411 Theodore Fremd Ave. Suite 206S
Rye, NY 10580

(888) 743-7577 | info@qprc.com

© 2019 Quest Patent Research Corporation

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

E-commerce websites and computer systems supporting those websites (collectively, the

“Accused Infrastructures”) employ methods covered by the ’703 Patent, ’234 Patent and ’661 Patent (collectively, the “Knight Patents”) in order to improve the shopping experience of their buyers. The Knight Patents generally cover systems and methods relating to optimizing the usability of online message boards such as those found at e-commerce websites. In one embodiment, a user may search for specific customer reviews for a product and then perform an action such as indicating that a review was “helpful.” Systems implementing the inventions covered by the Knight Patents achieve significant benefits and improvements in their operation and performance. As one example, users of the system can more easily navigate a website to find the most meaningful information, such as helpful negative reviews. By finding the most relevant information in a speedy manner, efficient usage of the

seller’s system, including from the perspective of both processing and communication resources, is achieved. Additionally, when a buyer focuses his review of a message board on the most targeted information, more efficient usage of the buyer’s computer system is achieved. This includes efficiencies in terms of processing, communication, power and display resources. Further, in the case where the buyer’s computer is a handheld device, which typically has limited resources, the improvements in performance due to the inventions covered by the Knight Patents are determinative as to whether many buyers will use the system.

The ’875 Patent, ’581 Patent and ’806 Patent (collectively, the “Steele Patents”) generally cover systems and methods relating to optimizing the online shopping experience. For example, in one embodiment, an authenticated user may access and control relevant account information such as shipping address or credit card information. In another embodiment, a user need only authenticate himself once in order to repeatedly access consumer information associated with different websites. In a third embodiment, an application is executed at the client side which manages the request/response process for the client side. Systems implementing the inventions covered by the Steele Patents achieve significant benefits and improvements in their operation and performance. By allowing a user to store and repeatedly access relevant account information, more efficient usage of the

buyer’s system is achieved. This includes efficiencies from the perspective of processing

resources as the buyer does not need not to repeatedly spend time entering in information such as a shipping address. Additionally, by allowing the buyer’s system to manage the request/response process through an application the request/response process can be more properly geared to the buyer’s system including its processing load and network latency. Further, in the case where the buyer’s computer is a handheld device, which typically has limited resources, the improvements in performance due to the inventions covered by the Steele Patents are determinative as to whether many buyers will use the system.

The Accused Infrastructures employ methods covered by the Knight Patents in order to improve the shopping experience of their buyers. For example, the Accused Infrastructures processes a user command associated with one or more electronic message items taken from a set of electronic message items, where the user command is used to locate an author

of a message item originating from a particular author.

The Accused Infrastructures employ methods covered by the Steele Patents in order to improve the shopping experience of their buyers. The Accused Infrastructures practice a method comprising retrieving selected consumer information elements from the information

stored within an online account by filtering data from the online account with a database management system, and transmitting the selected consumer information elements, over a

distributed electronic network, to the network device.



The Patents-in-Suit are presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and while

many have tried to invalidate them, none have succeeded. In a recent action styled CXT Systems, Inc. v. Academy, Ltd., d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, Case No. 2:18-cv-00171-RWS-RSP (Lead Case) (“Academy Litigation”), eight different sets of defendants filed or joined in 12(b)(6) motions alleging lack of eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. A Report and Recommendation stated “The Court concludes that the claimed invention [of the ’703, ’234 and ’661 Patents] is not directed to an abstract idea under step 1 as it is directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices.” Academy Litigation, Dkt. No. 128 at *5. It further stated that “Claim 1 [of the ’875 Patent] provides an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at *13. Ultimately, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied all the 12(b)(6) motions. Academy Litigation, Dkt. No. 137. Recognizing the validity of these patents, Industry leaders have instead chosen to license them.


Case No. 2:19-cv-00168

  • QPRC

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Conclusion


The Court adopts the constructions set forth above, as summarized in the following table. The parties are ORDERED that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each other’s claim-construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ORDERED to refrain from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim-construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court.


Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the parties are hereby ORDERED, in good faith, to mediate this case with the designated mediator in this case. As a part of such mediation, each party shall appear by counsel (with lead and local counsel present and participating) and by at least one corporate officer possessing sufficient authority and control to unilaterally make binding decisions for the corporation adequate to address any good faith offer or counteroffer of settlement that might arise during such mediation. Failure to do so shall be deemed by the Court as a failure to mediate in good faith and may subject that party to such sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.


Case No. 2:18-cv-00192

  • QPRC

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Claim Construction M



The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff submits: Processors are operable at certain frequency and voltage settings, as published in product data sheets. Outside of these settings, the processor cannot function. Further, the “nominal” setting is the normal setting for the operating conditions, as stated on the product data sheets. This is known to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Dkt. No. 48 at 25–26.

In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent col.5 ll.26–29, col.5 ll.36–39. Extrinsic evidence: Carbonell Decl. ¶¶ 67, 73–75 (Plaintiff’s Ex. E, Dkt. No. 48-6 at 26–29).

Defendant responds: The Asserted Patents provide no guidance regarding what makes a processor not capable of functioning or even what level of dysfunction rises to not functioning. Further, there is no indication in the patents that a processor product data sheet specifies parameters at which the processor is not able to function. Rather, the patents teach that it is possible to run the processor outside the recommended levels. Thus, there is no way to determine what is means for a processor to be unable to function. Dkt. No. 50 at 31–32.

In addition to the claims themselves, Defendant cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’708 Patent figs.2, 4 col.4 l.58 – col.5 l.18, col.5 l.42 – col.7 l.24, col.7 ll.32–52. Extrinsic evidence: Thornton Decl. ¶ 97 (Defendant’s Ex. H, Dkt. No. 50-9 at 38).

Plaintiff replies: Defendant’s position fails to account for the information available to persons of ordinary skill in the art; namely, product data sheets. In the context of this information, whether a processor can function at specified frequency and voltage pairings is reasonably certain. Dkt. No. 53 at 13.

Analysis

The issue is whether what it means that a processor is not capable of functioning or cannot function is reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is.

These terms are related to the frequency and voltage pairings for operating a processor. For example, Claim 1 of the ’708 Patent provides that the “processor is not capable of functioning at said first frequency and said second voltage.” Claim 26 of the patent provides that the “processing unit can not function at said second frequency and said first voltage.” The Asserted Patents describe:

  • The power consumed by a CMOS integrated circuit is given approximately by P=CV2f, where C is the active switching capacitance, V is the supply voltage, and f is the frequency of operation. The maximum allowable frequency is described by fmax=kV, where k is a constant.

  • It is desirable to operate the processor at the lowest possible voltage at a frequency that provides the computing power desired by the user at any given moment.

’061 Patent col.1 ll.42–50.


That is, the patents explain that there is a maximum frequency allowable for a given processor voltage. “If the frequency is to be increased, it is first necessary that the voltage be increased to allow the processor to function at a higher frequency. In such a case, it is first necessary to increase the voltage level of operation.” Id. at col.6 ll.2–6. That is, if the frequency is increased beyond that allowed by the voltage, the processor will be unable to function—it is not capable of functioning, it can not function. In the context of the patents, this is shown by the relationship between maximum allowable frequency and voltage: fmax=kV. Ultimately, whether a particular processor is unable to function at a particular voltage-frequency pairing is a factual issue.

Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.


Case No. 2:18-cv-00192