DCT

2:19-cv-01444

BlackBerry Ltd v. Twitter Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01444, C.D. Cal., 06/04/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district (Santa Monica, California), employs personnel there, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Twitter application, Twitter Ads service, and associated backend systems infringe seven U.S. patents related to mobile messaging user interfaces, targeted advertising, server architecture, and social media content management.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to foundational aspects of modern mobile messaging and social media platforms, including notification management, content sharing, and advertising delivery.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s General Counsel in June and July 2017, identifying two of the patents-in-suit as being infringed by Defendant. This alleged pre-suit notice may be relevant to the claims of willful infringement. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00941), resulting in the cancellation of asserted claims 1 and 14 and the disclaimer of claim 9. U.S. Patent No. 8,676,929, from the same family, had several claims cancelled or disclaimed in a separate IPR (IPR2019-00940).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-07-23 Priority Date for ’929 and ’351 Patents
2005-01-01 BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) application launched
2005-12-30 Filing Date for ’089 Patent
2006-07-21 Filing Date for ’182 Patent
2009-02-27 Priority Date for ’059 Patent
2009-04-08 Priority Date for ’120 Patent
2010-04-01 Twitter releases its first mobile application
2010-04-12 Twitter introduces “Promoted Tweet” advertisements
2011-10-05 Filing Date for ’777 Patent
2012-10-09 ’089 Patent Issued
2012-10-23 ’351 Patent Issued
2013-10-29 ’182 Patent Issued
2014-03-18 ’929 Patent Issued
2014-09-02 ’777 Patent Issued
2015-04-28 ’059 Patent Issued
2016-05-24 ’120 Patent Issued
2016-08-18 Twitter introduces quality filters for notifications
2017-06-07 Plaintiff allegedly provides pre-suit notice to Defendant regarding the ’120 and ’182 patents
2019-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,676,929 - System and method for pushing information to a mobile device (Issued Mar. 18, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the need for a viable revenue model for mobile information services by enabling targeted advertising, which could allow providers to offer free or reduced-cost services to users (Compl. ¶85; ’351 Patent, col. 3:16-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system for delivering advertisements to mobile devices. Upon detecting a "triggering event," such as a specific time, the server determines relevant information from pre-categorized "channels" and inserts a "meta tag" into the content that identifies an advertisement to be displayed with that content (’929 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to provide a "consistent and transparent experience of receiving both information content and advertising content" (’929 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a server-side framework for automating the insertion of event-triggered, targeted advertisements into content being "pushed" to mobile devices, a key monetization strategy for early mobile services (Compl. ¶¶ 73-74).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claim 10 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Detecting a triggering event comprising a time triggering event.
    • Determining relevant information from a plurality of memory location channels.
    • When the information comprises content, inserting a meta tag for one or more advertisements to be displayed with the content.
    • The meta tag identifies the advertisements and display requirements, with the advertisements selected based on the triggering event.
    • Transmitting the content with the meta tag to a mobile device.
  • Independent Claim 9 (Server):
    • A database organized into a plurality of memory location channels storing categorized information.
    • Upon detection of a time triggering event, determining relevant information from the channels.
    • Logic for inserting a meta tag and transmitting the content to a mobile device, as in claim 1.

U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 - System and method for pushing information to a mobile device (Issued Oct. 23, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family as the ’929 patent, this invention also addresses the challenge of delivering relevant and timely advertising to mobile users to support a revenue source for information providers (Compl. ¶89; ’351 Patent, col. 2:63-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "proxy content server" that acts as an intermediary between information sources and mobile devices (’351 Patent, Abstract). The server receives information and stores it in categorized channels. Critically, it also receives a "feedback signal" from the mobile device indicating its position and uses that signal to select an appropriate channel of information and advertising to transmit to the device (’351 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶87).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a method for using real-time contextual data from the mobile device itself, specifically its location, to dynamically select and push relevant advertising, moving beyond simple time-based triggers (Compl. ¶¶ 89-90).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • A proxy content server that receives information from an information source and stores it in one of a plurality of channels based on pre-defined categories.
    • The proxy content server receives a feedback signal over a wireless network indicating the position of the mobile device.
    • The server uses the feedback signal to select a channel for transmission.
    • The information transmitted comprises static, dynamic, or default advertising, or content information.
    • A combination of static advertising with dynamic or default advertising comprises an advertisement or information bulletin.

U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 - System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread (Issued May 24, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of users being inundated with notifications from a prolific message thread (Compl. ¶101; ’120 Patent, col. 1:22-32). The solution allows a user to "silence" a specific thread, which activates a flag that overrides currently-enabled notification settings for any new messages in that thread, while allowing the silenced messages to still be displayed in the inbox (Compl. ¶102). A screenshot in the complaint shows the user interface for muting a conversation for a set duration (Compl. p. 56).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 24, and dependent claim 13 (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The "mute" functionality in the Twitter application that allows users to silence notifications for specific conversations (Compl. ¶112).

U.S. Patent No. 9,021,059 - Data hub server (Issued Apr. 28, 2015)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to reduce processing and bandwidth consumption on mobile devices when sharing content (’059 Patent, col. 18:5-12). Instead of a first user downloading and re-uploading content to share with a second user, the system uses a "data hub server." The first user's device notifies its server that content is available; that server sends a representation of the content to the data hub server, which in turn notifies the second user's server of the content's availability, allowing the second user to access it without the first user's device performing a full upload (Compl. ¶¶127-128). The complaint provides screenshots of a user's timeline showing a "Retweet" of another user's content (Compl. p. 71).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 (Compl. ¶141).
  • Accused Features: Twitter's "Retweet" functionality, which allegedly uses a data hub architecture to make a user's tweet available to their followers without requiring duplicative data transmissions (Compl. ¶¶ 142-143).

U.S. Patent No. 8,286,089 - Representing new messages on a communication device (Issued Oct. 9, 2012)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of requiring users to open every new message to clear a "new message" indicator, which was common in early mobile devices (’089 Patent, col. 1:39-57). The invention provides a method where a new message flag is set upon receipt of a message, displaying an indicator on the home screen. When the user simply invokes the message inventory screen (the list of messages), the flag is unset, and the indicator is cleared without the user having to open the new message itself (Compl. ¶¶ 147, 149; ’089 Patent, Abstract). The complaint includes screenshots showing a new message indicator on the home screen disappearing after the user navigates to the direct message list (Compl. pp. 84-85).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶162).
  • Accused Features: The functionality in the Twitter application where a new message notification is cleared from the home screen icon simply by viewing the list of direct messages, without needing to open the new conversation (Compl. ¶163).

U.S. Patent No. 8,572,182 - Handling notifications in instant messaging systems (Issued Oct. 29, 2013)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for reducing the number of status notifications (e.g., "Delivered," "Read") in an instant messaging conversation to conserve bandwidth (’182 Patent, col. 1:22-34). The invention allows a device to receive a notification for only the most recent message in a series and infer from that single notification that all prior messages in the conversation were also delivered and/or read, updating its internal records accordingly (Compl. ¶¶ 174-176). A screenshot in the complaint shows that a single blue checkmark indicates that both a message and the one preceding it have been seen by the recipient (Compl. p. 95).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶186).
  • Accused Features: The "read receipt" functionality in Twitter Direct Messages, which allegedly updates the status of all prior messages in a conversation upon confirming the most recent message has been read (Compl. ¶187).

U.S. Patent No. 8,825,777 - Selective delivery of social network messages within a social network (Issued Sep. 2, 2014)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of undesirable content (e.g., misinformation, harassment) and network strain caused by the rapid, viral re-posting of similar messages—a "circular mill" phenomenon (’777 Patent, col. 1:42-58). The invention provides a method for a social network server to monitor messages, determine when the number or growth rate of messages with substantially similar content exceeds a threshold, and then "selectively adjust" (e.g., delay or filter) the notification of new, similar messages to mitigate the spread (Compl. ¶¶ 201, 203-204).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶213).
  • Accused Features: Twitter's "quality filter" functionality, which filters "lower-quality content from your notifications, for example, duplicate Tweets or content that appears to be automated" (Compl. ¶¶ 214-215, 108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the Twitter application (for iOS, Android, Windows, and web), the Twitter Ads service, and associated backend servers and systems (Compl. ¶13, fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint targets core functionalities of the Twitter platform. The Twitter application is a social networking service that allows users to send and read short public messages ("tweets") and private "direct messages." The Twitter Ads service is the platform's primary monetization engine, allowing advertisers to promote tweets to targeted audiences based on demographics, interests, location, and time-based schedules (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 96). The complaint alleges that Twitter is a "relative latecomer to the mobile messaging world" that co-opted BlackBerry's innovations to achieve commercial success (Compl. ¶4). The complaint provides a screenshot of Twitter's ad platform showing targeting options for language, gender, interests, followers, devices, and behavior (Compl. p. 22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’929 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a server, comprising: a database organized into a plurality of memory location channels, each of the memory location channels storing information of a same category as a pre-defined category... Twitter's backend servers include a database where user and advertiser information is stored in channels corresponding to pre-defined categories like user demographics, interests, and behaviors. ¶80(b) col. 4:10-26
wherein upon detection of a triggering event comprising a time triggering event, determining the information relevant to the detected triggering event from among information stored in one of the plurality of memory location channels... Twitter Ads allows advertisers to schedule ads for a specific time or event. This scheduled time is alleged to be a "time triggering event," upon which the server determines relevant ad information from its categorized channels. ¶80(c) col. 8:13-28
when the information relevant to the detected triggering event comprises content information, inserting into the content information a meta tag for one or more advertisements to be displayed with the content information... When serving content, Twitter's servers insert "meta tags or indications" of where and when advertising should be inserted into the content stream, such as in-stream video ads or Promoted Tweets. ¶80(d) col. 3:1-4
and transmitting the content information that includes the meta tag to a mobile device... The Twitter server transmits the combined content and advertising information to the user's mobile device for display. ¶80(d) col. 3:5-15
wherein the meta tag identifies the one or more advertisements and advertisement display requirements, and wherein the one or more advertisements are selected based on the detected triggering event. The inserted meta tags identify the specific ad and its display format. The ad is selected based on advertiser-defined parameters, which include the time-based triggering event. ¶80(e) col. 8:37-56

’351 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a proxy content server that receives information over a computer network from an information source and stores the information to one of a plurality of channels based on pre-defined information categories... Twitter's backend servers allegedly function as a proxy content server, receiving ad information from advertisers (information sources) and storing it in channels based on categories like user location, age, gender, and interests. ¶96(b) col. 2:59-62
the proxy content server to receive a feedback signal over a wireless network that indicates a position of the mobile device... Twitter's application, with user permission, sends location data (e.g., GPS) from the user's mobile device over a wireless network to Twitter's servers. This is alleged to be the "feedback signal." ¶96(c) col. 3:37-43
and to use the feedback signal to select a channel for transmission of the information from the selected channel over the wireless network to the mobile device... Twitter's servers use the received location data, along with other criteria, to select a "channel" of targeted advertising information for transmission to that user's mobile device. A screenshot illustrates the user interface for enabling location tracking (Compl. p. 46). ¶96(c) col. 3:44-55
wherein the information comprises at least one of static advertising information, dynamic advertising information, default advertising information, or content information... Advertisements on Twitter are alleged to include static information (advertiser name/logo), dynamic information (time-sensitive call to action), and content information. ¶96(d) col. 4:28-46

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue for the '929 and '351 patents may be whether Twitter's distributed, modern backend server architecture constitutes the "server" or "proxy content server" described in the patents, which depict a more centralized architecture (’351 Patent, Fig. 1). The analysis may question whether scheduling a "Promoted Tweet" constitutes a "time triggering event" in the manner claimed by the ’929 patent.
  • Technical Questions: A technical question for the '351 patent is whether location data sent from a mobile app for general targeting purposes performs the specific claimed function of a "feedback signal" used to "select a channel for transmission." For the '089 patent, a key question is whether clearing a home screen badge by viewing a message list is functionally the same as the patent's claimed step of "unsetting the new message flag" in response to an "invocation to switch" screens.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "meta tag" (from ’929 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the '929 patent. The complaint alleges Twitter inserts "meta tags or indications" to place ads (Compl. ¶80(d)). The construction of this term will determine whether Twitter's method of combining content and advertising falls within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and detailed description focus on the functional outcome of combining advertising and information content for a "consistent and transparent experience" (’929 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-4). This functional language may support a broader construction that covers any data structure or instruction that causes an advertisement to be displayed with content.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide specific embodiments that would narrowly define "meta tag" to a particular technical standard (e.g., an HTML <meta> tag). A party might argue that in the absence of a specific definition, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning at the time of the invention, which could raise questions about its application to modern, proprietary data streaming formats.

  • The Term: "proxy content server" (from ’351 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This is the core component of the system claimed in the '351 patent. The complaint alleges Twitter's advertising platform and backend servers perform the role of this server (Compl. ¶96). Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's depiction of a single, centralized "Proxy Content Server" (’351 Patent, Fig. 1) may not align with Twitter's distributed, cloud-based infrastructure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server's function as to "aggregate[] existing information... and push[] the information to a mobile device" (’351 Patent, col. 2:59-62). This functional description could support a construction that reads on any server system, regardless of its specific architecture, that performs these actions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict a singular "Proxy Content Server 18" as the central hub between information sources and the wireless network (’351 Patent, Fig. 1). This consistent depiction of a specific architecture could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes more decentralized systems.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for several patents. For the ’120 patent, it alleges Defendant provides instructions to users on how to "mute" conversations (Compl. ¶117). For the ’089 patent, it alleges instructions are provided on using Direct Messages (Compl. ¶168). For the ’182 patent, it alleges instructions on how to enable or disable read receipts (Compl. ¶192). Contributory infringement is also alleged for these patents on the basis that the accused software components are specially made for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 119, 170, 194).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’120 and ’182 patents at least as of a June 7, 2017 letter, but continued to release new versions of the Twitter app with the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 115, 190). For other patents, such as the ’089 patent, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge since the filing of the original complaint in the action (Compl. ¶166).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural scope: can the server architectures described in the early-2000s priority patents ('929, '351, '059), which often depict centralized "proxy" or "hub" servers, be construed to cover the highly distributed, cloud-based backend infrastructure used by a modern social media platform like Twitter?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: for the user-interface patents ('120, '089, '182), does the accused functionality in the Twitter application (e.g., muting, clearing notifications, read receipts) operate in a manner that performs the specific, multi-step processes required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation that places it outside the claim scope?
  • A critical question for damages will be one of willfulness: what was the content of the alleged June 2017 pre-suit notice communication, and can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's continued operation of the accused features after that date constituted egregious and willful conduct sufficient to justify enhanced damages?