Ask Sydney, LLC v. SNAP, Inc.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ask Sydney, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Snap LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00114, W.D. Tex., 02/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Snap LLC having regular and established places of business in the Western District of Texas, including a specific office address in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat application infringes two patents related to iterative, tag-based methods for visually guiding a user to content that matches their current interest.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses dynamic content discovery, where user feedback on a sequence of images is used to progressively refine search results, a key function in modern recommendation engines and e-commerce platforms.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786, indicating a shared specification and a direct lineage. The '705 patent was issued subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the earlier '786 patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-08-15	Priority Date for '786 and '705 Patents
2016-04-26	'786 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-12	'705 Patent Issue Date
2023-02-13	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786 - "System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786, titled "System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest", issued on April 26, 2016 (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

As the '786 patent is part of the same family as the '705 patent discussed below, its technology is substantially similar.

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the failure of conventional recommendation systems, which rely on a user's long-term history, to accurately identify a user's specific, granular, and contemporaneous interest or "craving" at a given moment ('705 Patent, col. 1:31-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a guided, iterative search process where a user is shown a sequence of images, each associated with descriptive tags. The system receives user feedback on an image and uses that input to process the associated tags, determine a new set of tags, and select a subsequent image, thereby refining the search in real-time to identify the user's specific interest ('705 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, history-based recommendations to a more dynamic, conversational search model designed to satisfy immediate and often fleeting user desires, such as finding a particular food dish ('705 Patent, col. 5:12-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the '786 patent (Compl. ¶18).
• The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims of the '786 patent, nor the referenced claim chart exhibit, preventing a detailed breakdown of the claim elements.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims and provide further infringement arguments (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 - "Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705, titled “Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback,” issued on November 12, 2019 (Compl. ¶13; '705 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in existing applications that provide recommendations based on a user's general history, noting that such systems cannot predict a user's "current, specific preference" or "craving" with sufficient granularity ('705 Patent, col. 1:41-57).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a computer-implemented method that presents a sequence of digital images, each associated with a plurality of tags. The system receives user input indicating a preference (e.g., favorable or unfavorable) and, in response, analyzes and adjusts weights of the tags to determine a "next set of tags." It then presents a subsequent image associated with this new tag set, iteratively resolving the user's "subjective need" ('705 Patent, col. 27:18-col. 28:44). The process is illustrated in patent figures showing a user interface with "Crave or not?" options ('705 Patent, FIG. 4A).
• Technical Importance: The described iterative feedback loop allows for a dynamic adjustment of search criteria in real time, aiming to provide a more responsive and accurate recommendation than algorithms based on static user history ('705 Patent, col. 5:31-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the '705 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include ('705 Patent, col. 27:18-49):
  • determining a plurality of different digital images to present... each... being associated with a plurality of tags;
  • receiving, via a user input device, an unfavorable indication of a disinclination for the image features in the one of the digital images;
  • analyzing at least some of the tags to determine a next set of tags;
  • adjusting weights of at least some of the tags based on an association relative to tags within the same category;
  • transitioning the one of the digital images with the subsequent digital image on the video display device; and
  • receiving... a further input corresponding to one of the at least two input options for the subsequent digital image.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims and provide further infringement arguments (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is identified as "Snap Inc's Snapchat, is multimedia instant messaging app and service" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused product but does not describe the specific technical operations or features (e.g., content discovery feeds, "Spotlight," or advertising recommendation systems) alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit. It makes general allegations that Snap LLC "develops, designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services" (Compl. ¶3). The '705 patent includes several figures illustrating a claimed user interface, such as FIG. 4A, which depicts a screen presenting an image with binary "Crave or not?" user input options ('705 Patent, FIG. 4A).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Snapchat infringes at least Claim 1 of the '786 Patent and Claim 1 of the '705 Patent, referring to attached claim chart Exhibits C and D, respectively, for the detailed infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶23, 30). However, the complaint provides no narrative description of the infringement allegations, and the referenced exhibits were not included with the publicly filed document. A detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is therefore not possible based on the provided documents.

The '705 patent itself provides visual examples of the claimed system. For instance, FIG. 4D of the '705 patent illustrates how descriptive tags, such as "California Sushi Roll," "Raw," and "Sushi," are associated with a presented image, a central concept for the claimed tag-based processing ('705 Patent, FIG. 4D).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: Given the complaint's lack of technical detail, a primary issue will be what discovery evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the Snapchat application's underlying recommendation engine practices the specific iterative, tag-based processing steps recited in the asserted claims, as opposed to using other known recommendation algorithms.
• Technical Question: A key question for the '705 Patent will be whether the accused Snapchat algorithm performs the specific step of "adjusting weights of at least some of the tags" as required by claim 1. The parties will likely dispute whether Snapchat's method for promoting or demoting content qualifies as "adjusting weights" or constitutes a different, non-infringing technical process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"adjusting weights" ('705 Patent, col. 27:38)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patented method's mechanism for refining search results. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '705 Patent may depend on whether the court defines this term broadly enough to read on the accused functionality of the Snapchat application. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific mathematical or logical manipulation of tag values, which may or may not be present in the accused system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes processing tags to "determine a next set of tags" based on user preference, which a party could argue supports a broader meaning of simply giving certain tags more or less importance in the next iteration of the search ('705 Patent, col. 14:10-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's use of the active term "adjusting" and the detailed flow diagrams could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, discrete numerical or logical modification of a tag's value, rather than a more general filtering or re-sorting of content ('705 Patent, col. 21:20-22:20; FIG. 3).

"unfavorable indication of a disinclination" ('705 Patent, col. 27:29)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the type of user input that triggers the claimed iterative process. The infringement analysis will depend on whether routine user interactions within Snapchat, such as swiping away content or quickly scrolling past a post, meet this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent equates this input with a simple "negative preference (e.g., dislike)" and describes it being implemented via a "dislike virtual button," suggesting any explicit user action to dismiss content could fall within the term's scope ('705 Patent, col. 13:62-64, col. 27:56-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term requires a conscious, explicit "dislike" signal, as depicted by the distinct "X" icon in the patent's figures ('705 Patent, FIG. 4A, item 404a), and that more ambiguous user behaviors like passively ignoring content do not meet this standard.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint exclusively alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for both patents (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 25). It does not plead facts to support, nor does it include counts for, indirect or induced infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It includes placeholder allegations that Defendant made "no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing" the claims were invalid (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 26-27). The prayer for relief requests a finding that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which may indicate an intent to develop a basis for enhanced damages or attorneys' fees during discovery (Compl. p. 7, ¶C).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will Plaintiff produce from Snapchat's non-public source code and system architecture to demonstrate that its recommendation engine performs the specific iterative tag processing and weight adjustment steps required by the asserted claims, particularly given the lack of technical detail in the complaint?
• A core legal issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "adjusting weights", which is central to the claimed invention, be construed broadly enough to cover the algorithmic methods used to filter and rank content in the accused Snapchat application, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that places Snapchat's functionality outside the patent's boundaries?