DCT

2:24-cv-00688

RavenWhite Licensing LLC v. Home Depot Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00689, E.D. Tex., 08/20/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Walmart maintains a continuous physical presence in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's e-commerce and advertising systems, including the walmart.com website and Walmart Connect platform, infringe patents related to machine-to-machine authentication and tiered online advertising models.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit involves technologies for identifying client devices in a network environment without traditional cookies and for optimizing online ad bidding based on user quality metrics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the asserted patents due to a previous lawsuit filed in the same district, Ravenwhite Licensing LLC v. Walmart Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00418 (E.D. Tex.), which also alleged infringement of the same patents. This prior litigation is cited to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-01 Walmart's eCommerce initiative begins with creation of walmart.com
2005-11-01 Earliest Priority Date for ''823' Patent
2007-01-01 Walmart launches "Site to Store" service
2011-11-21 Earliest Priority Date for ''402' Patent
2017-09-15 Application for '823 Patent filed
2020-03-17 '823 Patent issues
2021-03-15 Application for '402 Patent filed
2023-01-24 '402 Patent issues
2023-01-01 Prior infringement lawsuit filed against Walmart
2026-08-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,594,823 - "Method and Apparatus for Storing Information in a Browser Storage Area of a Client Device," issued March 17, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of traditional browser cookies for identifying users, noting privacy concerns and the fact that users can easily block or delete them, thereby disrupting website customization and authentication processes '823 Patent, col. 2:11-44
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to identify a client device by using its browser storage area (such as the history cache or temporary internet files) as a persistent identifier, termed a "cache cookie" '823 Patent, col. 5:12-16 A server causes the client's browser to make a specific set of network resource requests (e.g., by redirecting the browser to certain URLs), which are then logged in the browser's history. In a subsequent session, the server can "read" the browser's history to detect the presence of these specific requests, thereby identifying the device even if traditional cookies are disabled '823 Patent, abstract '823 Patent, col. 3:1-14 '823 Patent, col. 5:26-41
  • Technical Importance: This technique provides a method for persistent device identification that is more robust against common user actions (like clearing cookies) than traditional methods, offering an alternative for e-commerce and security applications that rely on recognizing returning users '823 Patent, col. 2:26-44

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 Compl. ¶41
  • Independent claim 1 of the '823 Patent recites a system comprising one or more processors configured to perform steps including:
    • Receiving a network resource request from a client device corresponding to a "first cookie of a first type" previously stored on the device.
    • This first cookie was stored by causing the client device to initiate a set of network resource requests, which caused data to be stored.
    • A "second cookie of a second type" was also previously stored in a different browser storage area.
    • Determining information that was encoded and stored in the client device based on the network resource request.
    • Performing a first identification of the client device using the first cookie.
    • Performing a second identification using the second cookie.
    • Performing a determination based on the presence of a request associated with one cookie and the absence of a request for the other.
  • The complaint states that Walmart infringes "one or more claims of the '823 patent" Compl. ¶40, reserving the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,562,402 - "Advertising Model," issued January 24, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies inefficiencies in conventional online advertising, which typically rely on simple highest-bidder auctions without adequately considering the quality of the user or the likelihood of a conversion event '402 Patent, col. 1:19-31
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "tiered advertisement bidding" system that determines "quality metrics" associated with a user profile and selects an ad bid from tiered bids based on these metrics '402 Patent, abstract A key aspect of the solution is determining whether a user's "need" for a product in a certain category has been "met" (e.g., after a purchase) and then identifying a subsequent interest in a new, related category, which informs the quality assessment and ad selection process '402 Patent, col. 5:15-18 '402 Patent, FIG. 3
  • Technical Importance: This model allows advertisers to bid more dynamically, paying a premium for high-quality user engagement (i.e., users likely to convert) while paying less for lower-quality traffic, thereby creating a more efficient advertising marketplace '402 Patent, col. 7:20-44

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 10 and 19, and dependent claim 1 Compl. ¶50
  • Independent system claim 10 recites a processor configured to perform steps including:
    • Determining a first quality level for a user profile based on an estimated likelihood of an event.
    • Determining an indication of interest in a "first category" based on a search or purchase.
    • Determining that a "need relative to the first category has been met" based on a subsequent search or purchase.
    • Based on the "need met" determination, determining an indication of interest in a "second category," forming a sequence of related interests.
    • In response, determining a "second quality level" for the user.
    • Displaying an advertisement based on one of the quality levels.
  • The complaint states that Walmart infringes "one or more claims of the '402 patent" Compl. ¶49, reserving the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Walmart System" and "Walmart Connect" as the accused instrumentalities Compl. ¶40 Compl. ¶49

Functionality and Market Context

  • The "Walmart System" is described as an integrated "omni-channel" ecosystem that combines Walmart's physical stores with its e-commerce website, walmart.com Compl. ¶¶13-14 The system allows customers to make online purchases that can be fulfilled at physical stores Compl. ¶40 A screenshot provided in the complaint illustrates how the website directs a customer to a specific in-store aisle to pick up an online-selected item Compl. ¶18
  • "Walmart Connect" is identified as Walmart's advertising platform Compl. ¶49 The complaint alleges it provides services such as "Sponsored Search" and "Onsite Display Ads" that allow advertisers to target customers based on "in-store and online purchase history, search behavior, and current activity" Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶55

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for both asserted patents (Exhibits 3 and 4) but does not include them in the filing Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶50 The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

'823 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Walmart's operation of its integrated system of physical stores and computer networks (the "Walmart System") infringes the '823 patent Compl. ¶40 The core of the infringement theory appears to be that by allowing customers to make online shopping selections that are fulfilled at physical stores, Walmart is practicing the claimed invention Compl. ¶40 However, the complaint does not provide a detailed narrative explanation of how the technical operations of the Walmart System map to the specific claim elements of the '823 patent, such as the use of two different "cookie types" stored in different browser storage areas or the specific method of device identification via network resource requests. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement and refers to the unprovided Exhibit 3 for an element-by-element breakdown Compl. ¶41

'402 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Walmart infringes the '402 patent through its provision of the "Walmart Connect" advertising platform Compl. ¶49 The infringement theory is that Walmart Connect's advertising services, which allow third parties to target ads to customers, implement the claimed "Advertising Model." The complaint alleges that Walmart Connect uses "in-store and online purchase history, search behavior, and current activity to serve 'precisely targeted ads to customers'" Compl. ¶55 It is also alleged that Walmart encourages advertisers to purchase ads based on "your category" and to target users at various stages of the shopping journey, such as on search, browse, and item pages Compl. ¶55 These allegations suggest that Walmart Connect's functionality corresponds to the patent's disclosure of using user data and behavior to inform tiered ad bidding. The complaint refers to the unprovided Exhibit 4 for a detailed claim chart Compl. ¶50

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '823 Patent:

  • The Term: "a first cookie of a first type" and "a second cookie of a second type"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires two different types of cookies stored in different browser storage areas. The patent heavily distinguishes its novel "cache cookie" (data stored in browser history or temporary files via network requests) from "traditional cookies" '823 Patent, col. 5:12-24 The construction of these terms will be central to determining whether the claim reads on systems using standard HTTP cookies or is limited to the specific "cache cookie" mechanism described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "cookie" rather than the specification's more specific term "cache cookie." A plaintiff may argue this generic language is not limited to the specific embodiments described.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description of the invention is framed as an alternative to "traditional cookies" '823 Patent, col. 2:45-49 Further, claim 1 requires the first cookie to be stored by "causing the client device to initiate a set of network resource requests," language that directly tracks the specification's description of how a "cache cookie" is created '823 Patent, col. 15:40-46, suggesting the claim is tied to this specific mechanism.

For the '402 Patent:

  • The Term: "determining... that a need relative to the first category has been met"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation, found in independent claims 1 and 10, is the core of the patent's sequential logic for inferring a user's evolving interests. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether infringement requires a system to perform this specific, affirmative inferential step, or if it can be met by more general ad-targeting techniques (e.g., excluding recent purchasers from a campaign).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example where a user researches painting books and then purchases paint brushes, from which it is "likely that the user is no longer interested obtaining beginner books on painting (because that particular need has been met)" '402 Patent, col. 5:41-50 A plaintiff could argue this language supports a construction covering any system that infers a purchase and adjusts ad strategy accordingly.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 3 explicitly depicts "Determine whether user need associated with user profile has been met" as a discrete step (302) that precedes the determination of a conversion assessment '402 Patent, FIG. 3 A defendant could argue this requires an explicit, standalone logical determination, not merely the passive outcome of a user falling out of a target audience after a purchase.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. For the '823 patent, it claims Walmart induces its customers to infringe by providing websites and instructions on how to create and use online accounts with the Walmart System Compl. ¶¶42-43 A screenshot of a "Create a Walmart.com account" help page is provided as evidence of this instruction Compl. ¶43 For the '402 patent, it alleges Walmart induces advertisers and vendors by encouraging them to use the Walmart Connect platform to display targeted ads Compl. ¶¶51-53

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Walmart had pre-suit knowledge of both the '823 and '402 patents from a prior infringement lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff in the same district Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶58 The continuation of allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge is presented as the basis for willful infringement.

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

  1. A Core Evidentiary Question for the '823 Patent: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the "Walmart System" actually employs the specific "cache cookie" technique for device identification described in the patent? The infringement case will depend on whether Plaintiff can show Walmart's system writes to and reads from non-standard browser storage areas (like history or temporary files) in the manner required by the claims, rather than using conventional authentication methods.

  2. A Definitional Scope Question for the '402 Patent: Can the claim term "determining... that a need... has been met" be construed to cover general-purpose ad retargeting systems that exclude recent purchasers from a target audience? Or, is the term limited to a system that performs the specific, affirmative, multi-step logical inference of a "met need" followed by identification of a "new interest" as detailed in the patent's specification?

  3. The Question of Willfulness: Given the explicit allegation that Walmart was on notice of both patents from prior litigation, a central issue will be the potential for willful infringement. Should infringement be found, the court will need to evaluate whether Walmart's continued conduct in the face of this knowledge was objectively reckless, which could expose the company to enhanced damages.

Loading Amended Complaint