DCT

2:13-cv-00263

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-01385, W.D. Wash., 12/28/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and Defendants are alleged to have a regular and established practice of business and to have committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ various websites, online services, and software applications infringe four patents related to the presentation of related online content, management of user attention for peripheral information display, and collaborative filtering.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational concepts of the modern web experience, including how users navigate large bodies of information, receive notifications, and get recommendations for related content.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents originated from Interval Research Corporation, a technology firm founded in 1992 by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and Xerox PARC alumnus David Liddle. It also states that Interval Research provided early funding for the research that resulted in Google.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-03-22 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 Priority Date
1996-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507 Priority Date
1998-09-27 Date of Google website screenshot acknowledging Interval Research funding
2000-01-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682 Priority Date
2000-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 Issues
2001-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507 Issues
2004-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682 Issues
2004-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314 Issues
2010-12-28 First Amended 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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge for users facing an "explosion in the amount of information available," making it difficult to get an overview of a large body of information or find specific material, particularly when dealing with different data types like audiovisual and text data simultaneously (’507 Patent, col. 1:10-41, col. 2:48-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system that helps a user efficiently review information by automatically identifying and displaying segments of information that are related to the primary content the user is currently viewing (’507 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-49). This allows for quick skimming and the discovery of related content without manual searching, facilitating navigation across large information sets (’507 Patent, col. 3:5-14).
  • Technical Importance: The technology addressed the emerging problem of information overload on the web by proposing an automated way to provide contextual, related content to users, creating a more integrated browsing experience (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts multiple claims against the various defendants, including independent claims 20 and 63 (Compl. ¶¶21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37).
  • Independent Claim 63 (System Claim) essential elements:
    • A mechanism for acquiring data representing a body of information.
    • A mechanism for storing the acquired data.
    • A first display mechanism for generating a display of a first segment of information from the stored data.
    • A mechanism for comparing data from different segments to determine if they are related.
    • A second display mechanism for displaying a portion or representation of a second segment that is related to the first segment, in response to the display of the first segment.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 - "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "unused capacity" of both a display device and a person's attention as an underutilized resource for information delivery (’652 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-9). Previous technologies like screen savers or desktop wallpaper were primarily aesthetic and were not architected to convey tailored, dynamic information from remote sources (’652 Patent, col. 1:51-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an "attention manager" that presents information to a person "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction" (’652 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶39). This can be achieved by displaying content during idle periods (a "screen saver embodiment") or in unused areas of the screen during active use (a "wallpaper embodiment") (’652 Patent, col. 3:20-31). The system acquires "sets of content data" from remote providers and displays them according to a schedule (’652 Patent, col. 2:22-34).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a system for ambient information delivery, a concept that underpins modern user interface elements like widgets, status bar notifications, and other peripheral information displays designed to inform without significant interruption (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts multiple claims, including independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶¶40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47).
  • Independent Claim 4 (System Claim) essential elements:
    • Means for acquiring a set of content data from a content providing system.
    • Means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner, an image generated from the content data.
    • Means for displaying one or more control options.
    • Means for selecting a displayed control option.
    • Means for controlling aspects of the system's operation based on the selected option.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314 - "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’652 patent, this patent addresses the same technical area of providing information to a user in an "unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction" (Compl. ¶49).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and various dependent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the same types of functionalities as for the ’652 patent, including instant messaging clients (AOL Instant Messenger, Google Talk, Yahoo Messenger), widgets (Apple Dashboard, Yahoo Widgets), and mobile operating system notifications (Android) (Compl. ¶¶50-57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682 - "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a collaborative filtering system. The system receives "indications from users that online content is of current interest," processes these indications, and then "alerts other users of the interesting content" (Compl. ¶59). The indications can be based on user activities like viewing, rating, sharing, or purchasing items (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and various dependent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets recommendation engines and social feeds across Defendants' platforms, such as product recommendations ("Viewers Also Bought"), social media feeds ("News Feed," "Recent Activity"), and content suggestions ("Suggestions") (Compl. ¶¶60-73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide array of websites, online services, software applications, and operating systems from a large group of technology companies. Key accused instrumentalities include AOL.com, Apple's iTunes Store, eBay.com, Facebook.com, various Google services (including Search, AdSense, and Android), Netflix.com, Yahoo.com, and YouTube.com (Compl. ¶¶21-37, 40-47, 60-73).

Functionality and Market Context

The allegations target three core categories of functionality common to modern web platforms. First, systems that display related content (e.g., articles, products, videos) adjacent to a primary item being viewed are accused of infringing the ’507 patent (Compl. ¶21). A screenshot of the Google Finance website is provided as an example, showing selected financial information in one box and links to related financial information in another (Compl. ¶26; Exhibit 10). Second, systems that provide peripheral notifications, such as instant message alerts, desktop widgets, and mobile status bar icons, are accused of infringing the ’652 and ’314 patents (Compl. ¶40). A screenshot of an AOL Instant Messenger pop-up notification is provided as an example of an allegedly unobtrusive display occupying peripheral attention (Compl. ¶40; Exhibit 19). Third, systems that recommend content to a user based on the aggregated activities of other users (e.g., viewing, rating, "liking," purchasing) are accused of infringing the ’682 patent (Compl. ¶60). The complaint alleges these functionalities are central to the user experience and commercial success of the Defendants' widely used services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 63) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a mechanism for acquiring data representing a body of information... Defendants' systems acquire and store vast bodies of content, such as articles, videos, product listings, and advertisements. ¶21, 23, 24, 26 col. 9:40-51
a first display mechanism for generating a display of a first segment of the body of information... When a user navigates to a webpage, the system displays a primary content item, such as a news article, product page, or video. ¶21, 26 col. 10:5-10
a mechanism 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; Defendants' software and hardware compare the primary content item being viewed with other available content items to determine relatedness. ¶21, 26 col. 5:1-7
a second display mechanism for generating a display of a portion of, or a representation of, a second segment of the body of information... in response to the display by the first display mechanism of a first segment to which the second segment is related. The system generates and displays links or summaries of the identified related content items alongside the primary content item. ¶21, 26 col. 5:7-14

U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
means for acquiring a set of content data from a content providing system; Defendants' notification systems (e.g., IM clients, widget platforms) acquire content data, such as message content, friend status, news headlines, or weather information. ¶40, 41, 43 col. 13:41-54
means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner... an image or images generated from the set of content data; The systems display this information as pop-up notifications, sidebars, or status bar icons that occupy the user's peripheral attention without halting their primary task. A screenshot of a Google Desktop sidebar is provided as an example (Compl. Exhibit 23). ¶40, 43 col. 6:35-45
means for displaying one or more control options with the display device...; means for selecting a displayed control option; and means for controlling aspects of the operation of the system... The user interface of the operating system or application provides implicit or explicit controls over the notifications (e.g., dismissing, opening, or configuring them). ¶40 col. 25:3-13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’507 patent will be the construction of the term "correlating segments of information." The defendants may argue their methods for generating "related" links are technologically distinct from the methods disclosed in the patent. For the ’652 and ’314 patents, the scope of "unobtrusive manner" and "peripheral attention" will be critical. A point of contention may arise over whether modern pop-up notifications, which are designed to capture attention, can be considered "unobtrusive" as the patent describes the term.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegations in the complaint are high-level and apply generalized theories across a wide range of disparate products. For the '507 patent, a key question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused systems perform the specific "categorizing and correlating" steps recited in the claims, beyond simply displaying a list of topically similar items. For the ’652 patent, a question is whether the complaint provides sufficient detail to show how each accused notification system performs the claimed function of acquiring content from a remote "content provider" for unobtrusive display, as opposed to generating local system alerts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "correlating segments of information" (’507 Patent, Claim 20)

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the ’507 patent's infringement theory. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any algorithm that identifies and links topically related content, or more narrowly to require the specific methods of analysis and comparison disclosed in the patent specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary states the invention enables segments to be "organized, categorized and related so that, for example, segments of the body of information can be related to other segments" (’507 Patent, col. 2:44-48), suggesting a broad functional goal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses specific techniques for determining relatedness, such as using relevance feedback and vector-based analysis of textual representations of content (’507 Patent, col. 27:36-56). A defendant may argue the claims should be limited to these disclosed embodiments.

The Term: "unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user... from a primary interaction" (’652 Patent, Claim 4)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the essential character of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because many of the accused instrumentalities, such as pop-up alerts, are arguably designed to be distracting. The viability of the infringement claims against such products will depend on the scope given to "unobtrusive."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention as making use of "unused capacity" of a person's attention, which could include brief moments of divided attention during an active task (’652 Patent, col. 6:45-50).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly contrasts two embodiments: a "screen saver embodiment" for idle periods and a "wallpaper embodiment" for displaying information in unused background areas of a screen during active use (’652 Patent, col. 3:20-31). This may suggest that "unobtrusive" requires the display to be either temporally separate from the primary interaction or spatially confined to non-critical screen areas.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that certain Defendants infringe by "encouraging customers to use" the accused software, which suggests a theory of induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶40, 41, 42). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that Defendants have infringed "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. p. 33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶38). This is a placeholder allegation and does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents or willful conduct.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can claim terms rooted in the technological context of the mid-to-late 1990s, such as "correlating segments of information" and displaying content in an "unobtrusive manner," be construed to cover the breadth and diversity of modern web recommendation engines and operating system notification architectures?
  • A second key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint asserts broad infringement theories against numerous, technically distinct products from eleven different corporate families. A central issue will be whether the generalized allegations provide sufficient factual detail under modern pleading standards to plausibly map the specific limitations of the asserted claims onto the diverse functionalities of each accused product.
  • A third question will be one of technical implementation: For the collaborative filtering patent (’682), the case will likely focus on whether the accused recommendation systems function in a manner consistent with the claims, which require processing "indications from users" (such as ratings or purchases) to "alert other users." The dispute may turn on the specific algorithms used by Defendants and whether they align with the process described and claimed in the patent.