DCT

2:20-cv-04856

Be TopNotch Wyoming LLC v. Evite Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-04856, C.D. Cal., 06/01/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is headquartered and/or has its primary place of business in the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital invitation and photo-sharing systems and methods infringe a patent related to assigning photographers for an event and automating the collection and sharing of event media.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the process of collecting photos and videos from multiple attendees at an event by integrating photographer assignment and media sharing requests directly into a digital event invitation platform.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of its parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,943,140.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104 Priority Date
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104 Issued
2020-06-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104 - Assign photographers on an event invite and automate requesting, uploading, and sharing of photos and videos for an event

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104, titled "Assign photographers on an event invite and automate requesting, uploading, and sharing of photos and videos for an event," issued on June 21, 2016 (the "’104 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of collecting photos after an event as inefficient and cumbersome, involving manual outreach to individual attendees, multiple reminders, and aggregation of media from disparate sources like email and messaging apps, which often leads to delays and complications (’104 Patent, col. 1:26-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method to streamline this process by integrating photo-sharing logistics directly into a digital calendar invitation. An event owner can use the invitation to "assign" specific invitees as photographers, which in turn can trigger the automatic creation of a centralized digital album and automate a sequence of requests and reminders for taking and uploading photos before, during, and after the event (’104 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-6:10).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method seeks to unify event management with collaborative media collection, reducing the manual coordination required by event hosts and creating a more seamless experience for guests (’104 Patent, col. 2:9-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’104 Patent, Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • creating an event to be photographed and/or video recorded;
    • sending invitations for the event that include a request to take photos/videos;
    • receiving an acceptance from invitees to take photos/videos;
    • assigning one or more accepting invitees as photographers;
    • defining a pre-event period and a post-event period;
    • sending requests to photographers to take photos during the pre-event period;
    • sending reminders to photographers to take photos during the event;
    • sending requests to photographers to take photos during the post-event period;
    • sending reminders to photographers to share the collected media; and
    • sharing the photographs and/or videos taken during the pre-event, event, and post-event periods.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses "systems and/or products" made, used, sold, or imported by Defendant Evite, Inc. of infringement (Compl. ¶10). No specific product name is provided beyond the identity of the defendant.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities employ the method covered by Claim 1 of the ’104 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not, however, provide any specific description of how the accused Evite products or services operate. It states that an "infringement analysis at Exhibit B" shows that Defendant employs the claimed method, but Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶14).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement analysis in an unfiled "Exhibit B" and does not provide a claim chart or detailed mapping of accused features to claim limitations in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶14). The narrative infringement theory, based on the recitation of claim elements, is that Evite's systems and methods perform the complete, ten-step process recited in Claim 1 of the ’104 Patent (Compl. ¶9). This includes creating an event, sending invitations with a request to capture media, designating certain invitees as "photographers," defining pre- and post-event time periods for media capture, sending a series of automated requests and reminders tied to those periods, and ultimately sharing the collected media (Compl. ¶9(a)-(j)).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the functionality offered by Evite constitutes "assigning... photographers" as required by the claim. The question is whether Evite’s system performs an explicit designation of specific users for this role, as illustrated in the patent (’104 Patent, FIG. 3A), or if it offers a more general photo-sharing capability available to all guests.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites a highly structured sequence of notifications, including separate requests and reminders tied to "pre-event," "event," and "post-event" periods. A key technical question will be whether the complaint can be supported by evidence that Evite’s platform performs this specific, multi-stage, time-based notification workflow, or if its functionality is limited to more general reminders to share photos.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "assigning one or more of said accepting invitees as photographers"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it distinguishes the claimed invention from a generic system where any guest can upload photos. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether Evite's system performs an action that meets the definition of "assigning." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific act of designation by the event owner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes "assigning the event owner and zero or more of the invitees as photographers," which a party could argue simply means enabling the photo-sharing feature for a set of users who have opted in (’104 Patent, col. 2:59-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification includes figures depicting a specific user interface titled "Assign Photographers" where an event owner can select from a list of invitees, suggesting a discrete and deliberate act of designation (’104 Patent, FIG. 3A-3B). The patent’s definition of "Photographer invitees" as those who receive a "photo/video sharing request from the event owner" further supports a narrower reading requiring a specific request (’104 Patent, col. 13:42-47).

  • The Term: "defining a pre-event period and a post-event period"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation, and the subsequent claim steps that depend on it, adds a specific temporal structure to the claimed method. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether Evite's system contains corresponding functionality.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that this language is met by any system that allows uploads to occur at any time before or after the scheduled event time, without requiring an explicit definition of a "period."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly shows user interface elements for setting a "Pre-event Duration (hours)" and "Post-event Duration (hours)," suggesting that "defining" requires an affirmative act of setting specific time windows for photo collection, rather than a passive, default capability (’104 Patent, FIG. 2A, elements 210, 212).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendant "specifically intended for its customers to infringe" by providing them with the accused systems (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges Defendant "caused, encouraged and aided others, including customers, to directly infringe" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not allege specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’104 Patent, "at least since Defendant first learned about the '104 patent" (Compl. ¶14). This language preserves a claim for post-filing willfulness and suggests a potential claim for pre-suit willfulness, though no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are provided.

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

  • Evidentiary Support: A primary question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency. The complaint makes detailed infringement allegations that hinge on an unfiled exhibit. The case may depend on whether Plaintiff can produce discovery evidence to show that Evite’s platform performs the specific, multi-step, and automated workflow recited in Claim 1, as the complaint itself is bare of such factual support.
  • Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely involve a core issue of claim construction, centered on the meaning of "assigning... as photographers." The court will need to determine if this requires an explicit, selective designation of users by an event owner, as depicted in the patent’s embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a system that simply enables photo-sharing for any guest who opts in.
  • Technical Specificity: A key challenge for the Plaintiff will be demonstrating functional correspondence. The court will likely examine whether the accused Evite platform, which may offer general photo-sharing features, contains the specific, granular functionalities required by the claim, such as defining distinct "pre-event" and "post-event" durations and sending automated reminders tied to that specific temporal logic.