DCT
2:20-cv-10755
Xerox Corp v. Snap Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Palo Alto Research Center Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Snap Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKool Smith, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-10755, C.D. Cal., 11/25/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Snap Inc. maintains its headquarters and other physical offices within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s targeted advertising, notification, and content tagging features within its Snapchat application infringe patents related to context-aware content delivery, contextual intelligence platforms, and in-document content dissemination.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to using a mobile device user's context—such as location, activity, and device information—to automatically and proactively deliver personalized content, a foundational capability for modern social media and digital advertising platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, related IPR proceedings, or relevant licensing history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-05-15 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,966,362 |
| 2008-12-02 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,489,599 |
| 2011-01-01 | Snapchat application launched (approximate date) |
| 2013-04-29 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 |
| 2013-07-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,489,599 Issued |
| 2015-02-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,966,362 Issued |
| 2015-12-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 Issued |
| 2020-11-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,489,599 - "Context and activity-driven content delivery and interaction"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that, at the time of the invention, mobile devices were not "capable of learning and understanding the behavior of their users" and could not determine "when and how best to provide their users with information" because they failed to consider the user's current activities (’599 Patent, col. 1:41-46; Compl. ¶31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a content management system that delivers content based on a user's context (’599 Patent, Abstract). The system receives contextual information (e.g., from a GPS or accelerometer), processes it to determine a user's context (e.g., "walking to work"), determines if that context satisfies a predefined trigger condition, and if so, selects and presents relevant content from a database (’599 Patent, col. 4:33-40; Compl. ¶¶33-36). The complaint references Figure 3 of the patent, which illustrates this core process flow (Compl. ¶36, p. 13).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for making mobile devices more proactive and intelligent by using environmental and behavioral data to deliver personalized content, moving beyond simple user-initiated information retrieval (’599 Patent, col. 1:41-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, and 19 (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 requires: (1) receiving a content package with a content piece and rules, including a trigger condition specifying a context; (2) receiving contextual information for a user; (3) processing the information to determine a current context; (4) determining if the context satisfies the trigger; (5) presenting the content piece if satisfied; (6) receiving a user response; (7) determining if the response matches an expected response; and (8) performing an action based on the outcome.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶44).
U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 - "Generalized contextual intelligence platform"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "considerable time and expense to develop" context-aware systems as a key challenge, despite the increasing pervasiveness of mobile devices equipped with sensors (’439 Patent, col. 1:14-18; Compl. ¶60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "generic contextual intelligence platform" that separates the collection and processing of contextual data from the applications that use it (’439 Patent, col. 2:49-52). A client-side component on a mobile device collects event data from sensors, which is sent to a server-side architecture that modifies a "context graph" storing user behavior (’439 Patent, col. 2:62-65). When a change to this graph matches a "registration" from a "recommender" (an application), the system sends a notification of the change to that recommender, which can then generate recommendations (’439 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶61, 63).
- Technical Importance: This platform architecture streamlined the development of multiple, distinct context-aware applications by providing a common, reusable backend for processing and storing user context, rather than requiring each application to build its own system from scratch (’439 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, and 13 (Compl. ¶69).
- Independent Claim 1 requires: (1) receiving a registration from a recommender for notification of changes to a context graph; (2) receiving event data from a mobile device's detectors; (3) modifying the context graph based on the event data; (4) determining that the modification matches the registration; and (5) sending a notification of the context graph change to the recommender.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶69).
U.S. Patent No. 8,966,362 - "Method and system for in-document markup in support of information sharing"
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the problem that conventional mechanisms for sharing portions of documents are "cumbersome" and make it "difficult to reestablish context" (’362 Patent, col. 1:15-28; Compl. ¶85). The invention provides a system allowing a user to insert a "tag" directly within a document, where the tag indicates an action (e.g., share, copy), a portion of the document, and a recipient. The system then processes the tag to perform the specified operation, such as disseminating the document portion to the recipient (’362 Patent, col. 1:42-46; Compl. ¶86).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶95).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Snap's "Mentions" feature infringes the ’362 Patent. This feature allows a user to tag a friend in a snap or Story, which is alleged to be an "in-document" tag that causes the system to process it and disseminate the content to the mentioned user via a notification (Compl. ¶¶90-94).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are features within the Snapchat application, identified as Snap's "targeted and personalized advertising systems," "notification and messaging system," and "comment organization system" (Compl. ¶12). Specific features named are the "Instant Create" and "Advanced Create" advertising tools and the "Mentions" feature (Compl. ¶¶38, 90).
Functionality and Market Context
- The advertising tools allow advertisers to create campaigns that target users based on contextual factors like location and device type (Compl. ¶¶38, 40). The system collects a wide range of user data, including GPS, WiFi, and sensor data, to determine a user's context and serve them relevant ads (Compl. ¶¶41, 66). It then tracks user engagement with the ads (e.g., clicks, views) to measure performance and charge advertisers (Compl. ¶42).
- The "Mentions" feature allows a user to tag another user within a piece of content (a "snap" or "Story"). The system then processes this tag and sends a notification, along with the content, to the mentioned user's chat window (Compl. ¶¶90, 94).
- The complaint alleges that advertising revenue constitutes "substantially all" of Snap's revenue, making the accused advertising systems central to its business (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a flowchart from the '599 Patent, Figure 3, illustrating the process of receiving contextual information, determining a context, checking for a trigger condition, and presenting content (Compl. ¶36, p. 13).
’599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving at least one content package, wherein the content package includes at least one content piece and a set of rules... wherein the trigger condition specifies a context that triggers a presentation... | Snap receives ad campaigns from advertisers, which contain the ad (content piece) and a set of targeting criteria (rules and trigger condition specifying a context). | ¶40 | col. 7:10-15 |
| receiving a set of contextual information with respect to the first user | Snap receives user information, including location (via GPS, WiFi) and device type. | ¶41 | col. 4:33-36 |
| processing the contextual information to determine a current context for the first user | Snap processes the collected information to determine the user's current location and device type. | ¶41 | col. 7:30-33 |
| determining whether the current context satisfies the trigger condition | Snap determines if the user's current context (e.g., location, device) matches the advertiser's targeting criteria. | ¶41 | col. 12:24-26 |
| in response to the trigger condition being satisfied, presenting the content piece to the first user | After determining a match, Snap serves and presents the ad to the user. | ¶41 | col. 12:27-28 |
| receiving a response from the first user corresponding to the presented content piece | Snap tracks the user's interactions with the ad, such as clicks and views. | ¶42 | col. 12:66-13:1 |
| determining whether the received response matches the expected response | Snap determines if the user's response is an action for which the advertiser has agreed to pay (e.g., a click or an install). | ¶42 | col. 11:50-51 |
| performing an action based on an outcome of the determination | Snap charges the advertiser for the response and uses the data to create metrics reports and improve future ad targeting. | ¶43 | col. 13:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A question for the court is whether an "ad campaign" created by a third-party advertiser constitutes a "content package" as contemplated by the patent, which also describes user-created packages. Another question is whether the advertiser's targeting criteria meet the definition of a "trigger condition" that specifies a "context," or if they are simple logical rules that fall outside the patent's scope.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the degree of "processing" required to "determine a context." It raises the question of whether simply reading raw sensor data (e.g., a GPS coordinate) is sufficient, or if the claim requires a higher-level inference step, as suggested by specification language like "infer specific contexts about the user" (’599 Patent, col. 7:46-48).
’439 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, from a recommender, a registration for notification of changes to a context graph... | An advertiser ("recommender") sets up a targeted ad campaign, which the complaint alleges constitutes a "registration" for notification when a user's context changes to match the targeting criteria. | ¶68 | col. 1:33-36 |
| receiving, from a mobile device, event data derived from contextual data collected using detectors... | Snap's application on a user's mobile device collects contextual data from sensors like GPS, WiFi, accelerometers, and gyroscopes. | ¶66 | col. 1:21-25 |
| modifying the context graph that stores facts and assertions about a user's behavior and interests using the event data | Snap allegedly uses the incoming event data to "modify and update the Snap context graph," which is alleged to store user interests, location history, and behaviors. | ¶67 | col. 1:25-26 |
| determining that the modification to the context graph matches the registration | Snap's system determines that the updated user context (the modification) now matches the targeting criteria set by the advertiser (the registration). | ¶68 | col. 1:27-29 |
| sending a notification of context graph change to the recommender | Snap sends a "notification" to the advertiser ("recommender") by serving the targeted advertisement to the user whose context matched the registration. | ¶68 | col. 1:29-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central point of contention will likely be whether serving an advertisement to an end-user constitutes "sending a notification of context graph change to the recommender" (the advertiser). The court will have to determine if this action maps to the claimed step, which could be interpreted as a system-to-system message about a change, rather than the ultimate delivery of content to a third party.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is whether Snap's backend architecture actually uses a "context graph" as described in the patent—a "per-user, in-memory, graph-based model that stores facts and assertions about user behavior" (’439 Patent, col. 7:28-31). The complaint makes this allegation by referencing Snap's "social graph" and "action graphs," but the precise technical correspondence is not detailed (Compl. ¶¶67, 10-12).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "context" (from ’599 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is fundamental to the scope of the ’599 Patent. Its construction will determine whether Snap's use of simple data points like location and device type qualifies as determining a "context." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification provides examples ranging from simple, raw data to complex, inferred user states.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a context can be based on "low-level contextual information" gathered from sources like a GPS device or an accelerometer, and that it can "include one or more user activities" (’599 Patent, col. 4:9-12, 4:33-36). This may support a broad definition covering basic sensor readings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes defining a context in terms of "a high-level category of conditions, such as 'concentrating,' 'receptive,' or 'active'," and gives examples like "gardening" (’599 Patent, col. 4:18-29). This may support a narrower definition requiring a level of inference beyond simply reading a sensor value.
Term: "notification of context graph change" (from ’439 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
The viability of the infringement theory for the ’439 Patent hinges on the interpretation of this phrase. The dispute will likely center on whether delivering an ad to a user can be construed as a "notification" sent "to the recommender."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be interpreted functionally; the purpose of the notification is to act on the recommender's registered interest, and delivering the ad is the ultimate fulfillment of that interest. The patent's abstract states the system "sends a notification... to [a] recommender" after a match.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the system may notify recommenders of context graph changes" and that recommenders can "use the callbacks... to update application-specific model values when graph data changes" (’439 Patent, col. 7:55-56, 8:6-9). This language suggests a system-to-system data communication for the purpose of updating the recommender's own models, not the act of delivering content to a third-party user.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges Snap induces infringement for all three patents. For the ’599 and ’439 Patents, inducement is based on providing advertisers with tools and instructions (e.g., via online help pages) to create ad campaigns that allegedly practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶47-48, 72-73). For the ’362 Patent, inducement is based on providing users with the "Mentions" feature and instructions, which allegedly encourages them to perform the claimed tagging and dissemination steps (Compl. ¶¶98-99).
Willful Infringement
For all patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges that infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. It asserts that the filing of the complaint serves as actual notice to Snap, and that any continued infringement will be willful (Compl. ¶¶51, 76, 102). The complaint does not plead specific facts establishing pre-suit knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the act of serving a targeted advertisement to a user be construed as "sending a notification of context graph change to a recommender" (the advertiser), as required by the ’439 patent? The outcome may depend on whether this claim language is interpreted as requiring a direct system-to-system message or can encompass the functional result of an advertiser's request.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does Snap’s advertising infrastructure operate using the specific architectures claimed in the patents, namely a "context graph" (’439 patent) and the determination of an inferred "context" (’599 patent)? The case will require a deep dive into whether Snap's use of data like user location and device type rises to the level of complexity described and claimed in the patents.
- A central theme of the dispute may be the translation of commercial actions to technical steps: can commercial-layer activities, such as an advertiser creating a campaign or a user "mentioning" a friend, be directly mapped onto the specific, multi-step process limitations recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the commercial function and the claimed technical implementation?