DCT
2:19-cv-02515
SRK Technology LLC v. Snap Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SRK Technology LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Snap, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Brown Rudnick LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-02515, C.D. Cal., 04/03/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Snap maintains regular and established places of business in the District, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat application infringes two patents related to methods for selecting a media capture mode based on the duration of a user's interaction with a single interface element.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses user interface design for mobile devices, seeking to simplify the choice between capturing a still image and recording a video by using the duration of a button press to automatically select the mode.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or proceedings. However, subsequently filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings challenged the validity of the patents-in-suit. IPR certificates, provided with the case documents, indicate that all independent claims asserted in this complaint (Claims 1 and 30 of the '059 patent; Claims 1 and 24 of the '159 patent) were subsequently cancelled. This post-filing development raises a threshold question about the viability of the Plaintiff's case as currently pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-19 | Priority Date for ’059 and ’159 Patents |
| 2012-12-14 | Snapchat "Video Snaps" Update Launch (iOS) |
| 2013-02-21 | Snapchat "Video Snaps" Update Launch (Android) |
| 2015-03-31 | U.S. Patent No. 8,996,059 Issues |
| 2018-03-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,930,159 Issues |
| 2019-04-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,996,059 - "Adaptive Communication Mode for Recording a Media Message"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience for users of mobile devices who had to manually toggle between different modes for recording media, such as a "push-to-talk" mode for short messages and a "tap-to-start" mode for longer recordings (’059 Patent, col. 1:15-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified system where a single interface element (e.g., a button on a touchscreen) is used for both modes. The system automatically deduces the user's intent by measuring the duration of the user's press; it then compares that duration to a configurable time parameter to select the appropriate recording mode—for example, a short tap for one mode and a long press for another (’059 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-3:5).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to create a "friction-free method" for recording media, making the user interface more intuitive and seamless on mobile devices with limited screen space (’059 Patent, col. 5:30-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method) and 30 (system) (Compl. ¶15).
- Claim 1 requires the steps of: (1) providing an adaptive recording application; (2) detecting activation of an interface element; (3) determining a duration of the activation; (4) comparing the duration with one or more configurable timing parameters; and (5) selecting one of a plurality of communication modes based on the comparison (’059 Patent, col. 25:35-54).
- Claim 30 recites a system with modules configured to perform the functions corresponding to the steps of method claim 1 (’059 Patent, col. 27:30-30:21).
U.S. Patent No. 9,930,159 - "Adaptive Communication Mode for Recording a Media Message"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’059 Patent, the ’159 Patent addresses the same problem of inconveniently switching between media recording modes on a mobile device (’159 Patent, col. 1:20-46).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system that selects a communication mode based on a combination of factors, including the duration of an interface element's activation and/or the presence or absence of a media signal (e.g., a user's voice). This allows the system to use additional context beyond just time to infer the user's intent (’159 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:9-24).
- Technical Importance: By incorporating media signal detection as a potential input, the system could achieve a more accurate and robust determination of the user's intended action, further simplifying the user experience (’159 Patent, col. 2:39-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method) and 24 (system) (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1 requires the steps of: (1) detecting activation of an interface element by an application; (2) determining a duration of the activation; (3) comparing the duration with one or more configurable timing parameters; and (4) selecting one of a plurality of communication modes based on the comparison (’159 Patent, col. 27:10-23).
- Claim 24 recites a system comprising a processor and memory storing an application with modules configured to perform detection, duration determination, comparison, and mode selection based on one or a combination of the comparison and other factors (’159 Patent, col. 29:21-44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as all versions of the Snapchat application distributed on the Apple App Store since December 2012 and the Google Play Store since February 2013 (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain a feature that unified photo and video capture into a single on-screen button (Compl. ¶8). This feature was presented as a solution to "toggling back and forth between a photo and a video setting" (Compl. ¶8, p. 6).
- The functionality allows a user to tap the button for a short duration to take a "photo snap" or press and hold the same button for a longer duration to record a "video snap" (Compl. ¶¶12, 13). The complaint also notes a "multi snap" mode for recording a series of videos by holding the button for an even longer duration (Compl. ¶12, p. 11).
- An instructional screenshot from Snap's website, included in the complaint, explicitly states: "Tap the camera button to take a photo Snap. Press and hold the button to record a video Snap!" (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
8,996,059 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing an adaptive recording application executable by at least one processor configured to record said media message on said communication device | The Snapchat application is alleged to be an adaptive recording application with multiple communication modes, including photo, video, and multi snap. | ¶16 | col. 6:61-64 |
| detecting activation of an interface element on said communication device for initiating said recording of said media message | The Snapchat application allegedly detects a user's touch activation on the camera button interface element. | ¶17 | col. 7:1-6 |
| determining a duration of said activation of said interface element by said adaptive recording application | The application allegedly determines the length or duration of the user's input (e.g., tap vs. press-and-hold) on the camera button. | ¶18 | col. 7:11-14 |
| comparing said duration of said activation of said interface element with one or more configurable timing parameters by said adaptive recording application | The selection of a communication mode is allegedly based on a comparison of the user's input duration against configurable timing parameters. | ¶19 | col. 7:17-21 |
| selecting, in response to said detection of said activation of said interface element, one of a plurality of communication modes for recording said media message...based on said comparison... | The application allegedly selects "photo snap" mode for a short tap and "video snap" mode for a longer press and hold, based on the duration comparison. | ¶20 | col. 7:46-54 |
9,930,159 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting activation of an interface element by an application on a communication device | The Snapchat application allegedly detects the user's touch activation of the on-screen camera button. | ¶30 | col. 6:53-58 |
| determining a duration of said activation of said interface element by said application | The application is alleged to determine the duration of the user's press on the camera button. | ¶31 | col. 7:10-13 |
| comparing said duration of said activation of said interface element with one or more configurable timing parameters by said application | The application allegedly uses the duration of the user input to select a mode, which is based on a comparison with timing parameters. | ¶32 | col. 7:16-20 |
| selecting, in response to said detection of said activation of said interface element, one of a plurality of communication modes by said application based on said comparison... | Based on the duration of the user's interaction, the application allegedly selects between "photo snap" and "video snap" modes. | ¶33 | col. 7:43-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the Snapchat application’s simple photo/video capture function falls within the scope of a "communication mode" as described in the patents, which heavily reference "push-to-talk" and asynchronous messaging contexts (’059 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the system uses "configurable timing parameters" (Compl. ¶19), but provides no direct evidence of configurability beyond the mere existence of a time-based threshold. A key dispute may center on whether Snap's implementation uses a fixed, hard-coded value versus a parameter that is "configurable" as contemplated by the patent, which describes configuration via user input, system settings, or adaptive learning (’059 Patent, col. 4:29-34; col. 7:30-44).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "configurable timing parameters"
Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether Snap's application performs a "comparison" with "configurable" parameters. Snap may argue its system uses a static, hard-coded threshold that is not "configurable," thereby avoiding infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine the evidence needed to prove infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the parameters may be configured "based on a user input, a system setting, etc." (’059 Patent, col. 4:29-34). This language could be argued to include settings configured by the developer (Snap) at the system level, not just the end-user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the system's ability to "learn and change the configurable timing parameters based on the user's behavior" and adapt during a "training session" (’059 Patent, col. 7:30-44). This could support a narrower construction requiring that the parameters be dynamically adjustable or user-specific.
The Term: "communication mode"
Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the claims, frames the purpose of the invention. Its construction could determine whether the patents apply to general media capture or are limited to the messaging-specific examples in the specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent broadly defines the term as "a mode for initiating and terminating recording of a media message" (’059 Patent, col. 3:1-4). This definition is general and could plausibly cover a photo capture or video recording function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and detailed description are heavily focused on solving problems with "push to talk (PTT) communication mode" and "tap to start (TTS) communication mode" (’059 Patent, col. 1:26-45). This context may be used to argue the term is limited to such asynchronous messaging modes.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Snap instructs its customers on how to perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is supported by references to Snap's support website, instructional videos, and user guides that explicitly describe the "tap for photo, hold for video" functionality (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Snap "actually knew or should have known" its conduct constituted an "unjustifiably high risk" of infringement, and that the infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 39). The pleading does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Claim Validity: The foremost question for the court will be the impact of the post-filing IPR proceedings. With the provided certificates indicating that all asserted independent claims have been cancelled, a threshold issue is whether any valid patent claims remain for the Plaintiff to assert in this action.
- Claim Construction: Should the case proceed, a dispositive issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "configurable timing parameters" require dynamic or user-level adaptability as detailed in the patent's embodiments, or can it be construed to cover a static, developer-set time threshold that may be present in the accused application?
- Patentable Subject Matter: Given the patents relate to a user interface method implemented in software, and in light of the similarity between the asserted claims of the parent '059 Patent and the continuation '159 Patent, a foundational question may arise regarding whether the asserted claims of the later '159 Patent are patentably distinct and do not constitute obviousness-type double patenting.