DCT

2:21-cv-08459

Angel Tech Group LLC v. Facebook Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-08459, C.D. Cal., 10/26/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants maintaining physical offices and employing individuals within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ photo and video tagging features on the Facebook and Instagram platforms infringe four patents related to identifying users in digital media, storing those associations in databases, and using the data for searching and social networking.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns foundational methods for associating user identities with digital images in an online environment, a core feature of modern social media platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the application leading to the patents-in-suit was cited as a reference and discussed with the patent examiner during the prosecution of Facebook’s own photo-tagging patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against the four patents-in-suit. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, these IPRs resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in this complaint: claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432; claims 1, 24, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275; and claims 1, 2, 3, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-15 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2005-01-01 Facebook photo service launched
2013-01-01 Instagram photo tagging launched
2015-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432 Issued
2018-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 Issued
2019-09-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 Issued
2020-04-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480 Issued
2021-10-26 Complaint Filing Date
2024-07-31 IPR Certificates Issued cancelling all asserted claims of the ’275 and ’480 Patents
2024-09-26 IPR Certificate Issued cancelling all asserted claims of the ’432 Patent
2024-10-02 IPR Certificate Issued cancelling all asserted claims of the ’291 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432 - "Users Tagging Users in Photos Online"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of early online photo albums, where identifying individuals in photos relied on simple, non-searchable text captions, making it difficult for viewers to determine identities and impossible for users to search for photos containing specific people (Compl. ¶¶36-37; ’432 Patent, col. 1:56-2:49). Sharing photos was also described as a manual, time-consuming process (Compl. ¶38; ’432 Patent, col. 3:25-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a client-server system where users can identify, or "tag," other users within a digital photo. This process creates an association in a server-side database between a unique user identifier, a unique image identifier, and, optionally, coordinates specifying the user's location within the image (’432 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:14-23). This stored association enables functionalities like searching for all photos tagged with a specific user and automatically sharing photos with tagged individuals (’432 Patent, col. 5:29-34).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from static, descriptive photo captions to dynamic, database-driven metadata linked directly to user identities, enabling new forms of search and social interaction around digital media (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6 (’432 Patent, Claims 1, 6; Compl. ¶63).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Assigning unique user identifications and storing them in a users database.
    • Assigning a unique image identification to image data.
    • Receiving a request from a first tagging user to identify others in the image.
    • Presenting a client interface to the first tagging user.
    • Obtaining identifying information from the first tagging user, which comprises a user ID of a first pictured user and the image ID.
    • Storing an association between the first pictured user ID and the image ID in an identifications database.
    • Receiving and storing similar identifying information from a second tagging user for an additional pictured user.
    • Displaying a list of pictured users identified by both tagging users.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 - "Users Tagging Users in Media Online"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problems as its parent ’432 Patent, namely the inefficiencies of identifying, searching for, and sharing photos of specific individuals in early online photo systems (Compl. ¶¶36-38; ’291 Patent, col. 1:59-2:51).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention is claimed as a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions for a computer system to manage media tagging. The instructions cause the system to determine associations between users (e.g., friends), provide a graphical user interface (GUI) for a second user to tag a first user in a piece of digital media, determine the unique user ID of the tagged first user based on the input, and then store an association between that user ID and the unique media ID in memory (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-5:12). The system presents users for tagging based on pre-determined associations with the tagging user, such as a contact list (’291 Patent, col. 22:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: The invention formalizes the software architecture for leveraging existing social graph information (e.g., a "friend" or "contact" list) to streamline the user-tagging workflow within a GUI (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 24, 25, and 26 (’291 Patent, Claims 1, 24-26; Compl. ¶114).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Identifying a plurality of users (a first and second user).
    • Determining associations between users from memory.
    • Determining a unique digital media identifier for a media selection input by the second user.
    • Providing a GUI to the second user that displays descriptive information for other users who have a determined association with the second user.
    • Receiving an input from the second user via the GUI selecting the first user.
    • Determining the unique user identifier of the first user from that input.
    • In response, storing an association between the first user's ID and the media ID in memory.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 - "Artificial Intelligence Assisted Tagging of Users in Digital Media Online"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the manual effort of tagging the same user in multiple photos by claiming a system that automates the process. It describes applying artificial intelligence algorithms to image data within a defined set of coordinates (i.e., the area where a user was tagged) to locate other images with matching characteristics, thereby identifying the same user in other media (’275 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶165).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶166).
  • Accused Features: Facebook’s facial recognition features, such as "Tag Suggestions," which automatically identify users in newly uploaded photos based on previous tags (Compl. ¶¶13, 159).

U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480 - "Linking Tags to User Profiles"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the use of tagging as a mechanism for social network expansion. It claims a system that transmits display data showing a tagged first user in media, where the display includes both information from the tag and separate descriptive information about the user (e.g., from their profile), and includes an element for a viewing user to initiate an association with the tagged user (e.g., a "friend request" or "follow" button) (’480 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶188-189).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 30 (Compl. ¶190).
  • Accused Features: Facebook and Instagram features that display a tagged user in a photo or video and provide a link or button for the viewing user to request to connect with (friend/follow) the tagged user (Compl. ¶¶184, 189, 209).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are photo and video tagging functionalities within the Facebook and Instagram platforms, including websites, applications, and associated servers (Compl. ¶¶13, 21). This includes specific features such as Facebook Photos, Facebook Videos, Instagram photo and video tagging, and Facebook’s facial recognition features like “Tag Suggestions” (Compl. ¶¶13, 24-26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products enable users to upload digital media and create an association, or "tag," between a person in the media and that person’s user profile (Compl. ¶57). This tag is stored in a database, linking the user's unique ID with the media's unique ID (Compl. ¶¶59-62). This functionality allegedly allows users to be notified of tags, search for all media in which a specific person is tagged, and, in some cases, receive automated suggestions for tags based on facial recognition (Compl. ¶¶159, 165). The complaint characterizes photo tagging as a "core piece of functionality" and the "single greatest growth mechanism ever" for Facebook, critical to its success (Compl. ¶¶1, 19, 48). A screenshot from the complaint shows the historical "Capturing Data" interface of Sacko.com, which allowed a user to select a contact from a list and draw a circle around them in a photo to create a tag (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
assigning unique user identifications to users of a computer network and storing said unique user identifications in a users database... Facebook’s systems assign a unique user ID to each user and store it in a users database accessible by the network. ¶59 col. 6:40-46
obtaining image data from at least one uploading user...and assigning a unique image identification to said image data... Facebook’s systems receive uploaded images and assign each a unique photo ID, which is stored in an images database. ¶60 col. 6:50-53
obtaining identification data from a first tagging user...wherein said identification data comprises said unique image identifier and a pictured user unique identifier... Facebook allows a tagging user to create a "tag," which includes the photo ID of the tagged photo and the user ID of the tagged user. ¶61 col. 7:1-6
storing an association between said first pictured user identification and said image identification in an identifications database... Facebook stores the tag data, representing the association between the user ID and photo ID, in an identifications database. ¶62 col. 7:14-23
displaying list of pictured users of said network that have been identified by said first tagging user and said second tagging user in said image data. The system allows for identifying photos in which a specific user is tagged, thereby enabling the display of users who have been tagged in a particular photo. ¶57 col. 4:3-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the distributed, complex data architecture of a global platform like Facebook corresponds to the more discrete "users database," "images database," and "identifications database" structures described in the patent specification and recited in the claims. The complaint alleges these databases exist and are accessible, but the defense may argue a structural mismatch. A screenshot from the complaint of the historical Sacko.com "Searching for photos" feature shows distinct search fields for albums and people, which may be used to argue for a more structured database interpretation (Compl. p. 11).
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the claim element requiring the display of a list of users identified by both a first and a second tagging user. The infringement theory in the complaint focuses on the general ability to tag and search, but it does not specify how the accused system performs this multi-user identification and display step as claimed.

U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...determining, from memory...associations between the plurality of users of the computer system, the associations including an association between the first user and the second user. Facebook’s systems determine "friend" and "group" status between users from information stored in memory. ¶109 col. 5:18-25
...providing...a graphical user interface ("GUI")...configured to display descriptive information associated with unique user identifiers of one or more of the plurality of users with a determined association with the second user. Facebook provides a GUI where a tagging user is presented with a list of "friends" (users with a determined association) to select from when tagging someone in a photo. ¶111 col. 10:35-42
...receiving...an input initiated by the second user via the GUI, where the input indicates a selection of the first user from descriptive information... The system receives the tagging user’s selection of another user from their profile or account information to create a tag. ¶112 col. 11:41-49
...in response to receiving the input...storing in memory...an association between the unique user identifier of the first user and the unique digital media identifier... In response to the tagging input, Facebook’s systems store an association between the tagged user’s user ID and the photo ID. ¶113 col. 12:18-28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A key issue for construction may be the term "determine...associations." The question is whether this requires a specific, pre-calculated relationship (like a confirmed "friend" status) to be looked up, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any mechanism by which the system connects two user profiles, such as a real-time name search that returns potential matches.
  • Technical Questions: Analysis may focus on whether the accused GUI "displays descriptive information... with a determined association" in the manner claimed. For example, when a user starts typing a name to tag, does the system display a list strictly limited to users with a "determined association" (e.g., friends), or does it display a broader set of public profiles, potentially falling outside the claim's scope?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "identifications database" (’432 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement, as it goes to the core architecture of the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on whether Facebook's and Instagram's highly distributed and complex data storage systems, which may not have a single, monolithic "identifications database," meet this limitation as it was understood at the time of invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the database as linking information from the users database and the images database and storing relationships, suggesting its role is functional rather than strictly structural (’432 Patent, col. 7:44-55). This could support an argument that any system performing this linking function, regardless of its physical or logical structure, meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts three distinct and separate database schematics labeled "Users database 230," "Identifications database 240," and "Images database 250," suggesting a more partitioned and specific database architecture was contemplated (’432 Patent, FIG. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing instructions and user guides on their websites that explicitly direct users on how to perform the allegedly infringing tagging actions (Compl. ¶¶71, 122, 174, 198). It is alleged that Defendants market these features and intend for users to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶72, 123, 175, 199).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge as the basis for willfulness. The primary allegation is that Facebook was aware of the patent family because the underlying patent application was cited as prior art and discussed with the examiner during the prosecution of Facebook’s own photo-tagging patents (Compl. ¶¶66, 117, 169, 193). The complaint also alleges that members of the team that developed Facebook Photos were previously members of Sacko.com, the inventor's original implementation of the technology, and that Facebook was separately made aware of the patents in the summer of 2018 (Compl. ¶¶67-68).

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

  • A dispositive threshold issue will be one of case viability: given that post-filing Inter Partes Review proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all patent claims asserted in the complaint, the central question is whether the plaintiff has any remaining basis to pursue this infringement action.
  • A secondary issue, had any asserted claims survived, would be one of architectural correspondence: can the client-server architecture and discrete database structures described in patents with a 2000 priority date be construed to read on the massively scaled, distributed, and multi-functional cloud infrastructure of modern social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram?
  • A key evidentiary question for willfulness, if the case were to proceed, would be one of knowledge and intent: what is the specific evidence that key decision-makers at Facebook were aware of the patents-in-suit—beyond a citation in a prosecution file history—and deliberately chose to incorporate the claimed technology into their products despite a risk of infringement?