EIT Holdings, LLC ("EIT") sued several Web 2.0 companies, including Yelp! and LinkedIn for infringing the seemingly broadest claims (40 and 41) of US Pat. No. 5,828,837.
40. A master program module coupled to a master node and a master database for connecting information providers and user nodes for a computer network comprising:
means for registering a first-time user of the computer network;
means for receiving, through the master node, a user id and respective network address corresponding to a current user of the user node;
means for accessing from the master database user profile information corresponding to the user id;
means for transmitting to the user node, through the master node, a reference to target information corresponding to the accessed user profile; and
means for storing a user report from the user node.
41. A method for connecting information providers and user nodes coupled to a master node and a master database comprising the steps of:
receiving through the master node a user id corresponding to a current user of the user node;
accessing from the master database user profile information corresponding to the user id and respective network address;
transmitting to the user node, through the master node, a reference to target information corresponding to the accessed user profile; and
storing a user report from the user node.
EIT chose not to assert the following independent claims: 1, 10, 11, 12-14, 21, 27-33, 42, 47-49, 54, and 55.
Interestingly, each of these unasserted claims includes the following limitation: a user report identifying the displayed target information and user-selected information. Whereas, the claims in dispute do not expressly limit the phrase "user report" in the same manner.
It appears that the meaning of the phrase "user report" will be at the center of this dispute.
My guess, based on EIT's selection of asserted claims, is that EIT will attempt to construe this phrase broadly in order to capture the computer network system and method being used by Yelp! and LinkedIn.
However, EIT might run into difficulties. Based on the specification, an argument can be made that the phrase"user report" in claims 40 and 41 must be interpreted to include both displayed target information and user-selected information. From the specification:
It is further desirable to generate a report of user responses for information providers with accurate assessment of user demand to create a more attractive and dynamic network service environment. (Col. 2, lines 15-20)
In accordance with the purpose of the present invention ... the invention provides ... a user report identifying the displayed target information and user-selected information. (Col. 2, lines 25-54)
The user node also compiles and transmits a user report identifying the displayed target information and user-selected information. (Col. 3, lines 3-5)
Client 122 also compiles and generates a user report containing display statistics, such as target information displayed, time and date of display, duration of display, optional request using the MORE icon, and accounting information. (Col. 7, lines 4-8)
Whether Yelp! or LinkedIn advances this argument will likely depend on whether they utilize a computer network system and method that stores a user's displayed target information and user-selected information.
--------------
UPDATE - Article One Partners was on the hunt for '837 prior art. Check it out. In fact, the reward was pegged at $5K for the highest quality submission of prior art. The preferred deadline for submissions passed on April 28th. I wonder how many responses were received. Does anybody know?
