Linfo IP LLC v. Waimate B LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linfo IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: WAIMATE B LLC d/b/a SOLUDOS (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00260, W.D. Tex., 10/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant, a Texas LLC, 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 website system for presenting information infringes a patent related to methods for discovering, analyzing, and displaying information within text content, such as user reviews.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves natural language processing and user interface design to help users manage information overload by automatically analyzing and organizing text content based on semantic attributes like topic or sentiment.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these agreements involved no admission of infringement and did not grant licenses to produce a patented article, which may be relevant to potential damages or patent marking arguments.

Case Timeline

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: In an era of "information overload," users struggle to find specific, relevant information within large volumes of text, such as hundreds of online hotel reviews. ('428 Patent, col. 1:12-24). Manually reading all reviews to find comments on a specific topic (e.g., "room service") or to separate positive from negative feedback is "virtually impossible" or "very time-consuming." ('428 Patent, col. 1:20-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-assisted system that analyzes text to identify grammatical, semantic, and contextual attributes of words and phrases. ('428 Patent, Abstract). It then provides user interface objects (e.g., buttons, menus) that allow a user to perform actions—such as extracting, highlighting, or selectively displaying—on text that matches a specified attribute. ('428 Patent, col. 6:3-15). For example, a user could click a button to "show only the negative comments" or "highlight all terms related to the topic 'bed'". ('428 Patent, col. 3:9-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to make large, unstructured text corpora, like user-generated reviews, more digestible and useful by enabling automated, attribute-based filtering and presentation. ('428 Patent, col. 1:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20. (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • A computer-assisted method for discovering and presenting information in a text content.
  • Obtaining a text content comprising words or phrases.
  • Selecting a first and second semantic attribute for users to select from.
  • Identifying words or phrases in the text associated with the first or second semantic attribute.
  • Displaying an actionable user interface object associated with a label representing the name of the semantic attributes.
  • Allowing the user to select one of the semantic attributes.
  • Performing an action (e.g., extracting, displaying, hiding, highlighting) on the words or phrases associated with the user-selected attribute.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which would include dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Products" and "a system with methods and user interface for discovering information in a text content and extracting and presenting the information." (Compl. ¶3, ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused system. (Compl. ¶9). While paragraph 3 of the complaint identifies the accused products as "eye wear products," the infringement allegations focus on a software system. (Compl. ¶3, ¶8-9). The complaint points to a product page on Defendant's website, https://soludos.com, as evidence of the infringing system, which may suggest the allegations are directed at a user review platform or similar feature on the website. (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific operation of the accused system.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not include the exhibit in the provided filing. (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant operates a system that allows for the discovery and presentation of information in text content in a manner that infringes the '428 Patent. (Compl. ¶8-9). The complaint suggests this system involves providing "interface objects to act on the discovered information, such as extracting, displaying, or hiding, or highlighting, or un-highlighting words or phrases in a text content." (Compl. ¶8). The complaint further alleges that Defendant instructs its customers on how to use these features, thereby inducing infringement. (Compl. ¶11). The allegations appear to target functionality related to user reviews or similar text content on Defendant's commercial website. (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be whether the accused Soludos website actually performs the specific steps recited in the asserted claims. The complaint does not provide screenshots or detailed descriptions of the accused user interface, creating an evidentiary question as to whether it displays "actionable user interface object[s]" that allow users to select "semantic attribute[s]" (like sentiment or topic) to filter or highlight text as claimed.
• Scope Question: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the functionality on Defendant's website, if any, for sorting or filtering user reviews meets the specific claim limitation of selecting a "semantic attribute" and performing an "action" based on that attribute. For instance, does a simple "sort by star rating" feature fall within the scope of selecting a "positive opinion" or "negative opinion" as a semantic attribute?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"semantic attribute" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, defining the basis upon which text is analyzed and filtered. The patent distinguishes this from simple keyword matching. (Compl. ¶8; '428 Patent, col. 16:3-10). The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the accused system's filtering criteria can be characterized as "semantic attributes."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists a wide variety of examples, including "connotation," "opinion," a term's topical importance, or being a specific type of concept like a "drug." ('428 Patent, col. 8:15-34). This could support a broad reading covering various types of content classification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 3 specifies a "semantic category of sentiment or opinion" with contrasting values like "positive opinion versus a negative option." ('428 Patent, col. 16:26-32). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to more sophisticated linguistic properties rather than simple metadata like a star rating.

"actionable user interface object" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism through which a user interacts with the system to trigger the patented method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory hinges on the presence of such an object on Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶8-9).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the object can be "a set of radio buttons, a slider, or any sort of object that allows a user to selectively indicate an option." ('428 Patent, col. 9:1-3). This language suggests flexibility in the form of the UI element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict explicit, labeled controls for performing specific analytical tasks, such as a button for "Extract Top 10 Important Terms" (Fig. 3, 320) or a dropdown menu to "Extract positive opinions" (Fig. 7). A defendant could argue the term requires a purpose-built control for semantic filtering, not a generic hyperlink or sort menu.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use the accused system to cause infringement. (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused product is not a staple commercial product and that Defendant had reason to know its customers' use would be infringing. (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willfulness, but bases knowledge of the '428 patent on "at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). This suggests the claim is based on alleged post-filing conduct.

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

This case appears to present two primary questions for the court:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "semantic attribute" be construed to cover the filtering or sorting mechanisms, if any, present on the accused website? The outcome will likely depend on whether general user review features like sorting by rating are found to meet the patent's more specific description of linguistic analysis.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: Given the absence of specific factual allegations or visual evidence in the complaint, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Soludos website actually performs the multi-step method of Claim 1, which requires providing a specific type of "actionable user interface object" for selecting semantic attributes and performing an action on the associated text?