DCT
7:25-cv-00153
Adaptive Avenue Associates Inc v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00153, W.D. Tex., 04/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, www.petco.com, infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and displaying automated, sequential slideshows of web content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns server-side methods for assembling and presenting sequences of web pages or images, aiming to improve user navigation and engagement over manual browsing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629. It also references the prosecution history of the '707 patent, stating that claims were allowed over prior art that composed slideshows manually, based on the '707 patent's automatic extraction of web page details.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-10-20 | Priority Date for '629 and '707 Patents |
| 2007-01-30 | '629 Patent Issued |
| 2008-09-23 | '707 Patent Issued |
| 2025-04-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,171,629 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore", issued January 30, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and tedium of prior art web navigation, where users had to manually click through web pages or repeatedly return to a search engine results list. For developers, creating automated presentations like animations was costly and difficult to update ('629 Patent, col. 7:40-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system with two main components: a "composer" and a "performer," both operating on a host server ('629 Patent, Fig. 1). The composer is used to create a "presentation" by establishing a list of URLs, a display sequence, and a display duration ('629 Patent, Abstract). The performer then automatically displays this presentation to a user as an interactive slideshow, eliminating the need for client-side software installation and allowing for dynamic content presentation ('629 Patent, col. 9:11-30; Compl. ¶18).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to "virtually eliminate[] the attention that visitors normally invest in pointing, clicking, and scrolling," thereby increasing user engagement and making it easier for site owners to guide visitors through content ('629 Patent, col. 13:30-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶26).
- Essential elements of claim 11 include:
- remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server;
- creating a presentation in said composer, comprising the steps of:
- establishing a list of URLs... by one of a plurality of list establishment methodologies [including] manual entry... and automatic entry by a query-based system;
- determining a display sequence of said list of URLs; and
- determining a duration of display for said list of URLs;
- remotely invoking a performer operating on said host server to present said created presentation; and
- automatically locally displaying the created presentation... in a slide show format, wherein each slide is automatically displayed for a pre-determined display duration.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,428,707 - "Customizable Web Site Access System And Method Therefore", issued September 23, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part, this patent addresses the same general problems as the '629 Patent but focuses on the creation of the slideshow itself. The complaint highlights that prior art slideshows were composed manually and stored in static files ('707 Patent, col. 1:36-52; Compl. ¶45).
- The Patented Solution: The '707 Patent refines the invention by introducing an "auto-composing" system. This system automatically creates the list of URLs for a slideshow by extracting details directly from a "desired web page." This extraction can be done by finding hyperlinks (hrefs), reading a special presentation text file, or parsing a meta tag within the page's code ('707 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:20-41; Compl. ¶44).
- Technical Importance: This "auto-composing" feature was presented during prosecution as an unconventional improvement over prior art that required manual composition, leading to the patent's allowance (Compl. ¶45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
- Essential elements of claim 7 include:
- composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, wherein said step of composing comprises one or more of the following:
- automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page;
- automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file from said desired web page; or
- automatically extracting a meta tag from the desired web page;
- and automatically displaying said presentation, wherein the presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs.
- composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, wherein said step of composing comprises one or more of the following:
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the website www.petco.com, and specifically the method for customizing access that it employs, including its homepage web slideshow feature (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Petco website features an automated slideshow, identified in the site's code with the div id="carousel-homepage-hero" (Compl. ¶¶28, 48). This feature is alleged to use HTML, JavaScript, and CSS to present a sequence of images (slides) to the user (Compl. ¶28). The complaint provides visual evidence described as a screen capture of the Petco homepage showing the web slideshow in the upper portion (Compl. ¶27, Exhibit E). This slideshow is alleged to be a key part of the user experience, presenting "featured promotional offerings" to website visitors (Compl. ¶34). The complaint asserts that each slide advances automatically after a pre-set duration (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'629 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server; | A web browser or its code remotely invokes a "composer" when a user enters the Petco website. This composer is alleged to operate on a host server comprised of Petco's web server or network of servers. | ¶28 | col. 13:17-21 |
| creating a presentation in said composer, wherein said step of creating comprises the steps of: establishing a list of URLs in said composer by one of a plurality of list establishment methodologies... | The "composer" establishes a list of URLs for the slideshow images, allegedly through manual entry by the defendant or automatic entry by querying a database, file, or other resource. The complaint references a depiction of the resulting slide sequence. | ¶¶29-30, 35; Exhibit C | col. 10:5-10 |
| determining a display sequence of said list of URLs in said composer; | The display sequence is allegedly determined by the composer, with the resulting sequence being visible in the source code. | ¶31 | col. 10:40-44 |
| determining a duration of display for said list of URLs in said composer; | The composer allegedly accepts a pre-set display duration for each URL, causing the slides to advance automatically based on that duration. | ¶32 | col. 10:31-33 |
| remotely invoking a performer operating on said host server to present said created presentation; and | A "performer" is allegedly invoked when a user navigates to the website, and this performer includes the code and resources on the host server that provide for the automated web slideshow. | ¶33 | col. 13:17-21 |
| automatically locally displaying the created presentation presented by said performer in a slide show format... wherein each slide is automatically displayed to a user, absent human intervention, for the pre-determined display duration... | The "performer" displays the slideshow to the user, with each slide being automatically displayed for the pre-set duration. The complaint references a screenshot of HTML elements, noting that a pointer labeled "active" progressively rotates through the images. | ¶¶34, 36; Exhibit A | col. 13:58-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will concern the mapping of the accused architecture to the patent's claimed components. Does a user's browser executing JavaScript, which fetches images from a server, constitute "remotely invoking a composer" and a separate "performer" both "operating on a host server" as described in the patent? The distinction between the "composer" and "performer" may be a point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the list of URLs is established by the "composer" through manual entry or querying a database. The court may need to determine what evidence supports the existence of this specific "composer" function, as distinct from a web server simply delivering a pre-built HTML page with a hard-coded list of image URLs.
'707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| composing a presentation for a desired web page by creating a list of URLs, wherein said step of composing comprises one or more of the following: | Dynamic server-side components are alleged to create the presentation by creating a list of URLs. The complaint references a screenshot of the source code as evidence of the created URLs. | ¶48; Exhibit D | col. 8:5-9 |
| (a) automatically extracting a plurality of hyperlinks from the desired web page... (b) automatically extracting a presentation/rendition text file... or (c) automatically extracting a meta tag from the desired web page... | The complaint alleges that the system "automatically extracted web page details" to display the slideshow images, and that the "plurality of hyperlinks... that got automatically extracted" are the image URLs. | ¶¶48-49 | col. 8:20-41 |
| and automatically displaying said presentation, wherein said presentation is presented in order of the created list of URLs. | The system allegedly displays the slideshow to the web user, with software components loading and advancing the URLs in order. | ¶50 | col. 8:9-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case will likely turn on the meaning of "automatically extracting." Does this term require a dynamic, real-time process where the system scans the content of a web page to generate a list of slides? Or could it be read more broadly to cover a server-side script that assembles a pre-determined list of URLs into an HTML page before sending it to the user?
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused Petco system actually performs any "extraction" from the "desired web page" (e.g., the homepage) to create the slideshow list. The evidence cited in the complaint may show the result (a list of image URLs in the HTML source), but not necessarily the claimed process of automatic extraction from the page itself.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '629 Patent:
- The Term: "remotely invoking a composer operating on a host server"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing infringement because it defines the core architecture of the claimed method. The interpretation will determine whether a standard web browser request and client-side script execution meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's figures and description suggest a distinct "composer" module, which may be narrower than the browser-based activity alleged in the complaint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any manner of reaching a web site can be established as the invoker of the performer" ('629 Patent, col. 9:39-41), which could suggest that a simple web request is sufficient to "invoke" a component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts "Composer 12" as a discrete component on "Host Server 16," separate from the "User 24" who interacts with the "Performer 14." This could support an interpretation requiring a more specific, server-side composing application that is invoked, rather than just client-side script.
For the '707 Patent:
- The Term: "automatically extracting"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central novelty of the asserted claim, distinguishing it from the parent '629 Patent and, allegedly, from prior art that required manual list creation. The entire infringement theory for this patent hinges on whether the accused system "extracts" URLs in the claimed manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term, which a party might argue should give it its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any automated process that results in a list of URLs derived from a page's data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself emphasizes that this feature was "unconventional" and key to overcoming prior art (Compl. ¶¶44-45). This prosecution history, once in evidence, could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific process of scanning a page for hyperlinks, text files, or meta tags to dynamically generate a presentation list, as opposed to serving a pre-configured one. The specification describes this as "reviewing the user's desired web page and extracting all hyperlinks" ('707 Patent, col. 8:20-22).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that to the extent users were involved in performing steps, "such performance was nevertheless attributable to Defendant, because... Defendant directed or controlled performance" (Compl. ¶¶33, 34). This language suggests a potential argument against a divided infringement defense and may lay the groundwork for an inducement theory.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the client-server architecture of the accused Petco website, which involves browser-side JavaScript and server-side resource delivery, be mapped onto the '629 Patent's more structured claim limitations requiring distinct "composer" and "performer" components that are "remotely invoked" on a "host server"?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Does the complaint and its supporting exhibits provide sufficient evidence that the accused system performs the "automatic extraction" of URLs from a web page as required by Claim 7 of the '707 Patent, or does it merely display a slideshow from a pre-configured list of assets, creating a potential mismatch in technical operation?
- The case may also raise a significant question of claim scope based on prosecution history: How will the arguments made to the patent office to secure the '707 Patent—specifically regarding the novelty of "automatic extraction" over manual methods—constrain the interpretation of that term and affect the infringement analysis?