Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Innovaport LLC (Wisconsin)
  • Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C.
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00425, W.D. Wis., 01/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's operation of retail stores within the Western District of Wisconsin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application, website, and in-store kiosks infringe six U.S. patents related to systems for providing in-store product location information to customers.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to digital systems that assist retail shoppers in locating products within a physical store by querying an inventory database.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter and a LinkedIn message, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

Analysis is provided for the first two patents asserted in the complaint. Subsequent patents are summarized in capsule form.

U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store (‘260 Patent)

Issued July 8, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family describes the difficulty shoppers face in locating desired products within large, modern retail stores where posted signs are often inadequate and asking employees for directions is inefficient for both the shopper and the employee U.S. Patent 7,231,380, col. 1:20-60
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of user interfaces, which can be fixed within the store (e.g., kiosks) or mobile, that are connected to a central inventory database U.S. Patent 7,231,380, abstract A customer can use an interface to inquire about a product, and the system queries the database to provide location information and other product-related data back to the customer U.S. Patent 7,231,380, col. 3:9-20
• Technical Importance: This technical approach sought to digitize the in-store product discovery process, addressing the growing scale and complexity of large-format retail environments at a time before smartphones were ubiquitous U.S. Patent 7,231,380, col. 2:51-60

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 15 Compl. ¶16 The essential elements are:

• A method of providing product location information within a store.
• Providing a "hub" that is at least indirectly in communication with multiple user interfaces and can access a database with product location and additional product-related information.
• The additional product-related information includes quantity, price, availability, and cross-referential linking to another product.
• The hub periodically communicates with the user interfaces by receiving inquiry signals, querying the database, and providing information signals in response.
• The user interfaces provide output signals based on the information signals.
• At least some communication between the user interface and the hub is wireless.

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store (‘933 Patent)

Issued July 22, 2014

The Invention Explained

This patent is from the same family as the ’260 Patent and shares a common specification. The technology is substantially the same as described for the ’260 Patent, involving a system of devices communicating to provide product location information to in-store customers Compl. ¶¶31-32

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶30 The essential elements are:

• A method of providing product location information within a store using a plurality of devices, including a mobile device, a user interface, and an information storage device.
• The information storage device includes product location information and additional product-related information.
• The additional information includes quantity, price, presence/absence, availability time (if absent), cross-referential product linking, and "information concerning at least one past location inquiry of a customer."
• The method involves steps of: sending an input signal from the user interface; receiving it at the storage device; querying the storage device; receiving a product location information signal at the user interface; and providing an output signal.
• The output signal provides at least one suggestion in accordance with customer preferences, which are obtained in part from the "further information" (past location inquiry).

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent 9,489,690 (“the ‘690 Patent”): Issued November 8, 2016.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for providing in-store product location information using a system with multiple communicating devices, including a mobile device, a user interface, and a database that links products in a cross-referential manner Compl. ¶¶50-52
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶47
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Target's mobile application and website infringe by allowing users to search for products, determine their in-store location, and view suggestions for related products Compl. ¶¶53, 63

• U.S. Patent 9,990,670 (“the ‘670 Patent”): Issued June 5, 2018.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method using at least one information storage device (with a database) in communication with another device (one of which is mobile) that has a user interface. The system processes a product inquiry to query the database and provide product location and cross-referential product linking information Compl. ¶¶70, 72
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶67
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Target's mobile application and website, alleging they use a database to determine product availability and provide links to other products, such as a "Shop the collection" feature Compl. ¶¶71, 73

• U.S. Patent 7,231,380 (“the ‘380 Patent”): Issued June 12, 2007.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system with a "substantially stationary" user interface within a store coupled to an inventory information unit with a database. The system processes an input signal to provide an output signal indicating product availability Compl. ¶¶91, 93
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶87
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against Target's in-store kiosks, which are alleged to be stationary user interfaces that allow customers to search for item location, availability, and price by querying a database Compl. ¶¶88, 90, 92 A photograph in the complaint shows a Target kiosk with a screen that reads "Search for item location, price & details" Compl. p. 24

• U.S. Patent 7,819,315 (“the ‘315 Patent”): Issued October 12, 2010.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a system comprising a plurality of "substantially stationary" user interfaces within a store, each with a memory unit, in communication with a hub that can access a database. The system provides product location information in response to customer inquiries Compl. ¶¶107, 109
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶103
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets Target's in-store kiosks, alleging that a Target store includes at least two such kiosks that are stationary, communicate with a central system ("hub"), and provide product location information to customers Compl. ¶¶108, 110, 112

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint collectively identifies Target's mobile phone application, website, and in-store kiosks as the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶116

Functionality and Market Context

• Mobile App & Website: The complaint alleges these platforms allow a user to search for a specific product and receive results that include its price, whether it is available in a selected store, its in-store aisle location, and the quantity available Compl. ¶¶20, 22 The complaint provides a screenshot from the mobile app showing a product page that indicates "In stock in Aisle C4," displays the price, and provides a "Shop the collection" link to related items Compl. p. 5 Another screenshot shows availability information such as "Only 6 left" for a specific store Compl. p. 6
• In-store Kiosks: The complaint alleges these are stationary terminals within Target stores that permit customers to "search for item location, price & details" Compl. ¶88 A photograph provided in the complaint shows a kiosk unit labeled "Help Center Scan. Call. Find." with an integrated tablet displaying the search interface Compl. p. 24 The complaint alleges these kiosks access a central system to retrieve and display product and inventory information Compl. ¶¶92, 94

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’260 Patent Infringement Allegations

’933 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Equivalence: The patents, with a 1999 priority date, describe a "central hub" architecture. A potential point of contention is whether Target's modern, likely cloud-based and distributed server infrastructure, which supports its mobile app and website, corresponds to the "hub" or "information storage device" as contemplated by the patent claims.
• Scope of "Past Location Inquiry": For the ’933 Patent, the infringement theory for the "information concerning at least one past location inquiry" element rests on the allegation that the app "remembers" a user's selected store Compl. ¶35 The analysis may focus on whether retaining a store preference meets the claim's specific requirement, or if the claim requires storing data about the actual product that was previously searched.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is provided for terms in the two lead patents.

• The Term: "hub" (’260 Patent, claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed system's architecture. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Target's back-end server system, which communicates with the mobile app, falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern web architectures are often highly distributed and may not map directly to the centralized structures depicted in older patents.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "central hub" as a "central computer database (or other information source)" U.S. Patent 7,231,380, col. 5:24-26 The parenthetical "or other information source" may support a broader construction that is not limited to a single, monolithic computer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patent family depicts the "CENTRAL HUB 330" as a single, distinct block connected to the user interface, which may suggest a more centralized, self-contained unit rather than a distributed, cloud-based system of servers U.S. Patent 7,231,380, Fig. 3

• The Term: "information concerning at least one past location inquiry of a customer" (’933 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes claim 1 of the ’933 Patent, and the complaint's infringement allegation hinges on interpreting the app's "remembering" of a selected store as meeting this element Compl. ¶35 The case may turn on whether this requires storing the substance of a prior search (e.g., "milk") or merely the context (e.g., "Madison store").
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses tailoring the system to a customer's needs based on "repeated visits" and storing information about a "customer's standard purchases" U.S. Patent 7,231,380, col. 14:26-36 This context of personalization could support an argument that remembering a preferred store is a form of learning from past inquiries.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language requires information "concerning at least one past location inquiry." This language may be argued to require storing data about the specific product inquiry itself, not just the store location where an inquiry was made. The specification does not appear to explicitly define remembering a store as an example of this information.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint primarily alleges direct infringement by Target for "making, using, maintaining, and updating" the accused systems and "providing the Accused Products to customers" Compl. ¶116 No separate counts for induced or contributory infringement are pleaded.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all six asserted patents Compl. ¶¶15, 29, 46, 66, 86, 102 The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents via a letter and a LinkedIn message sent by Plaintiff Compl. ¶15; Compl. Exs. G, H

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

This dispute will likely center on several key technical and legal questions for the court to resolve.

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the term "hub," as described in patents with a 1999 priority date depicting a centralized architecture, be construed to cover the distributed, cloud-based server infrastructure that likely powers Target's modern mobile application and website?
• A second key question will be one of definitional interpretation: does a software feature that "remembers" a user's preferred store location constitute "information concerning at least one past location inquiry" as specifically required by claim 1 of the '933 patent, or does the claim require storing information about the actual product that was searched?
• A third area of focus may be the bifurcated infringement theory: the case asserts different patents against two distinct types of instrumentalities—mobile/web applications and stationary in-store kiosks. The factual and legal analyses for infringement may diverge significantly between these two technologies, potentially leading to different outcomes for each set of claims.