DCT

3:26-cv-04101

McLellan v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-04101, N.D. Ill., 10/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Google's physical presence and established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois, specifically its Chicago headquarters.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's search engine technology, including its local search features for ranking websites, infringes a patent related to using promoter activities to adjust search result rankings.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns search engine ranking algorithms, the core technology used to organize and present information from the internet in response to user queries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-05-25 '807 Patent Priority Date
2011-05-24 '807 Patent Non-Provisional Application Filing Date
2014-09-30 '807 Patent Issue Date
2019-10-19 Alleged Infringement Start Date (six years prior to complaint filing)
2025-10-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,849,807 - "Active Search Results Page Ranking Technology"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,849,807 ("Active Search Results Page Ranking Technology"), issued September 30, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a deficiency in prior art search engines where search results, whether organic or paid, could lead to websites that are outdated, unsupported, or contain content that is not truly relevant to the user's query, even if keywords match '807 Patent, col. 2:41-50 '807 Patent, col. 3:6-14
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to modify search rankings by tracking "Activities" performed by a website "Promoter" (e.g., the website owner) '807 Patent, abstract These activities, such as logging into an account, updating website content, or creating a business profile, serve as evidence that the website is actively maintained '807 Patent, col. 2:54-59 Each activity is assigned an "Activity Weight," and the sum of these weights forms a "Total Activity Weight." This weight is then combined with a traditional keyword-based "Relevance" score to calculate a final "Total Weight" that determines the website's rank in search results '807 Patent, col. 11:1-24
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the quality and timeliness of search results by introducing a technical mechanism to reward actively managed websites and penalize stale or abandoned ones '807 Patent, col. 2:59-65

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 4 (a method claim) Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶84
  • Independent Claim 1 (System): The key elements include:
    • A "first computer database" for website indexing records.
    • A "second computer database" for total activity records.
    • A "third computer database" for specific activity records associated with a human website promoter.
    • A "tracking system" for tracking website activities.
    • A "search engine computer network" with processors configured to receive a query, retrieve data from the three databases, calculate a relevance score, calculate a "total weight" based on both relevance and an "activity weight", and assemble a ranked list of websites.
  • Independent Claim 4 (Method): This claim recites a multi-step method for ranking websites that mirrors the functionality of the system in Claim 1. The steps include receiving a query, transmitting requests to and receiving records from the specified databases, calculating a relevance score, calculating a total weight, and assembling a ranked list.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 and reserves the right to assert others Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶¶80-83 Compl. ¶107

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is "Google's search engine technology and its local search feature for ranking websites" Compl. ¶14, heading

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes Google Search as the dominant search engine, utilizing "Googlebots" to crawl and index the web and sophisticated algorithms to rank pages Compl. ¶¶22-24 It alleges that Google's ranking system uses over 200 signals, including PageRank, content quality metrics (E-E-A-T), and page speed Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶45
  • Central to the infringement allegations, the complaint asserts that Google's "Local Search Core Ranking Algorithm" uses promoter activities-such as "logging into" and "creating an account" via a Google Business Profile-as ranking factors Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶60 The act of creating or verifying a Google Business Profile is alleged to be a "ranking signal" that improves a business's position in local search results Compl. ¶60 The complaint highlights that Google tracks and displays "sign-in activity" in a user's account profile Compl. ¶58
  • The complaint alleges Google's local search feature is highly significant, producing "2.3 Trillion searches per year" and earning "over $90 Billion per year in revenue" Compl. ¶15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint includes a diagram of Google's system architecture that it uses to map components to the patent's claims Compl. ¶49, Fig. 1 This figure depicts interconnected components like a "Crawler," "Indexer," "Repository," and "Searcher," which the plaintiff alleges correspond to the claimed system elements.

  • '807 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first computer database comprising machine-readable memory having website indexing records... Google's "Repository," which stores the full HTML of every web page, including a "docID" and URL for each. ¶51 col. 16:40-43
a second computer database comprising machine-readable memory having total activity records, each total activity record comprising an activity website ID and a total activity weight Google's "Links Database," which is used to compute PageRanks. The complaint alleges PageRank corresponds to the "total activity weight." ¶53 col. 15:61-65
a third computer database comprising machine-readable memory having activity records, each activity record comprising: an affiliated website ID, a website promoter ID... Google's storage of "Personal Information, Data & Privacy, Security..." for a user's "Business Profile," which connects a promoter ID to a website and associated activities. ¶¶55-56 col. 19:65-66
a tracking system comprising a tracking system network connection and one or more tracking system processors...having computer-executable instructions for: tracking the website activities... The "Recent security activity" page in a Google Account and the login interface used to monitor changes to business profile information. ¶¶61-62 col. 20:8-19
a search engine computer network...having computer-executable instructions for...calculating a total weight for each indexed website ID...the total weight being based on the relevance score...and the total activity weight... The Google "Searcher," which allegedly combines an "IR score" (relevance score) with PageRank ("activity weight") to give a final rank to a document. ¶¶71, 74, 80 col. 20:49-59
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's use of promoter-related "signals" within a complex system of over 200 ranking factors is equivalent to the patent's more structured system of calculating a "Total Activity Weight" from a discrete list of "Activities." The complaint appears to equate Google's PageRank with the claimed "total activity weight" (Compl. ¶53), which may raise a technical dispute, as PageRank is traditionally understood to be based on hyperlink analysis, not the specific promoter actions described in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The court may need to determine if Google's architecture, which is highly integrated, can be fairly mapped onto the patent's delineated system of a "first", "second", and "third" computer database. The complaint alleges this mapping by assigning different parts of Google's system (e.g., Repository, Links Database, Business Profile data store) to each claimed database (Compl. ¶51, Compl. ¶53, Compl. ¶55). The defense may argue this is a structural mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "activity weight"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patented invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Google's use of various "ranking signals" related to promoter actions falls within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "Activity Weight" functionally as "[a] value that determines how strongly a particular Activity increases or decreases the Total Activity Weight" '807 Patent, col. 4:56-59 This could support an argument that any numerical value assigned to a promoter action for ranking purposes is an "activity weight."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific mathematical formula for calculating the "Total Activity Weight" (Ω) from the sum of individual activity weights (a) and the number of times an activity occurs (μ) '807 Patent, col. 11:1-5 The patent also provides an enumerated list of 28 specific types of "Activities" '807 Patent, col. 5:6 - col. 9:46 This may support a narrower construction limited to the described framework and types of activities.

  • The Term: "third computer database"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires three distinct databases. The complaint maps Google's data storage for "Business Profile" information to this element Compl. ¶55 The validity of this mapping depends on the construction of the term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, requiring "a third computer database comprising machine-readable memory having activity records" ('807 Patent, col. 19:65-66). This could be read to cover any logical or physical data store containing the required information.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and structure differentiate between the "first" (indexing), "second" (total activity), and "third" (specific promoter activity) databases '807 Patent, Fig. 1 '807 Patent, col. 19:56-66 This structure suggests a system with distinct, non-overlapping data stores, potentially supporting an argument that Google's more integrated architecture does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement.

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

This case will likely focus on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical equivalence. The key issues for the court to resolve include:

  • A question of definitional scope: Can the patent's structured concept of an "activity weight," derived from a specific set of promoter "Activities," be construed to cover Google's use of a broad and diverse set of hundreds of "ranking signals," including those related to Google Business Profile interactions?

  • A question of architectural mapping: Is the complaint's mapping of Google's highly integrated search architecture onto the patent's more delineated three-database system (for indexing, total activity, and specific activity) technically supportable, or does it represent a fundamental structural mismatch between the accused system and the claims?

  • A question of functional equivalence: Does Google's ranking algorithm, which incorporates signals from promoter actions, perform the specific calculation recited in the claims-namely, calculating a "total weight" that is "based on the relevance score... and the total activity weight"-or does it use these signals in a technically distinct manner?

Loading Complaint