Posted On: February 2, 2012 by James L. Higgins

Judge Stark construes claim terms relating to personalization of internet experience

Judge Stark recently construed the following terms relating to patented technology that “provide[s] a more personalized experience for internet users based on an individual user’s interests” by “filter[ing] information available on the internet to target more relevant internet search results, advertisements, news, and other information . . . .” Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., Civ. No. 09-525-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2012).

“user” or “user u”

“user-specific data files”

“monitored user interactions with the data”

“parameters”

“estimating parameters of a learning machine”

“learning machine”

“User Model specific to the user”

“user-specific learning machine”

“document”

“estimating”

“probability”

“unseen document”

“estimating a probability P(u/d) that an unseen document d is of interest to the user u”

“estimating a posterior probability P(u/d,q) that a document d is of interest to the user u given a query q submitted by the user”

“present” and “presenting”

“user interest information derived from the User Model”

“documents of interest to the user”

“documents not of interest to the user”

In construing the final two terms, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that “of interest” and “not of interest” were indefinite, explaining that to the extent those terms are subjective, they describe a user’s subjective reaction that can be determined based on objective criteria described in the specification. Id. at 44-45.

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., Civ. No. 09-525-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2012).