Modern Font Applications v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Modern Font Applications LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00213, D. Utah, 04/01/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant operates four or more regular and established places of business within the district, including a specific retail store in Salt Lake City.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Petco mobile application for iOS infringes a patent related to methods and systems for enabling a computer's operating system to access and render non-standard fonts contained within a network document.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of ensuring that text in electronic documents, such as web pages or applications, displays with the author's intended custom fonts, even on devices that do not have those fonts pre-installed.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint alleges that licensed articles have been marked with the patent number since at least June 2018, which may serve as a basis for notice and a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-07-16	'421 Patent Priority Date
2018-02-06	'421 Patent Issue Date
June 2018	Alleged notice to Defendant via patent marking
2019-03-21	Release of Accused Product (Petco iOS app v1.4.8)
2019-04-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of electronic documents displaying incorrectly when a reader’s computer lacks the specific "non-standard" fonts used by the document's author (Compl. ¶25; ’421 Patent, col. 1:58-68). Prior solutions were inadequate: using images for text resulted in poor quality, large file sizes, and an inability to style or copy the text (Compl. ¶26-27; ’421 Patent, col. 2:5-20), while using proprietary font players was inefficient and prevented the fonts from being used in other applications (Compl. ¶28-29; ’421 Patent, col. 2:37-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a network document (like a web page or application) is delivered to a user’s computer along with a "font package" containing the non-standard font data and an "exposure module." This module makes the font information available to the device's native operating system, either temporarily or permanently, allowing the operating system to render, copy, and paste the text as if the fonts were standard (Compl. ¶31-32; ’421 Patent, col. 3:20-39). The architecture allows the operating system itself to handle the font, increasing performance and interoperability with other applications (Compl. ¶34; ’421 Patent, col. 14:25-39).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the font-embedding problem by integrating non-standard fonts directly with the client operating system, preserving the fidelity of the author's design while maintaining the full functionality and efficiency of native text rendering (’421 Patent, col. 4:50-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claim 6, while reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶41, ¶50).
• Independent Claim 1 (a non-transitory computer-readable medium) includes these essential elements:
  • An "electronic file package" with display characters and instructions to identify external fonts.
  • 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 responsive to a request from the hand-held device.
  • The display characters are displayed by a "program module of the operating system".
  • A "system font table" is "updated" to reflect the availability of the new font files.
• Independent Claim 11 (a hand-held device) includes these essential elements:
  • Memory with instructions to download an "electronic file" that "references" a "font package".
  • Instructions to "install an exposure module" for automatically installing or exposing the font package.
  • Instructions to cause the exposure module to install the font package into a "temporary fonts directory".
  • Instructions to cause a "system font table" to be "updated" to reflect the font's availability.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Petco application for iOS devices, including at least version number 1.4.8, released on March 21, 2019" (Compl. ¶41).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused Petco iOS application is an electronic file package (.ipa file) that contains the necessary components to infringe the ’421 Patent (Compl. ¶42-43). When a user downloads the application from an app store server, the package allegedly includes not only executable instructions but also separate external font files (e.g., .otf files) in a subdirectory (Compl. ¶44-45, ¶47). The complaint alleges that the iOS operating system, upon installation, uses a specific file (Info.plist) and a key within it (UIAppFonts) to make these external fonts available to the application, thereby "updating" a "system font table" (Compl. ¶49). This allegedly allows a program module of the iOS operating system to render text within the app using these non-standard fonts (Compl. ¶48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'421 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
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 accused iOS application file contains an executable file, .nib files with characters to be displayed, and instructions for identifying external fonts to render those characters.	¶43	col. 16:3-9
a font package comprising one or more external font files that include formatting information..., the font package separate from the computer executable instructions for identifying the plurality of display characters for display	The iOS application file includes a font package in a subdirectory containing an external font file (e.g., a .otf file), which is separate from the executable file and .nib files.	¶44, ¶45	col. 16:10-18
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, which places the external font files in a temporary directory that is deleted when the application is updated or removed.	¶46	col. 16:19-22
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 font files are received from an application store server (e.g., Apple's iTunes store) after the user's handheld device requests to download and install the application.	¶47	col. 16:23-28
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	When characters are displayed in the app, they are rendered by a program module of the iOS operating system using the external font files contained within the .ipa package.	¶48	col. 16:29-32
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 iOS operating system updates its awareness of available fonts for the application by reading a font listing provided in the Info.plist file via the UIAppFonts key.	¶49	col. 16:33-37

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's theory hinges on mapping standard iOS application architecture to the specific terminology of the claims. A central question will be one of definitional scope: does the standard iOS process of registering bundled fonts via an Info.plist file constitute "updating" a "system font table" as required by the claims? Similarly, the court may need to determine if a passive application package (.ipa file) can be construed as an active "exposure module" that performs an "installation" step, as the patent specification seems to describe (’421 Patent, col. 12:41-44).
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product performs a distinct "installation" of fonts into a "temporary fonts directory"? The allegation is that the app package itself contains the directory (Compl. ¶46), which raises the question of whether this constitutes the active installation process contemplated by the patent, or merely the standard functioning of a sandboxed mobile application.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "exposure module"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's purported inventive concept of actively making non-standard fonts available to the operating system. The complaint identifies the entire .ipa application file as this module (Compl. ¶46). The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this standard application package format meets the definition of an "exposure module."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the module's function broadly as something that "either permanently installs or temporarily exposes the operating system... to the computer readable font formatting information" (’421 Patent, Abstract), which could support an argument that any software component achieving this result qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples, such as an "ACTIVEX® control" or a browser "plug-in" that communicates via "function calls and returns" (’421 Patent, col. 12:41-65). This language suggests a more active, discrete software component than a passive application container.

• The Term: "system font table"

• Context and Importance: The claims require this "table" to be "updated" to reflect the new font's availability. The complaint alleges this is satisfied by the iOS Info.plist file containing a UIAppFonts key (Compl. ¶49). Practitioners may focus on this term because the case may turn on whether this standard iOS mechanism for declaring bundled resources is equivalent to the patent's claimed "system font table."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, potentially covering any data structure or configuration file that the operating system uses to recognize available fonts.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification depicts a specific "system font table 506" and a "system registry 509" as distinct components of the operating system that are modified (’421 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 13:45-60). A defendant may argue this points to a more specific, system-level database, not a per-application configuration file.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant’s advertisements and website encourage customers to download and use the infringing application (Compl. ¶53). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused application is especially made for practicing the invention and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶54).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had notice of its infringement since at least June 2018, based on the marking of licensed patent articles (Compl. ¶39, ¶52). This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's claim terms, such as "exposure module" and "system font table", which are described in the specification with active software examples like ActiveX controls and system registries, be construed to cover the more passive, standard components of an iOS application package like the .ipa file and its Info.plist configuration file?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Petco application perform the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims—involving a distinct module that actively "installs" fonts and "updates" a system table—or does it merely bundle fonts in a conventional manner that is native to, and managed by, the iOS operating system? The outcome may depend on whether the actions attributed to the accused product are legally distinguishable from the inherent functionality of the underlying operating system.