DCT
2:24-cv-10014
EMM Innovations LLC v. Remind101 Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EMM Innovations LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Remind101 LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Insight PLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-10014, C.D. Cal., 03/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s commission of infringing acts within the district and its maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s communication platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for dynamically organizing and visually styling online user comments based on aggregated emotional reactions from other users.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses user interface design for online discussion forums, aiming to visually represent community sentiment and engagement in a manner that goes beyond conventional chronological or threaded displays.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that Defendant Remind101, LLC was acquired by and became part of ParentSquare, Inc. in November 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-08 | '756 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-01-08 | '756 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2020-09-15 | '756 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-11-XX | Defendant acquired by ParentSquare, Inc. |
| 2025-03-06 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,776,756 - “System And Method For Organizing And Designing Comment”
- Issued: September 15, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of organizing user comments for website content, which can become difficult to navigate and interpret as volume increases (’756 Patent, col. 1:10-13; Compl. ¶22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that moves beyond a simple list of comments. It receives "textual comments" and allows other users to provide feedback by selecting from predefined "reaction types" that define "emotion characteristics" (e.g., happy, sad, funny) (’756 Patent, col. 4:28-33). The system then analyzes these aggregated reactions and dynamically alters the visual "design feature" of the comments—such as the size, shape, or color of their "callout" or an associated icon—to reflect the collective sentiment (’756 Patent, col. 4:41-54; Compl. ¶29). This creates a visual representation of community feedback. The complaint references Figure 2 from the patent, a block diagram that illustrates the process of aggregating user actions, analyzing comment characteristics, and determining the final design and layout of the comments (Compl. ¶27).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for visually summarizing and navigating community sentiment in online discussions, offering an alternative to purely chronological or threaded views by giving prominence to comments based on user engagement and emotional response (’756 Patent, col. 1:56-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint emphasizes independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 7, and also references independent claims 13 and 15 (Compl. ¶¶40, 42, 55).
- Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
- Receiving a plurality of textual comments from a first user.
- Enabling second users to react to the comments by selecting from reaction types that define different emotion characteristics.
- Enabling users to react to the associated content item or multimedia object.
- Dynamically analyzing the emotion characteristics of the comments based on the reactions.
- Dynamically determining at least one design feature for the comments based on the analysis.
- Displaying the comments with the design feature, which includes at least one graphical emoticon.
- Independent Claim 7 (system) includes the following essential elements:
- A graphical user interface (GUI) module configured to receive comments and enable users to react with emotion-defining reaction types.
- A processing module configured to dynamically analyze the emotion characteristics from the reactions and determine a design feature.
- The GUI module is further configured to display the comments with the determined design feature.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief is general as to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶68.A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are identified as Defendant's "communication platform products," which are advertised, sold, and operated through the website www.remind.com (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as a communication platform, with a specific market context of "school-home engagement" (Compl. ¶5, fn. 1). The complaint alleges the platform includes functionality for users to "react to a message," which is central to the infringement allegations (Compl. p. 31, fn. 2). The complaint alleges these products include all features of at least claim 7 of the patent (Compl. ¶55).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a detailed, illustrated breakdown of the elements of Claim 1, mapping them to descriptions and figures from the patent specification which are alleged to be implemented in the Accused Products (Compl. ¶41). A detailed infringement chart for Claim 7 is referenced as "Exhibit A," but this exhibit was not included with the complaint document (Compl. ¶56).
’756 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.a receiving a plurality of textual comments or textual reactions originated by at least one first user relating to one or more common multimedia objects; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have this feature by mapping it to the patent's description of a platform enabling a user to send comment feedback to a specific content object. | ¶41 | col. 4:57-60 |
| 1.b enabling a plurality of second users to react to said plurality of textual comments by selecting one type of reaction from multiple choice of reaction types... | The complaint maps this element to the patent's teaching of enabling users to select an emotional reaction to other users' comments. An illustrative snippet from patent Figure 2A showing box 206A is included. | ¶41 | col. 2:4-8 |
| 1.d dynamically analyzing emotion characteristics of each of the plurality of textual comments based on selected reaction types of the plurality of second users; | The complaint alleges this functionality by referencing the patent's disclosure of analyzing user feedback and comments based on reactions and user definitions, including calculating statistics. | ¶41 | col. 4:64-5:8 |
| 1.e dynamically determining at least one design feature of each of the plurality of textual comments responsive to the step of analyzing emotion characteristics... | The complaint maps this to the patent's description of performing customization of content objects and determining a design layout based on the analysis. | ¶41 | col. 5:9-18 |
| 1.f displaying each one of the plurality of textual comments, having the at least one design feature, the design feature comprising at least one graphical emoticon displayed with each one of the plurality of textual comments; | This element is mapped to the patent’s description of determining a design layout, with the complaint noting an example from the patent where "a smiley icon or emoticon may be next to the user text." | ¶41 | col. 5:16-23 |
| 1.h wherein the design feature, comprising the at least one graphical emoticon, is dynamically changed based on a relative number of reactions... | The complaint maps this to the patent's teaching that the system calculates statistics of user actions to change design attributes like size, color, or shape. | ¶41 | col. 5:56-61 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on mapping the claim language to the patent's own disclosure. A primary issue will be whether the functionality of the Accused Products (e.g., standard emoji reactions) corresponds to the claimed "reaction types [that] define different emotion characteristics." It raises the question of whether a simple "like" or "heart" reaction "defines" an "emotion characteristic" in the manner required by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claims require that a "design feature" (e.g., the comment's visual appearance or an associated icon) is "dynamically changed" based on an "analysis" of aggregated reactions. A central evidentiary question for the court will be whether the Accused Products actually perform this visual modification. The complaint alleges this occurs but does not provide screenshots or direct evidence from the accused www.remind.com platform demonstrating this specific dynamic behavior.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "design feature"
- Context and Importance: This term is the tangible output of the claimed method and system. The infringement analysis hinges on whether any aspect of the Accused Product's user interface constitutes a "design feature" that is dynamically determined and displayed in accordance with the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 states the design feature "compris[es] at least one graphical emoticon," which could suggest the feature is not limited to only a graphical emoticon and could encompass other visual elements (col. 12:50-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as the "size, shape, color, background, or any visual effect such as brightness, transparency, highlighting, etc." of the comment "callout" itself (’756 Patent, col. 4:43-46). A party could argue the term is limited to these specific types of visual modifications of the comment container.
The Term: "dynamically analyzing emotion characteristics"
- Context and Importance: This is the core processing step of the invention. Whether the Accused Products infringe will depend on whether the processing they perform on user reactions qualifies as "dynamically analyzing emotion characteristics." Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from a simple counter.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language could be interpreted to cover any automated analysis of user reactions that influences the display.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and its figures detail a multi-step analysis process, including "calculating viewing statics and feedback statistics" (element 210A), "analyzing users profiles" (element 214), and performing "NLP and sentiment analysis" (element 211a) (’756 Patent, Fig. 2A; col. 4:64-5:8). A party may argue that the term requires these more complex analytical steps, not merely counting reactions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions and user guides (e.g., articles on how to "react to a message") that actively encourage users to perform the infringing steps (Compl. ¶57). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the claim that the Accused Products have special features with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶58).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent since at least the filing of the action (Compl. ¶60). The complaint further alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Defendant has a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the functionalities of the accused Remind platform, such as its use of standard emoji reactions, be construed to meet the patent's specific requirements for "reaction types [that] define different emotion characteristics" and a "design feature" that is dynamically generated?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused platform’s system actually perform the function required by the claims—specifically, does it dynamically alter the visual presentation of user comments based on a quantitative or qualitative analysis of aggregated user reactions? The complaint's lack of direct visual evidence from the accused product makes this a central factual dispute to be resolved in discovery.