DCT
3:23-cv-00016
Innovaport LLC v. Best Buy Co. Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Innovaport LLC (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Best Buy Co. Inc. (Minnesota); BestBuy.com, LLC (Virginia); and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Virginia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C.
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00016, W.D. Wis., 06/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Best Buy Stores regularly conducts business in the district, including at a retail store located in Madison, Wisconsin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, mobile application, and in-store kiosks infringe six patents related to systems and methods for providing in-store product location information to customers.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of digital information systems with physical retail environments, allowing customers to use electronic interfaces to locate products and access related data within a store.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patents, are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-10-09 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2007-06-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,231,380 Issued |
| 2010-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,819,315 Issued |
| 2014-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 Issued |
| 2014-07-22 | U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933 Issued |
| 2016-01-01 | Alleged Infringement Begins (approximated from "at least as early as 2016") |
| 2016-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,489,690 Issued |
| 2018-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,990,670 Issued |
| 2023-06-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family’s background describes the difficulty and frustration shoppers face when trying to locate specific products within large, modern retail stores, noting that posted signs are often inadequate and asking employees is inefficient (U.S. Patent No. 7,231,380, col. 1:20-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of user interfaces positioned throughout a store that are in communication with a central "hub" or database. This allows customers to make an inquiry for a product and receive its location and other related information, such as price or availability, on the spot, thereby integrating the store’s inventory data with the customer’s in-person shopping experience (’380) Patent, Abstract; col. 5:5-24). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 3 of the patent (’380 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to centralize product location information and make it conveniently accessible to customers from multiple points within a store, reducing a significant point of friction in the physical retail experience (’380 Patent, col. 2:50-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶22).
- Claim 15 is a method claim directed to providing product location information within a store, with essential elements including:
- Providing a hub that is at least indirectly in communication with a plurality of user interfaces.
- The hub is capable of accessing at least one database containing both product location information and additional product-related information.
- The additional product-related information includes quantity, price, availability, and information linking the product with another product in a cross-referential manner.
- The hub periodically communicates with the user interfaces by receiving inquiry signals, querying the database, and providing information signals in response.
- At least some of the 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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the related patents, this invention addresses the inefficiency of locating products in large retail environments (’380 Patent, col. 1:20-58).
- The Patented Solution: This patent describes a method centered on a plurality of devices, including a mobile device with a user interface, that communicate with an information storage device (database). The system provides product location, price, availability, and cross-sells, and is distinguished by its inclusion of information concerning "at least one past location inquiry of a customer" to inform its output (’933 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶40).
- Technical Importance: The invention extends the in-store product location concept to mobile devices and introduces a layer of personalization by using a customer's inquiry history to tailor the information provided.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Claim 1 is a method claim for providing product location information within a store, with essential elements including:
- Providing a plurality of devices, including a mobile device, in communication with each other, where at least one device has a user interface and one has an information storage device.
- The information storage device includes product location information and additional product-related information (e.g., price, availability, cross-referential links).
- The additional information further includes information concerning "at least one past location inquiry of a customer."
- A user interface sends an input signal, the storage device is queried, and a product location information signal is returned to the user interface.
- The output signal provides at least one suggestion to the customer in accordance with the customer's preferences, which are obtained in part from the "further information" (i.e., the past inquiry).
U.S. Patent No. 9,489,690 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for providing product location information using a plurality of devices, including a mobile device with a user interface that communicates with an information storage device. A product location inquiry is processed by a signal processing device, which then causes a query of the information storage device to obtain location and cross-referential product information.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Accused Features: Defendant's mobile application and website are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 9,990,670 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method where an information storage device is configured for indirect communication with another device (including a mobile device) that has a user interface. The system processes a product location inquiry to query the database and provides an output signal that includes location information and suggestions for other products.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
- Accused Features: Defendant's mobile application and website are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶72).
U.S. Patent No. 7,231,380 - Apparatus and method for providing products location information to customers in a store
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system with a substantially stationary user interface (e.g., a kiosk) positioned within a store. The interface is coupled to an inventory information unit with a database that provides product location and availability information in response to a user's inquiry.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
- Accused Features: Defendant's in-store kiosks are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶86).
U.S. Patent No. 7,819,315 - Apparatus and method for providing product location information to customers in a store
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system comprising a plurality of stationary user interfaces (kiosks), each with a memory unit, positioned within a store. The interfaces communicate with a central hub that accesses a database to provide product location and store-related information.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
- Accused Features: Defendant's in-store kiosks are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶103).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Defendant’s mobile phone application, website, and in-store kiosks (collectively, the "Accused Products") of infringement (Compl. ¶92).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products allow customers to search for specific items within Defendant's product database (Compl. ¶19). The system returns results that include the product's price, its availability at a specific retail store, and cross-referential links to other products (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The complaint provides a screenshot from the mobile application showing a product page that indicates an item is "In stock at Mayfair" and provides an option to "View in store map" (Compl. p. 6). Another screenshot shows a feature titled "Have everything you need?" that suggests a related product bundle, illustrating the cross-referential linking functionality (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that these systems are used to integrate online and in-store operations, such as by fulfilling online orders from physical store inventory for pickup or delivery (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of providing product location information within a first store... | The mobile application provides product location information within a specific, selected store. | ¶24 | col. 4:22-26 |
| providing a hub that is at least indirectly in communication with a plurality of user interfaces | The mobile application (a user interface) communicates with a hub (e.g., Defendant's back-end servers) to obtain product data. | ¶30 | col. 5:5-7 |
| the hub further being capable of accessing at least one database which includes both product location information and additional product-related information. | Defendant's servers access a database containing product location, price, and availability to respond to user searches. | ¶26 | col. 5:25-34 |
| the additional product-related information including...information linking the product with another product in a cross-referential manner. | The mobile application presents suggestions for complementary products under headings like "Have everything you need?". | ¶28 | col. 17:38-42 |
| wherein at least some of the communication between the user interface and the hub is wireless. | The mobile application communicates wirelessly with the hub to obtain search results and product information. | ¶32 | col. 5:19-24 |
U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a plurality of devices including a mobile device that are in communication with each other. | The customer's mobile device, running the application, communicates with Defendant's information storage device (servers). | ¶39 | col. 5:30-34 |
| the at least one information storage device including both product location information and additional product-related information... | The application informs customers of product location, price, and availability, and links to other products. The screenshot on page 12 shows a map with a pin indicating the product location. | ¶41 | col. 5:25-34 |
| and further information concerning at least one past location inquiry of a customer. | The application is alleged to meet this element by "'remembering' the customer's selected or local store." | ¶41 | col. 14:24-34 |
| providing an output signal, based upon the product location information signal, the output signal providing at least one suggestion to the customer... | The application suggests other products to customers, such as through the "Have everything you need?" feature. | ¶49 | col. 14:46-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's distributed, cloud-based server architecture that supports its national e-commerce platform constitutes a "hub" or "inventory information unit" as contemplated by the patents, which often describe a system oriented around a single store (U.S. Patent No. 7,231,380, Fig. 3; col. 5:5-7). Another question relates to the scope of "within a first store," as the accused mobile app and website can be used from any location, not just within a Best Buy store.
- Technical Questions: For the ’933 patent, a key technical question will be whether the accused application's function of remembering a user's preferred store (Compl. ¶41) meets the specific claim limitation of including information concerning "at least one past location inquiry of a customer" (Compl. ¶40). The defense may argue that a store preference is distinct from a query for a specific product's location.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hub"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed system architecture. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Defendant’s modern, cloud-based server infrastructure falls within the scope of the claims, which were filed in an earlier technological era. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents' description and figures could be interpreted as teaching a more localized, singular server dedicated to an individual store.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the hub more functionally as a "central computer database (or other information source)" ('380 Patent, col. 5:25-27), language which could support a broader construction not limited to a single physical server.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts a single "CENTRAL HUB 330" connected to multiple user interfaces within one store, which could be argued to support a narrower construction of a localized, unitary component (’380 Patent, Fig. 3).
The Term: "information concerning at least one past location inquiry of a customer"
- Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 of the ’933 patent is a key element for the infringement allegation against that patent. The complaint alleges that this is met by the app "remembering" a user's local store (Compl. ¶41). The definition of this term will determine if retaining a general location preference is equivalent to retaining a specific query for a product's location.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to tailor the experience to the user; one could argue that remembering the user's primary store is a form of tailoring based on past user input related to location. The specification discusses obtaining "information regarding a particular customer's preferences" ('380 Patent, col. 14:31-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the term refers to a "location inquiry," which typically means a search for a specific item, not the setting of a default store. The specification discusses tailoring suggestions based on "the product location inquiry information" itself, suggesting a direct link to the specific products being searched ('380 Patent, col. 14:26-30).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement and does not plead specific facts regarding knowledge or intent required to support such a claim. The allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendants (Compl. ¶92).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants' conduct shows a "lack of the required duty to avoid infringement," asserts this is an "exceptional case," and requests enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶¶93-94). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as prior notice letters or licensing negotiations.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the patent claims, which describe a "hub" in the context of an in-store system, be construed to read on the distributed, cloud-based server infrastructure that powers a modern, national e-commerce platform accessible from anywhere via a mobile app and website?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: Does the accused application's feature of remembering a user's preferred store perform the same function as the claimed feature of storing a "past location inquiry," or is there a fundamental difference in technical operation that places the accused system outside the scope of that claim limitation?
- A third central question will concern the locus of infringement: Given that the patents are directed to providing product location information "within a store," the case may turn on how this limitation is applied to the accused website and mobile application, which are designed to be used by customers both inside and outside the physical retail environment.