics like positive or negative sentiment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-09 | ’428 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-07-28 | ’428 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-04-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 identifies the problem of "data overload," where users face difficulty finding specific, relevant information within large volumes of unstructured text, such as online product reviews or long documents ('428 Patent, col. 1:12-21). For example, a user may want to find only the negative comments about a hotel's room service from hundreds of reviews, a task the patent describes as "very time-consuming by conventional search methods" ('428 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-assisted method to analyze text and identify the "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes" of words or phrases ('428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides user interface objects that allow a user to specify an attribute (e.g., "positive opinion") and perform an action (e.g., "highlight" or "extract") on all text segments matching that attribute ('428 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:42-65). This allows for targeted filtering and presentation of information that would otherwise be buried in the text.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide more efficient tools for users to digest and analyze large datasets of user-generated content or other text by moving beyond simple keyword search to a more attribute-driven analysis ('428 Patent, col. 2:55-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the '428 Patent (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is central.
- Independent Claim 1:
- Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
- Selecting a first and a second semantic attribute for users to select from, where each attribute has a name or description.
- Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the selected attributes.
- Displaying an actionable user interface object associated with the attributes.
- Allowing a user to select one of the attributes via the user interface.
- Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, storing, showing, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
- Plaintiff has not explicitly reserved the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general assertion of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "Defendant's products and services" and "a system with methods and user interface" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused instrumentality provides a "system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information" (Compl. ¶10).
- The functionality is described at a high level, alleging that Defendant puts the claimed inventions "into service" and that its actions cause the claimed embodiments "as a whole to perform" (Compl. ¶10). No specific operational details of the accused system are provided.
- The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific commercial importance or market positioning of the accused instrumentality.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in an "Exhibit B" which was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶11). The following chart is constructed based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body against independent claim 1.
’428 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer-assisted method for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information, comprising: obtaining, by a computer system, a text content... | Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers a system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content..." | ¶10 | col. 5:26-31 |
| selecting a first semantic attribute and a second semantic attribute for users to select from... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, but generally alleges the system performs infringing processes. | ¶3, ¶10 | col. 7:60-65 |
| identifying a words or phrases in the text content associated with the first semantic attribute or the second semantic attribute; | The system allegedly discovers information in text content, which suggests an identification function. | ¶9-10 | col. 16:11-15 |
| displaying an actionable user interface object... | Defendant's system includes a "user interface for discovering information... and extracting and presenting the information..." | ¶10 | col. 16:16-21 |
| allowing the user to select the first name or description or the second name or description as a user-specified or user-desired attribute; and | The complaint alleges Defendant provides users with interface objects to act on discovered information, such as by "extracting, displaying, or hiding, or highlighting..." | ¶9 | col. 16:22-26 |
| performing, by the computer system, an action on the word or phrase associated with the user-specified or user-desired semantic attribute... | Defendant's system allegedly performs actions such as "extracting and presenting the information" based on user interaction with the interface. | ¶10 | col. 16:27-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are framed at a high level of generality without identifying a specific product or its precise functions. A central issue will be whether discovery produces evidence that an actual JRSK product performs the specific steps recited in the claims, particularly the steps of "selecting" and "identifying" words based on "semantic attributes."
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "semantic attribute." The question will be whether the accused system's method of categorizing or analyzing text (whatever it may be) falls within the scope of this term as construed from the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: What specific technical process does the accused system use to "identify" words or phrases associated with a given attribute? Does this process map to the methods described in the '428 patent, such as using a pre-compiled dictionary or analyzing grammatical roles (e.g., '428 Patent, col. 9:30-44)?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "semantic attribute"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention, as it defines the basis upon which information is discovered, filtered, and acted upon. The entire infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused system operates on data that qualifies as a "semantic attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will likely be a dispositive issue for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of attributes, stating the invention associates "grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes to the tokens" ('428 Patent, col. 3:20-22). It later gives examples of "semantic attributes" such as a word carrying an "opinion" (e.g., "good" or "bad"), being the name of a drug, or being a "pain-reliever" ('428 Patent, col. 8:14-28). A plaintiff could argue this supports a broad definition covering any assigned meaning, classification, or property of a word beyond its literal definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term is tied to the specific examples disclosed, particularly the "positive," "negative," or "neutral" opinion analysis that is a primary focus of the detailed description ('428 Patent, col. 9:3-7). The patent also describes embodiments that rely on a pre-compiled "opinion-specific dictionary" ('428 Patent, col. 9:30-31), which could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring such a pre-defined classification structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). It also pleads contributory infringement on a similar basis (Compl. ¶13).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the '428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). This pleading appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willfulness. The plaintiff explicitly "reserves the right to amend if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge" (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1; ¶13, fn. 2).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the absence of specific product identification in the complaint, can the plaintiff, through discovery, produce concrete evidence showing that an accused JRSK system performs each of the discrete steps recited in the asserted claims, particularly the "selecting" and "identifying" of text based on pre-defined attributes?
- The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "semantic attribute"? The outcome will depend on whether the term is interpreted broadly to cover any form of automated text classification, or narrowly to the specific examples of opinion analysis and dictionary-based lookups described in the patent's embodiments.
- A third key question relates to knowledge and intent: Assuming direct infringement is shown, can the plaintiff establish that the defendant had the requisite knowledge for its claims of induced and willful infringement, especially for any period preceding the filing of the lawsuit?