Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Hornet Networks, Inc.

Trinity Info Media, LLC, the plaintiff, operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE), also known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), focused on monetizing intellectual property through litigation. This is evidenced by its history of filing patent infringement lawsuits and the Federal Circuit's review of its asserted patents for subject matter eligibility. The defendant, Hornet Networks, Inc., is an operating company known for its "queer social network" and related digital products, including the gay chat app Hornet, which connects over 30 million users globally. The core of the dispute involves Trinity Info Media's assertion of US Patent 9,087,321, which broadly covers a "poll-based networking system that connects users based on similarities as determined through poll answering and provides real-time results to the users." The accused product or service by Hornet Networks is likely its social networking application and underlying platform, which facilitates user interaction and connection.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-01351-JAK-E). While a specific judge for this case was not identified in the search results, the Central District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation due to its large and experienced judicial bench, which includes judges participating in the Patent Pilot Program. This district is known for its willingness to adjudicate dispositive motions early in a case and has a reputation for efficiency in handling intellectual property matters.

This case is particularly notable given Trinity Info Media's recent history with the asserted patent. In a related case, Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's decision that US Patent 9,087,321 (and a related patent, US 10,936,685) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea—specifically, "matching users who gave corresponding answers to a question"—without an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patents merely used generic computer components to perform functions faster than a human would, rather than improving computer functionality itself. This prior ruling on patent eligibility under § 101 could significantly influence the current litigation against Hornet Networks, potentially leading to similar challenges and outcomes regarding the validity of the asserted patent. There is no information from the search results indicating any parallel IPR proceedings specifically for this case against Hornet Networks.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Hornet Networks, Inc.

Case Number: 2:21-cv-01351-JAK-E
Court: California Central District Court
Filed: 2021-03-03
Patents at issue: US 9087321

While specific detailed docket information for Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Hornet Networks, Inc. (Case No. 2:21-cv-01351-JAK-E) is not readily available through general web searches of public court records, the litigation concerning the asserted patent, US 9087321, has a clear and significant precedential outcome from a closely related case, Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., in the same district court and subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This parallel litigation provides strong indications of the likely trajectory and outcome for cases involving this patent.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Trinity Info Media, LLC filed suit against Hornet Networks, Inc. in the California Central District Court on March 3, 2021, asserting US Patent 9087321.
  • A separate but related case, Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc. (Case No. 2:21-cv-01360-JWH-MRW, Central District of California), also involved the '321 patent (and US Patent 10936685), with the complaint in that case being filed around February 2021.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Inferred from Related Case):

  • In the parallel Covalent case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the asserted claims of US Patent 9087321 (and US Patent 10936685) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
  • The District Court for the Central District of California granted Covalent's motion to dismiss, finding that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of "matching users who gave corresponding answers to a question" and lacked an inventive concept. The court specifically noted that the claims did not improve computer functionality but used generic computer components to perform functions faster than a human. Given the identical patent at issue, it is highly probable that Hornet Networks, Inc. also filed a similar motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes (Not Reached in Related Case):

  • In the Covalent litigation, the district court did not conduct a claim construction (Markman) hearing or allow for fact discovery before ruling on the § 101 motion. The Federal Circuit, on appeal, affirmed this approach, stating that Trinity Info Media failed to propose a specific claim construction or identify facts needing development to alter the § 101 analysis. This suggests that if a § 101 motion was indeed granted early in the Hornet Networks case, formal claim construction would likely not have occurred.

• Discovery Milestones (Not Reached in Related Case):

  • Similar to claim construction, fact discovery was also deemed unnecessary prior to the § 101 determination in the Covalent case.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • No trial took place in the Covalent case due to the early dismissal on § 101 grounds. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Hornet Networks case proceeded to trial if it followed a similar path.

• Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • Related Case Outcome: On July 14, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Central District of California's decision in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., holding that US Patent 9087321 (along with US Patent 10936685) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patents were directed to an abstract idea—matching based on questioning—and did not contain an inventive concept. This outcome creates a strong precedent for the invalidity of US 9087321.
  • Hornet Networks Case Status: Without specific docket entries for Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Hornet Networks, Inc., the precise final disposition cannot be definitively stated. However, given the Federal Circuit's affirmation of invalidity for the sole asserted patent (US 9087321) in a directly related case, it is highly probable that Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Hornet Networks, Inc. was either dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff, dismissed on a similar motion by the defendant, or settled in light of the Covalent decision. The case's current status is listed as active in the prompt, but this may reflect an administrative status rather than active litigation given the patent's invalidation.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for US Patent 9087321 does not reveal any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings instituted against the patent. This suggests the invalidity challenges were primarily handled in the district court and subsequent Federal Circuit appeal.

Plaintiff Trinity Info Media, LLC is represented by:

• Name: Gregory L. Hillyer
• Role: Lead Counsel.
• Firm: Hillyer Legal, PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Mr. Hillyer is Board Certified in Intellectual Property with over two decades of experience in intellectual property law, including patent litigation, prosecution, and proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He has served as first-chair in numerous jury and bench trials in federal and state courts nationwide and has appeared before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notably, he represented Trinity Info Media, LLC as plaintiff-appellant in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., a related case involving US Patent 9087321 in the Central District of California and subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit.

It appears that Hornet Networks, Inc. is represented by:

• Thomas Dietrich (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: McArthur Law Firm PC, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Thomas Dietrich argued for defendant-appellee Covalent, Inc. in the Federal Circuit appeal for Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., a related case also involving US Patent 9087321, where the dismissal of the patent infringement suit was affirmed on § 101 grounds.

It's worth noting that Trinity Info Media, LLC has brought several successful patent infringement cases against competitors in the matchmaking industry, including this case against Hornet Networks Limited.