DCT
2:11-cv-00711
Interval Licensing LLC v. Google Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Interval Licensing LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Google, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:11-cv-00711, W.D. Wash., 05/03/2011
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and the defendants maintain a regular and established practice of business and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various web services, software applications, and mobile operating systems offered by Defendant and others infringe four patents related to presenting related content, unobtrusively displaying notifications, and alerting users to items of current interest based on other users' activities.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational user interface and information retrieval technologies that are central to modern web browsing, e-commerce, and social media platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit originated from Interval Research Corporation, a technology research firm founded by Paul Allen and David Liddle in 1992. The complaint notes that Interval Research provided research funding for Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page’s work that resulted in Google. This is the First Amended Complaint in the matter.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-03-22 | Earliest Priority Date ('652 & '314 Patents) |
| 1996-12-05 | Earliest Priority Date ('507 Patent) |
| 2000-03-07 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652) |
| 2000-09-07 | Earliest Priority Date ('682 Patent) |
| 2001-07-17 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507) |
| 2004-06-29 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682) |
| 2004-09-07 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314) |
| 2011-05-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507 - "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data," issued July 17, 2001.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty users face in reviewing large bodies of information, particularly when that information is represented by different data types (e.g., audiovisual and text), and notes that previous systems did not automatically display related segments of information (’507 Patent, col. 1:11-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a browser that facilitates efficient review by organizing, categorizing, and relating different segments of information. As described in the detailed description, the system can automatically identify and display related information segments—such as text-based news stories—in response to a user viewing a primary segment, such as an audiovisual news program (’507 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-15).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more unified browsing experience at a time of increasing multimedia content, enabling users to navigate and correlate information from disparate sources like television broadcasts and online text services (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 20 and 63, among other claims, against Google (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 20 requires, in summary:
- acquiring and storing data representing a body of information;
- a first display means for displaying a first segment of information;
- a means for comparing segments to determine if they are related; and
- a second display means for displaying a second, related segment in response to the display of the first.
U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 - "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device," issued March 7, 2000.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes the need to present information to a computer user without distracting them from a primary task, a problem not solved by existing screen savers or "wallpaper" which were not used to convey information from providers (’652 Patent, col. 1:10-15, col. 1:56-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "attention manager" that presents information by using the "unused capacity" of a display to engage a user's "peripheral attention." The abstract explains this can occur during "inactive periods" (like a screensaver) or in an "unobtrusive manner" during active use, such as by displaying information in unused areas of a screen (’652 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-20).
- Technical Importance: This technology conceptualized a method for providing secondary information, such as alerts and status updates, without completely interrupting a user's primary workflow, a precursor to modern notification systems and desktop widgets (Compl. ¶39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4, among other claims, against Google (Compl. ¶¶42-44).
- Independent Claim 4 requires, in summary:
- means for acquiring content data;
- means for selectively displaying an image from the content data in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user;
- means for displaying one or more control options;
- means for selecting a control option; and
- means for controlling the system's operation based on the selection.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device," issued September 7, 2004 (Compl. ¶49).
- Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’652 Patent, this patent also describes an invention that enables information to be provided to a user in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract from a primary interaction with an apparatus like a computer or television (Compl. ¶49).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are asserted against Google (Compl. ¶¶52-54).
- Accused Features: The accused features are the same as those for the ’652 Patent, namely notification systems in Google Talk, Google Desktop, and the Android Operating System, which are alleged to provide information unobtrusively (Compl. ¶¶52-54).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest," issued June 29, 2004 (Compl. ¶59).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that receives indications from users that online content is of current interest, processes those indications, and then alerts other users about that content (Compl. ¶59). The invention covers a form of collaborative filtering or social recommendation.
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are asserted against Google (Compl. ¶65).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Google websites and services (e.g., Google Reader, Google Buzz, Orkut) that recommend content or other users based at least in part on the activities of other users, such as "starring," "liking," sharing, or befriending (Compl. ¶¶65-67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are numerous websites, software products, and services operated by Google, including Google Search, Google Finance, Gmail, Google Books, Google AdSense, Gmail Notifier, Google Talk, Google Desktop, and the Android Operating System (Compl. ¶¶26-29, 42-44, 65-67).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these instrumentalities perform three core functions corresponding to the asserted patents:
- Displaying Related Content: When a user views a piece of content (e.g., a financial article), the services allegedly compare it to other content and display related items, such as other articles or contextual advertisements (Compl. ¶26).
- Unobtrusive Notifications: Software like Gmail Notifier and Google Talk, as well as the Android OS, allegedly display pop-up or status bar notifications for events like new emails or messages in a manner that occupies the user's peripheral attention without distracting from their primary task (Compl. ¶¶42, 44). For instance, an included screenshot shows a pop-up notification appearing in the lower right corner of a user's screen (Compl. Exhibit 22).
- Activity-Based Recommendations: Services like Google Reader and Google Buzz allegedly alert users to content based on the activities of other users, such as "starring," "liking," or sharing content (Compl. ¶¶65, 66).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
6,263,507 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| first display means for generating a display of a first segment of the body of information from data that is part of the stored data; | Google's websites and services display a primary content item selected or viewed by a user, such as a news article or financial data. | ¶26 | col. 16:11-12 |
| means for comparing data representing a segment of the body of information to data representing a different segment...to determine whether...the compared segments are related; | The software and hardware operating the Google websites compare the primary content item with other available content items (e.g., articles, advertisements) to determine whether they are related. | ¶26 | col. 7:38-42 |
| second display means for generating a display of a portion of, or a representation of, a second segment of the body of information from data...in response to the display by the first display means of a first segment to which the second segment is related. | After determining relatedness, the websites generate and display the related content items, such as links to other articles or contextual ads. A screenshot of Google Finance shows related news and advertisements displayed alongside a stock chart (Compl. Exhibit 10). | ¶26 | col. 3:34-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 20 uses means-plus-function language (e.g., "means for comparing"). The scope of this element will be limited to the structures disclosed in the specification for performing the comparison and their equivalents. A central issue may be whether Google's complex, modern algorithms for determining content relatedness are structurally equivalent to the specific "relevance feedback" and vector-based comparison methods detailed in the ’507 Patent (col. 28:38-56).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Google's systems "compare the available content items to determine whether they are related" (Compl. ¶26). A key technical question will be what evidence supports this conclusory allegation and demonstrates that Google's method of determining relatedness performs the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result as the patented invention.
6,034,652 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user...an image or images generated from the set of content data; | Products like Gmail Notifier, Google Talk, and the Android OS display pop-up or status bar notifications for a short duration to alert the user to new information (e.g., emails, messages) without completely interrupting the user's primary task. A screenshot shows an Android status bar notification for a new Google Voice message (Compl. Exhibit 24). | ¶¶42, 44 | col. 2:15-20 |
| means for displaying one or more control options with the display device while the means for selectively displaying is operating; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the 'means for displaying control options' element. | N/A | col. 6:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The construction of the term "unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user" will be critical. The parties may dispute whether a modern pop-up notification, which overlays active windows, is "unobtrusive" as that term is used in the patent, which provides examples such as screen savers and wallpaper (’652 Patent, col. 3:20-31).
- Technical Questions: As a means-plus-function claim, the scope of the "means for selectively displaying" is limited to the "attention manager" structure described in the specification and its equivalents. A key technical question will be whether the software architecture of a modern, event-triggered notification system is structurally equivalent to the patent's system, which is described as activating during an "idle period" (’652 Patent, col. 8:38-41).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
From the ’507 Patent
- The Term: "related"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as its definition will determine whether Google's content recommendation and contextual advertising algorithms fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could distinguish between a broad topical connection and a specific, mathematically-defined relationship.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that segments can be related based on "subject matter content" (’507 Patent, col. 5:48-50), which could be argued to encompass any form of topical similarity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed example of determining relatedness using a "relevance feedback" method that calculates a "normalized dot product" of text-representing vectors (’507 Patent, col. 28:38-56). A defendant might argue the term "related" should be limited to relationships determined by this specific method or its equivalents.
From the ’652 Patent
- The Term: "peripheral attention"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this psychological term is critical for determining whether the accused pop-up and status bar notifications perform the function required by the claims. The dispute may turn on whether such notifications are perceived peripherally or if they demand focal, and therefore distracting, attention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the invention "engages at least the peripheral attention" and makes use of "'unused capacity' of the display device" (’652 Patent, Abstract). This could support a reading that covers any information presented outside the user's direct focal point, such as in screen corners or status bars.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention in the context of non-distracting background displays, such as screen savers and "wallpaper" (’652 Patent, col. 1:40-55; col. 3:20-31), suggesting "peripheral attention" requires a more ambient, non-interruptive mode of information delivery.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that defendants infringe by, among other things, "encouraging customers to use" the accused software, such as Google Talk and Android devices (Compl. ¶¶42, 44). These allegations support a claim for induced infringement. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. p. 33, ¶a).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate" (Compl. p. 17, ¶38). No specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged; the complaint itself establishes notice for potential post-suit willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: Many asserted claims are in means-plus-function format, rooted in technology from the late 1990s. A central question for the court will be whether the software and hardware architectures of Google's modern, distributed, and algorithmically complex web services are structurally equivalent to the specific "attention manager" and "browser" systems disclosed in the patents.
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of foundational but subjective terms such as "related" (’507 patent) and "unobtrusive manner that does not distract" (’652 patent). The court's interpretation will determine whether these terms, defined in the context of early multimedia browsing and desktop applications, can be stretched to cover the ubiquitous recommendation engines and notification systems of the modern internet.
- A final question will be one of technological evolution: Can the inventions, which describe processing user activity to provide alerts (’682 patent) and categorizing content (’507 patent), be construed to cover modern systems that use sophisticated collaborative filtering and machine learning? The case raises a fundamental question about the extent to which patents from a prior technological era can read on the functionalities of their highly evolved successors.