Famous Group Tech Inc v. Rago

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The Famous Group Technologies Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cue Audio, Inc. (Delaware) and Tony Rago (individual)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchalter
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-10072, C.D. Cal., 11/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Cue Audio has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, partly through the residence of Defendant Tony Rago, an alleged officer of Cue Audio domiciled in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fan engagement products infringe patents related to the real-time integration of social media content into 3D scenes and the management of virtual fan experiences for live broadcasts.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for enhancing live events by curating and displaying audience-generated content, such as social media posts and remote video feeds, within a venue or broadcast in real-time.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Tony Rago is a former employee of Plaintiff TFG and is now employed by Defendant Cue Audio as its "Senior Director of Innovation," which underpins a concurrent claim for trade secret misappropriation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-02-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,482,660 Priority Date
2019-11-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,482,660 Issue Date
2020-10-16	U.S. Patent No. 11,736,545 Priority Date
2023-08-22	U.S. Patent No. 11,736,545 Issue Date
2023-11-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,482,660 - "System and Method to Integrate Content in Real Time into a Dynamic Real-Time 3-Dimensional Scene" (Issued Nov. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical challenge in live event production: integrating real-time content, like social media posts, into a dynamic 3D display without either pausing the 3D animation or pre-rendering the content, both of which defeat the purpose of a live, interactive experience (’660 Patent, col. 2:2-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system featuring a "content integrating engine" that solves this problem through intelligent timing (’660 Patent, FIG. 3). A "scene manager" module directs the system to retrieve and process new content (e.g., social media posts) specifically "at a time of low intensity during the 3D scenes," such as during lulls in the animation. This prevents the additional processing load from causing stutter or lag in the final display, maintaining a smooth frame rate (’660 Patent, col. 6:56-62).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables the seamless blending of audience-generated content with professionally produced live graphics, enhancing audience engagement at large-scale events.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System Claim):
  • An external server with a content management system to search and store social media posts.
  • At least one device including a content integrating engine that generates a 3D grid background.
  • The content integrating engine includes a content retriever, scene component processors to map media content to 3D tiles, and a scene manager.
  • The scene manager signals other components to retrieve and process content.
  • The content integrating engine causes a "select 3D tile" to be animated within a 3D environment, including increasing its size and changing its coordinates, moving from a start position within the grid to an end position above the grid.
  • A display device to show the animated tile.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,736,545 - "Client User Interface for Virtual Fan Experience" (Issued Aug. 22, 2023)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of bringing the energy of remote fans into a live event venue, a problem highlighted by the global pandemic which reduced in-person attendance. The goal is to make both the performers in the venue and viewers at home feel the interactive energy of a live crowd (’545 Patent, col. 1:25-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that provides a user interface on a fan's client device for a "virtual fan experience." Based on notifications from a live event broadcasting platform, the user's interface is updated in real-time to first reflect that their live video feed has been selected for potential inclusion, and then again to reflect its actual integration into the broadcast (’545 Patent, Abstract). This creates a real-time feedback loop between the remote fan and the live event production.
• Technical Importance: The technology facilitates the creation of "virtual crowds," enabling broadcasters to populate venues with the real-time reactions of remote fans, thereby enhancing the atmosphere of live sports and entertainment broadcasts.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System Claim):
  • A system with processors, memories, and modules configured to perform operations.
  • Communicate a user's live video feed to a broadcasting platform after the user has registered.
  • Upon receiving notification that the user's feed is selected for integration, cause a notification to be presented in the user's interface.
  • Perform the integration of the video feed into a virtual seat, which includes determining a "prominence" of the seat relative to others based on one or more "policies."
  • Upon receiving notification that the feed has been integrated, cause the user interface to be updated in real-time to reflect the integration.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names Defendant Cue Audio’s "PostUp" and/or "FanSee" products, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶18). The first cause of action specifically targets "the PostUp Accused Product" (Compl. ¶25), while the second targets "the FanSee Accused Product" (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products "embody the patented technology" and enable end-users to participate in interactive experiences during live events (Compl. ¶19-20). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the PostUp or FanSee products beyond alleging they perform the functions claimed in the patents-in-suit.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include Exhibits C and D, which it states are claim charts demonstrating infringement. As these exhibits are not available for review, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

• ’660 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant Cue Audio’s "PostUp Accused Product" directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’660 Patent (Compl. ¶26-27). The core of the infringement theory is that the PostUp product constitutes a system for integrating real-time content into a dynamic display, and that it practices every element of the claimed invention, including the method of retrieving, processing, and displaying content from social media within a 3D scene (Compl. ¶26).
• ’545 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the "FanSee Accused Product" directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’545 Patent (Compl. ¶37-38). The infringement theory is that the FanSee product provides a client user interface for a virtual fan experience that mirrors the claimed system. This allegedly includes communicating a fan's live video feed to a broadcasting platform and updating the fan's user interface in real-time based on notifications of the feed's selection and subsequent integration into the broadcast (Compl. ¶37).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope & Technical Questions (’660 Patent): The infringement analysis may focus on whether the PostUp product's architecture contains a "scene manager" that performs the specific function of signaling other components "at a time of low intensity during the 3D scenes" as required by Claim 1. Evidence will be needed to determine if the accused system uses this specific timing mechanism or another method to manage processing loads.
  • Scope & Technical Questions (’545 Patent): A key question is whether the FanSee product’s process for featuring fan videos involves determining the "prominence" of a virtual seat "based on one or more policies," as required by Claim 1. The dispute may turn on what constitutes a "policy" in the accused system and whether its function for selecting and placing fan videos falls within the scope of this claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’660 Patent, Claim 1: "at a time of low intensity during the 3D scenes"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the patent's claimed technical solution for avoiding display lag. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely depend on whether the accused PostUp product performs its content processing according to this specific, timed trigger, or if it uses a fundamentally different architecture (e.g., constant high-power processing) that would not meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term does not require a complex predictive algorithm, but simply means any time that is not a peak of visual activity, a functionally broad interpretation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this timing to the goal of "negate[ing] the impact of any extra processing" to maintain the display's "frame rate" (’660 Patent, col. 7:6-11). It also provides specific examples, stating the timing can be "on a timed basis or at a set point during an animation" (’660 Patent, col. 7:1-3), which could support a more purpose-driven and limited construction.

• Term from ’545 Patent, Claim 1: "prominence ... based on one or more policies"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the logic for how a fan's video feed is placed within the virtual experience. The case may hinge on whether the rules governing video placement in the accused FanSee product qualify as determining "prominence" based on "policies."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "prominence" refers to any preferential display characteristic (e.g., size, location, duration) and a "policy" is any rule, no matter how simple.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of what could be considered prominent, such as "premium or 'sweet' seats" that are "featured more prominently in the broadcasting of the live event" (’545 Patent, col. 9:48-51). This could be used to argue that the term requires a connection to being specially featured in the primary broadcast, not just placed on a grid.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Cue Audio induces infringement by providing the PostUp and FanSee products with knowledge that its partners and end-users will use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶30, ¶41). The complaint also asserts contributory infringement (Compl. ¶28, ¶39).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had "actual knowledge" of the ’660 Patent since at least November 2019 and of the ’545 Patent (Compl. ¶10, ¶29, ¶40). It further alleges infringement was undertaken with "knowledge of or willful blindness to" the fact that its actions would induce infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶41). The prayer for relief seeks trebled damages for intentional infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A central issue for the ’660 patent will be one of technical operation: does discovery show that the accused "PostUp" system employs the specific "low intensity" scheduling mechanism for processing content as claimed by the patent, or does it achieve a similar outcome through a different, non-infringing technical architecture?
• A key question for the ’545 patent will be one of definitional scope and algorithmic function: can the term "prominence," as determined by "policies," be construed to read on the method by which the "FanSee" product selects and displays fan videos, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused system's rules and the specific process required by the claim?
• A parallel and significant question, independent of the patent claims, will be one of causation and evidence for the trade secret claim: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant Rago, a former employee, used specific, protected trade secrets from his prior employment to develop the accused products at Cue Audio, or were the products developed independently?