Linfo IP LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00113, W.D. Tex., 04/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system and user interface for presenting information to users infringes a patent related to the automated discovery, analysis, and selective presentation of information within text content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computational linguistics and data analysis, specifically methods for identifying topics and sentiment within large bodies of text (such as user reviews) and providing interactive tools for users to filter or highlight that information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the Plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. No other significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Priority Date
2015-07-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 Issue Date
2024-04-26	Complaint Filed

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 addresses the problem of "information overload," where users face large amounts of unstructured text, such as thousands of hotel reviews, making it difficult and time-consuming to find specific information or discern overall sentiment about particular topics (e.g., room service) (’428 Patent, col. 1:12-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted method that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words and phrases. It then provides a user interface with objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to specify an attribute of interest (e.g., "positive opinion") and an action to perform (e.g., "extract," "highlight," "show/hide") on the text associated with that attribute (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:16-29). The system is described as being able to interpret context, such as negation (e.g., distinguishing "good" from "not good"), to provide more accurate results (’428 Patent, col. 13:14-32).
• Technical Importance: The described methods provide a tool for automated sentiment analysis and topic extraction from user-generated content, a foundational challenge in e-commerce and data analytics for improving user experience and gathering business intelligence (’428 Patent, col. 1:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶9). The lead independent claim is Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-assisted method comprising the following essential elements:
  • Obtaining a text content.
  • Selecting a first and second "semantic attribute" for users to choose from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with those attributes.
  • Displaying an "actionable user interface object" associated with a label representing the semantic attributes.
  • Allowing a user to select an attribute via the user interface object.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific product or service by name. It 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 provide any specific details regarding the features or functions of the accused instrumentality. It alleges in general terms that the system allows for discovering, extracting, and presenting information from text content (Compl. ¶¶8-9). No specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market position of the accused system are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶10). However, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations. The implicit theory is that a Bed Bath & Beyond online platform (such as its retail website) obtains text content (e.g., product reviews), provides users with interface options to filter or sort this content based on certain criteria (the alleged "semantic attributes"), and then displays the content according to the user's selection.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question will be one of evidence. What specific feature of a Bed Bath & Beyond system is alleged to perform the claimed method? Does the accused system perform the kind of contextual semantic analysis described in the patent (e.g., understanding negation), or does it rely on more basic keyword searching or metadata filtering (e.g., sorting by star rating)? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these technical operations.
• Scope Questions: Does a user's selection of a filter, such as "sort by highest rating," constitute selecting a "semantic attribute" as that term is used in the patent? The interpretation of this term, in light of the patent's detailed description of linguistic analysis, will likely be a central issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention; its definition will determine what kind of information filtering or analysis falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether the accused system's functionality (e.g., sorting by star rating, filtering by keyword) meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term broadly as an "attribute type or attribute value" associated with a name or description (’428 Patent, col. 16:3-9). This could be argued to encompass any selectable data category.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of semantic attributes related to linguistic sentiment ("positive," "negative," "neutral opinion") and topical importance, derived from contextual analysis (’428 Patent, col. 8:23-34; col. 9:1-5). A party could argue the term should be limited to these types of meaning-based, context-aware attributes rather than simple metadata.

"actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism through which a user interacts with the system. Its construction will determine whether a standard web element, like a hyperlink or a generic sort menu, can satisfy the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not specify a particular type of UI object.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict specific implementations, including selectable buttons (’428 Patent, Fig. 3, element 320), dropdown menus (’428 Patent, Fig. 7), and checkboxes (’428 Patent, Fig. 9A, element 910). A party may argue that the term requires a UI element specifically presented to the user for the purpose of selecting the claimed attributes and actions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant actively encouraging or instructing its customers on how to use its products and services in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’428 patent (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is also alleged (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’428 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). This frames the claim as one of post-suit willfulness, while reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Specificity: The complaint is devoid of specific facts identifying the accused product or linking its specific functionality to the claim elements. The initial phase of the case will likely focus on whether Plaintiff can, through discovery, identify a Bed Bath & Beyond system that performs the specific text-analysis and user-interaction steps required by the patent.
2. A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of the term "semantic attribute". A central issue for the court will be whether this term, informed by a specification focused on complex linguistic analysis and sentiment detection, can be construed broadly enough to read on the more common e-commerce features of sorting or filtering user reviews by metadata like star ratings.
3. A Functional Question of Technical Operation: Assuming an accused system is identified, a key question will be one of functional comparison. Does the accused system’s filtering mechanism perform the contextual analysis (e.g., recognizing that "not good" is a negative opinion) described as a key feature of the patented invention, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technical operation?