DCT
7:25-cv-00491
Information Exchange Tech LLC v. Entertainment Benefits Group LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Information Exchange Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Entertainment Benefits Group, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00491, W.D. Tex., 10/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the District, specifically citing a facility in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s travel and entertainment booking website and associated application infringe patents related to methods for automatically generating and dispatching search queries to multiple, distinct third-party websites from a single user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to federated or meta-search systems, which aim to simplify user experience by providing a single interface to query multiple backend information sources, a significant feature in e-commerce and information aggregation platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,682,894 is a continuation of the patent family that also produced U.S. Patent No. 7,987,168. This shared prosecution history may be relevant for claim construction across both patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-04-08 | '168 and '894 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-07-26 | '168 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-09-04 | '894 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-03-25 | '894 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,987,168 - Method for Managing Information, Issued July 26, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency and frustration users face when trying to find information online, noting that they often must manually navigate to multiple different websites and submit the same query repeatedly to compare results (e.g., for comparison shopping). (’168 Patent, col. 1:50-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software application that integrates with a web browser. This application can be “taught” how to interact with various third-party websites (“information portals”). It learns by having a user perform a sample search on a target website and then analyzing the resulting URL address to create a “query string template.” This template allows the application to subsequently take a user’s single search query, automatically format it correctly for one or multiple target websites, and retrieve the results without requiring the user to visit each site manually. (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-67).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to automate the repetitive task of cross-platform searching, improving efficiency for users comparing products or information from different online sources. (’168 Patent, col. 3:40-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 2. (Compl. ¶29).
- Essential elements of Claim 2 include:
- receiving, in a software application, a query term for which results are to be displayed by an information portal;
- generating, in the software application, an address query string that includes the query term, where the string is generated from a query string template that identifies a query term location and includes additional terms specific to the information portal;
- communicating the address query string to the information portal;
- displaying the search results generated by the information portal; and
- a “wherein” clause stating the displayed search results are the same as if the query had been entered directly into the information portal.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶32).
U.S. Patent No. 8,682,894 - Method for Managing Information, Issued March 25, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the ’894 Patent addresses the time-consuming nature of navigating to and searching individual websites to gather and compare information. (’894 Patent, col. 1:60-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user, through a user interface, adds a "plurality of information portals" (websites) into categories. The system then generates an "information location identifier template" for each portal, which allows it to properly format searches. When a user enters a query term into a data entry field, the system creates and sends a separate, corresponding query string to each of the designated portals to retrieve and display search results. (’894 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:46-67).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for a user to build and manage a personalized multi-site search tool, improving upon generic web browsers by creating a unified interface for querying curated sets of websites. (’894 Patent, col. 3:49-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶42).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- adding, by a user through a user interface, a plurality of information portals within an information category;
- generating an information location identifier template for each portal so each portal recognizes the template for effecting a search;
- displaying a data entry field for a user to enter a query term;
- receiving the query term;
- creating a separate corresponding query string for each of the plurality of information portals based on the template;
- communicating with each portal to send the query string and retrieve results; and
- displaying the search results generated by at least one portal in a format specific to that portal.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶45).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s website undercovertourist.com, its associated mobile application, and the underlying hardware and software (collectively, the “Accused Products”). (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products allow users to compare and book travel and entertainment services such as theme park tickets, cruises, and hotels. (Compl. ¶20). The core accused functionality involves a method for managing web information by allowing a user to enter query terms (e.g., for a trip) and generating address query strings to retrieve search results for display. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' market positioning beyond their general function.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references Exhibits A and B, which it describes as claim charts, but these exhibits were not provided. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 44). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
’168 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, in the software application, a query term for which results are to be displayed by the information portal | The Undercover Tourist app receives query terms such as City, State, Venue, and Date Range from the user. | ¶31 | col. 6:23-28 |
| generating, in the software application, an address query string...being generated from a query string template identifying a query term location and including the additional terms specific to the information portal | The app generates a request URL from a template, alleged to be different for each third-party theater website, which includes the user's query terms and additional terms specific to the portal's URL structure. | ¶31 | col. 4:46-67 |
| communicating the address query string to the information portal | The app communicates the generated address query string to the external information portal (e.g., a theater website) to retrieve search results. | ¶31 | col. 6:31-33 |
| displaying the search results generated by the information portal based on the address query string | The app displays the search results that are generated by the external portal in response to the communicated query string. | ¶31 | col. 7:29-33 |
| wherein the search results displayed by the information portal are the same search results that would have been displayed if the query term had been entered into the information portal... | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the search results displayed are the same as if the user had directly queried the portal. | ¶31 | col. 6:6-14 |
’894 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| adding, by a user...a plurality of information portals within at least one information category... | A user adds multiple "information portals," such as different cruise line websites, within a "Cruise Lines" category in the user interface. | ¶44 | col. 5:3-17 |
| generating an information location identifier template for each of the plurality of information portals... | The system generates a template, such as the URL for a specific cruise line website, that is recognized by the portal for initiating a search. | ¶44 | col. 5:50-67 |
| displaying...at least one data entry field for entering a query term by the user | The user interface displays fields for entering query terms like "Destination/River, Sailing Dates, Length, etc." | ¶44 | col. 11:17-19 |
| receiving the query term entered into the displayed at least one data entry field | The system receives the user's selections from the displayed data entry fields. | ¶44 | col. 11:20-21 |
| creating a separate corresponding query string for each of the plurality of information portals based on the corresponding information location identifier template | The system creates a distinct query string for each of the plurality of cruise line sites based on the previously generated templates. | ¶44 | col. 11:22-26 |
| communicating with each of the plurality of information portals to send the corresponding query string and to retrieve search results... | The system communicates with each of the cruise line portals to retrieve available cruise options based on the user's query. | ¶44 | col. 11:27-30 |
| displaying the search results generated by the at least one information portal in the format specific to the at least one information portal | The system displays the retrieved cruise line options using the cruise line-specific logo for each option. | ¶44 | col. 11:31-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of an "information portal." The complaint's theory appears to require communication with distinct, third-party websites (e.g., theater or cruise line sites). A potential defense could be that the Accused Products query an internal, aggregated database rather than generating and sending queries to external, independent portals in real-time, as contemplated by the patents.
- Technical Questions: For the ’168 patent, a key factual question is whether the Accused Products generate a "query string template" through a learning process, as described in the specification, or if they use pre-programmed API calls. For the ’894 patent, it raises the question of whether displaying a "cruise line specific logo" meets the limitation of displaying results "in the format specific to the at least one information portal."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "information portal" (asserted in claims of both patents)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether this term is construed to mean only an independent, third-party website, as the complaint's examples suggest, or if it can also cover a database or component within the defendant's own technical infrastructure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the software allows a user to access a "plurality of information portals (hereinafter 'web sites')," potentially suggesting the terms are interchangeable and broadly cover any website. (’168 Patent, col. 3:42-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples and figures consistently depict distinct, well-known third-party websites like Google®, Target®, and MapQuest® as the "information portals," suggesting the invention is designed to interface with external entities, not internal components. (’168 Patent, Figs. 8, 12, 18).
The Term: "query string template" (’168 Patent) / "information location identifier template" (’894 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical mechanism of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the Accused Products create and use a "template" as claimed, or if they use a different method (e.g., static API calls) to construct search queries.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 2 of the '168 patent defines the template functionally as "identifying a query term location and including the additional terms specific to the information portal," without limiting the specific structure or method of its creation. (’168 Patent, col. 11:36-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains a specific process for generating the template by analyzing a sample URL to "identify the location of the query term within the address query string as well as identify any information portal separators used to separate the query terms from each other." (’168 Patent, col. 4:50-57). This could support a narrower construction requiring a template generated through this "learning" process.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides the Accused Products to end-users and distributes instructions, advertising, and promotional materials that encourage use in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on two theories: first, that Defendant was "willfully blind" due to an alleged policy of not reviewing the patents of others, and second, that infringement has been willful at least since Defendant received the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 33-35, 46-48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Do the Accused Products function by dynamically creating and communicating queries to multiple, distinct, third-party "information portals" as required by the claims, or do they primarily operate by querying a proprietary, pre-aggregated database, potentially placing their architecture outside the patents' scope?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: Does the defendant's system generate and use a "template" by dynamically learning the URL structure of an external website, as detailed in the patent specification, or does it use pre-defined API calls or other functionally different methods for constructing search queries?
- A final question will be one of claim interpretation: Can displaying a third-party's logo next to a search result, as alleged for the cruise line feature, satisfy the ’894 patent's requirement to display results "in the format specific to the at least one information portal," or does that limitation require a more substantial replication of the portal's native display format?