DCT
2:18-cv-00649
Modern Font Applications v. Allegiant Travel
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Modern Font Applications LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Allegiant Travel Company (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kunzler, PC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00649, D. Utah, 08/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant operates regular and established places of business in Ogden and Provo, Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application for iOS infringes a patent related to methods for delivering and rendering non-standard fonts on a user's device.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of ensuring that applications and network documents display with their intended custom typography, regardless of the fonts pre-installed on a user's device.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit descends from a chain of applications with a priority date of July 16, 2001. Plaintiff alleges that it put Defendant on notice of the infringement on April 5, 2018, nearly two months after the patent issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-07-16 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,886,421 |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,886,421 Issues |
| 2018-03-20 | Release of Accused Product (Allegiant app v. 5.14.1) |
| 2018-04-05 | Alleged Date of Notice of Infringement to Defendant |
| 2018-08-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,886,421 - "Allowing Operating System Access to Non-Standard Fonts in a Network Document"
- Issued: February 6, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of electronic documents displaying incorrectly when a reader's computer lacks the specific "non-standard" fonts used by the document's author. The operating system's default behavior is to substitute missing fonts, altering the intended appearance (’421 Patent, col. 1:58-68). Prior art solutions, such as rendering text as an image, were problematic as they increased file size, slowed downloads, and prevented users from manipulating the text (e.g., copying or resizing) (’421 Patent, col. 2:5-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a network document is delivered with a "font package" containing the data for any non-standard fonts. An "exposure module" is also provided to the user's computer, which then temporarily or permanently installs the fonts from the package, making them available to the device's operating system. This allows the operating system to render the text with the author's intended fonts, preserving full functionality like copying, pasting, and editing (’421 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-41).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a method to ensure consistent typography and branding in network-delivered content without sacrificing text functionality or performance, a key concern for web and application developers (’421 Patent, col. 2:55-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 6, and 11 (’421 Patent, col. 16:1-18:28; Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1, a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, includes the following essential elements:
- An "electronic file package" with display characters and executable instructions.
- A "font package" with external font files, where the font package is "separate from" the executable instructions.
- An "exposure module" for installing the external font files into a "temporary fonts directory" on a hand-held device.
- The font files are received from a computer in response to a request from the hand-held device.
- When displayed, the characters are rendered "by a program module of the operating system" using the external font files.
- In response to the font files being installed, a "system font table" on the device is "updated to reflect an availability of the external font files."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims of the '421 patent (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Allegiant application for iOS devices, specifically including version 5.14.1 (Compl. ¶41).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a mobile application distributed as a computer-readable ".ipa" file. This file allegedly contains an "electronic file package" (including an executable file and ".nib" / ".strings" files) and a separate "font package" (a ".ttf" file located in a subdirectory) (Compl. ¶43-45). The complaint characterizes the ".ipa" file itself as an "exposure module" that places the font files in a "temporary fonts directory" (a subdirectory within the application's "/Payload/" directory) upon installation on a user's device (Compl. ¶46). The complaint further alleges that the application updates a "system font table" by using the "UIAppFonts" key in the "Info.plist" file, which makes the custom fonts available to the iOS operating system for rendering (Compl. ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A non-transitory computer-readable medium adapted for use with a computer coupled to a network... | Defendant provides the accused application via a storage device attached to a computer, which is a non-transitory computer-readable medium. | ¶42 | col. 12:57-62 |
| an electronic file package including a plurality of display characters and computer executable instructions for identifying the plurality of display characters for display and for identifying one or more external fonts used to render at least one of the plurality of display characters | The iOS application file contains an executable file, ".nib" files, and ".strings" files which include characters and instructions for identifying characters and external fonts. | ¶43 | col. 16:5-11 |
| a font package comprising one or more external font files that include formatting information... the font package separate from the computer executable instructions... | The iOS application file includes a font package (e.g., a ".ttf" file) in a subdirectory, separate from the executable instructions which are in a different file. | ¶44-45 | col. 16:12-18 |
| an exposure module for installation of the one or more external font files in a temporary fonts directory on the hand-held device... | The ".ipa" file itself is alleged to be the "exposure module" that installs the external font files into a temporary directory (a subdirectory of "/Payload/") that is deleted when the app is updated or removed. | ¶46 | col. 16:19-21 |
| the one or more external font files being received from the computer responsive to the computer receiving a request for the font package from the hand-held device... | The external font files are received from an app store server responsive to a request from the user's handheld device to download the application. | ¶47 | col. 16:22-25 |
| whereby when the plurality of display characters are displayed, the plurality of display characters are displayed by a program module of the operating system using the one or more external font files... | The display characters are rendered by a program module of the operating system using the external font files contained in the ".ipa" package. | ¶48 | col. 16:26-29 |
| wherein in response to the one or more external font files being installed, a system font table of the hand-held device is updated to reflect an availability of the external font files. | The application provides a font listing in the "Info.plist" file using the "UIAppFonts" key, which allegedly causes the iOS system to load the fonts and make them available, thereby updating a system font table. | ¶49 | col. 16:30-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the standard architecture of an iOS application package (".ipa" file) can be said to contain a distinct "exposure module" as described in the patent. The patent's specification often describes this module as a separate piece of software, like an ActiveX control, that is downloaded and installed to interact with the operating system (’421 Patent, col. 11:41), whereas the complaint identifies the entire application installer as this module (Compl. ¶46).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that specifying fonts in an application's "Info.plist" file constitutes "updating a system font table" (Compl. ¶49). A key technical dispute may arise over whether this iOS-specific mechanism of registering app-local fonts is equivalent to updating a central "system font table" as contemplated by the patent (’421 Patent, Fig. 6, element 506; col. 13:58-61). The functionality may be similar, but the technical implementation could be viewed as distinct.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "exposure module"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the active software component that installs or "exposes" the non-standard fonts to the operating system. The infringement theory depends on construing this term broadly enough to read on the accused ".ipa" file itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples (e.g., ActiveX control) suggest a component distinct from the primary application content, creating a potential mismatch with the accused product's integrated structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the module "either permanently installs or temporarily exposes the operating system... to the computer readable font formatting information," suggesting a focus on function over form. The term itself may imply any software that makes fonts visible or available to the OS.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the module as being requested and downloaded, potentially separately from the network document, and then installed (’421 Patent, Fig. 5, steps 412-416). Language identifying it as an "ACTIVEX® control" or a "plug-in" could support an argument that it must be a specific type of add-on component rather than the application package itself (’421 Patent, col. 11:41, col. 12:60-63).
The Term: "system font table"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires this table to be "updated." The validity of the infringement allegation against the iOS app hinges on whether declaring fonts in an "Info.plist" file meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the table to be updated "to reflect an availability of the external font files" (’421 Patent, col. 16:32-33). This functional language could be argued to cover any mechanism that informs the OS that new fonts are available for use, including the "Info.plist" method.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent depicts "System Font Table 506" as a discrete component of the "Operating System 505," alongside the "System Registry 509." This could support an argument that the term refers to a specific, centralized OS data structure, and that "updating" requires a direct modification of that structure, not merely registering a font for use within a single, sandboxed application.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendant’s advertisements, website, and app store listings "encourage customers to infringe" by promoting the use of the accused application (Compl. ¶53).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had notice of its infringement as of April 5, 2018, but was "unwilling to enter into discussions" and continued its allegedly infringing activity, constituting reckless behavior (Compl. ¶52, ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s architectural terms, such as "exposure module" and "system font table," which are rooted in the early 2000s web-plugin environment, be construed to cover the integrated and sandboxed components of a modern mobile operating system like iOS?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the iOS mechanism of registering application-specific fonts via a manifest file ("Info.plist") constitute the same technical act as the patent’s described process of an "exposure module" actively "installing" fonts and "updating" a system-wide font table?
- A fundamental question for the case will concern validity in light of the priority date: given the patent’s 2001 priority date, a central challenge will likely be whether the asserted claims, if construed broadly enough to cover modern mobile app functionality, remain novel and non-obvious over the prior art related to web fonts and dynamic font delivery from that era.