Mitii Inc v. Openai Global LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: MITII, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: OpenAI OpCo, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ahmadshahi Law Offices
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-02273, C.D. Cal., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant sells and offers for sale the accused products and services in the district, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sora text-to-video artificial intelligence model and associated services infringe four patents related to the animated delivery of electronic messages.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of generative artificial intelligence, specifically technology that synthesizes video content from user-provided text prompts, a market of significant recent commercial and public interest.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents, which share a common specification, were developed to help children with autism by using well-known characters to improve engagement. The patents all claim priority from a provisional application filed in 2014.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,397,972 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued July 19, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need to enhance electronic messaging, such as text or email, by moving beyond static words to create a more impactful and creative medium. (’972 Patent, col. 8:15-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for transforming a text message into a short animated video. A sender composes an electronic message on a first device, selects an "animation character," and transmits both to a server. The server converts the text to speech, generates moving images of the selected character appearing to speak the words, and transmits the resulting speech and animation to a recipient’s device for display. (’972 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-40). The overall system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing communication between user devices and a central server. (’972 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to enrich digital communication by integrating user-selectable animated avatars with text-to-speech synthesis, transforming standard text into a more expressive, personalized video format. (’972 Patent, col. 7:51-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 19. (Compl. ¶16).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A machine implemented method of communicating comprising steps performed via a first device, a server, and a second device.
  • At the first device: composing an electronic message, selecting a well-known animation character, and transmitting the message and character.
  • At the server: receiving the message and character, converting the message into speech (using synthesized or actual voice of the character), generating moving images of the character, and transmitting the speech and images.
  • At the second device: receiving, outputting, and displaying the speech and moving images.

U.S. Patent No. 9,667,574 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued May 30, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’972 Patent, this invention addresses the limitations of plain-text electronic communication and seeks to provide a more engaging alternative. (’574 Patent, col. 7:51-63).
• The Patented Solution: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’972 Patent, claims a server-centric method for generating the animated message. The claimed method begins with the server receiving an electronic message and a selected animation character. The server then performs the computationally intensive tasks of converting the text to speech, generating the corresponding moving images of the character, and transmitting both the audio and visual components onward. (’574 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-21).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a client-server architecture that offloads the processing for speech synthesis and animation generation to a central server, which could enable less powerful client devices to participate in creating and receiving animated messages. (’574 Patent, col. 8:26-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 4 and dependent claim 15. (Compl. ¶27).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 4:
  • A machine implemented method of communicating performed via a server.
  • Receiving an electronic message and a well-known animation character.
  • Converting the electronic message into speech using a synthesized or actual voice of the character.
  • Generating moving images of the character.
  • Transmitting the speech and the moving images.

U.S. Patent No. 10,616,157 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued April 7, 2020

Technology Synopsis

A continuation in the same patent family, the ’157 Patent claims a complete computer network system for communication. The invention is defined as a system comprising three distinct components: a first client device for composing and sending a message, a server for receiving the message and performing the text-to-speech and animation processing, and a second client device for receiving and displaying the final animated output. (’157 Patent, claim 20; col. 8:46-67).

Asserted Claims

Claims 14 and 20. (Compl. ¶38).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the end-to-end infrastructure of the Sora App, including the user devices on which it runs and the back-end "Computing Hardware and Processes," collectively forms the claimed infringing system. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 38).

U.S. Patent No. 11,005,796 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued May 11, 2021

Technology Synopsis

The ’796 Patent claims a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (e.g., a software product) containing instructions that, when executed, cause a device to perform the communication operations. The claimed method includes receiving an electronic message and a character, converting the message to speech, and displaying moving images of the character combined with a "concomitant image." (’796 Patent, Abstract; claim 9).

Asserted Claims

Claims 9 and 19. (Compl. ¶49).

Accused Features

The Sora App software itself is accused of being the non-transitory medium containing instructions that perform the claimed method of generating animated messages. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s Sora App and its associated "Computing Hardware and Processes" (collectively, the "Accused Product"). (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies Sora as a text-to-video artificial intelligence model that is part of the GPT family of large language models. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10). The Accused Product allegedly functions by taking a user’s text input (a prompt) and generating a video that corresponds to that text. (Compl. ¶10). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user interface, allegedly from the Sora App, showing options to "Edit video" and "Post video" below a video player that includes a user-generated caption. (Compl. p. 5). This screenshot shows an interface for generating video content based on a user's textual description of a person speaking and acting. (Compl. p. 5).
• The complaint alleges that OpenAI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports the Accused Product in the United States. (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,397,972 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,667,574 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the generation of video from text, but the patent claims recite "selecting a well-known animation character." A central dispute may arise over whether a character described in a text prompt and generated de novo by an AI model meets the claim limitation of "selecting" a "well-known animation character."
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence showing how the Sora model technically operates. It raises the question of whether Sora's generative process is equivalent to the patented method, which the specification illustrates as selecting a pre-defined character from a list (e.g., "Jerry the Mouse," "Clint Eastwood") and animating it. (’972 Patent, FIG. 9). An analysis will depend on whether Sora’s functionality is a form of selecting and animating a character or a fundamentally different process of novel content creation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "well-known animation character"
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. The applicability of the patents to a generative AI model like Sora may depend on whether the video output it creates from a text prompt can be considered a "well-known animation character." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that Sora does not use pre-existing, "well-known" characters but instead generates novel scenes and actors.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide range of examples, stating the "animation character may be the image of oneself or a 'selfie,' a well-know human character like the actor Clint Eastwood, a cartoon character like Jerry the Mouse, an animal character like a cat or a dog, or an avatar character." (’972 Patent, col. 1:59-65). This diverse list, spanning real people, fictional characters, and generic avatars, may support a broad definition not limited to specific, copyrighted personalities.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures repeatedly emphasize a user action of selecting a character from a defined set. Figure 9, for example, depicts a "Change Character" screen with a list of specific, pre-existing characters like "Jerry the Mouse" and "Avatar." (’972 Patent, FIG. 9; col. 16:45-53). This may suggest that the "animation character" is a pre-defined entity chosen by the user, not one described textually and generated by the system for the first time.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents, asserting that Defendant acts with knowledge of the patents and with the intent that its customers' use of the Accused Product will constitute infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 28-29, 39-40, 50-51). The complaint does not specify the factual basis for these allegations beyond conclusory statements.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests an order adjudging that Defendant has willfully infringed the patents. (Compl. p. 17). The body of the complaint, however, does not plead specific facts to support a claim of willfulness, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "well-known animation character," which the patent illustrates with examples of specific, pre-existing entities, be construed to cover the novel, AI-generated people and scenes created by the accused Sora model from a user’s text prompt?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does Sora's generative process function by "selecting" a character and "generating moving images" of that character as required by the claims, or does it employ a fundamentally different technical method of content synthesis that falls outside the patented invention?
• A third question concerns the evolution of technology: does a patent describing a system for animating pre-selected characters from the early 2010s cover the fundamentally different paradigm of modern generative AI, or is the new technology a non-infringing alternative that operates outside the patent's scope?