DCT
8:25-cv-02273
Mitii Inc v. Openai Global LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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 has a continuous and substantial presence in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sora text-to-video application and associated computing systems infringe four patents related to methods and systems for the animated delivery of electronic messages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns converting text-based electronic messages into animated videos, where a selected character speaks the message, a field relevant to AI-driven content generation and enhanced digital communication.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patented technology was developed under the direction of an inventor who is an expert in occupational therapy to help children with autism by improving their engagement with everyday activities. This is a First Amended Complaint, filed after Plaintiff was informed that OpenAI OpCo, LLC is the developer of the accused product.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-24 | Earliest Patent Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2016-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,397,972 Issued |
| 2017-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,574 Issued |
| 2020-04-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,616,157 Issued |
| 2021-05-11 | U.S. Patent No. 11,005,796 Issued |
| 2025-11-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,397,972 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to move beyond simple text-based electronic communication and provide users a platform to enhance their messages creatively, transforming them into "interesting short films" rather than relying on existing systems that do not convert text into moving characters uttering the message (’972 Patent, col. 7:15-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user on a first device can compose a text message, select a "well-known animation character," and transmit it. A server receives the message and character, converts the text to speech, generates moving images of the character, and transmits the resulting speech and video to a recipient on a second device for playback (’972 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:2-11:1). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing communication between two user devices (102, 106) and a server (104) (’972 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to increase the impact and expressiveness of digital messaging by incorporating methods of voice synthesization and image animation into the communication process (’972 Patent, col. 7:61-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 19 (a system) (’Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Composing an electronic message and selecting a well-known animation character on a first device.
- Transmitting the message and character from the first device.
- Receiving the message and character at a server.
- Converting the message to speech and generating moving images of the character, via the server.
- Transmitting the speech and moving images from the server.
- Receiving the speech and moving images at a second device.
- Outputting the speech and displaying the moving images on the second device.
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,574 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family, the ’574 Patent addresses the same general problem of making electronic messages more engaging and expressive by transforming text into animated video (’574 Patent, col. 1:46-52).
- The Patented Solution: The ’574 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’972 Patent, claims methods that focus on the server-side processing of the animated message. The claimed method involves a server receiving an electronic message and a selected character, then performing the conversion to speech, generating the moving images, and transmitting the resulting speech and video (’574 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:28-40). This differs from the end-to-end system claimed in the ’972 Patent by focusing on the server's role.
- Technical Importance: This patent provides an alternative embodiment of the invention, suggesting architectural flexibility by focusing on a server-centric model for generating and transmitting the animated content (’574 Patent, FIG. 12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 4 (a method) and 15 (a system) (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 4 include:
- Receiving an electronic message and a well-known animation character, via a server.
- Converting the message into speech using a synthesized or actual voice of the character, via the server.
- Generating moving images of the character, via the server.
- Transmitting the speech and the moving images, via the server.
U.S. Patent No. 10,616,157 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10616157, "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued April 7, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, the ’157 Patent claims a computer network system for communication comprising a first (sender) device, a server, and a second (recipient) device. The claims specify the program code on each component for carrying out distinct steps of the communication method, such as composing/selecting on the first device, converting/transmitting on the server, and receiving/displaying on the second device (’157 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:28-10:4).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 14 (method) and 20 (system) (Compl. ¶38).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that OpenAI's system, comprising user devices running the Sora App and backend servers, collectively forms the claimed computer network system and performs the claimed methods of generating and delivering animated messages (Compl. ¶38, 41).
U.S. Patent No. 11,005,796 - "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11005796, "Animated Delivery of Electronic Messages," issued May 11, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’796 Patent claims a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions that cause a device to perform a communication method. A key feature of the claimed method is the display of "previously stored moving images of a combination of a portion of the well-known animation character and a concomitant image" (’796 Patent, Abstract; Claim 9). This introduces the concept of combining the animation character with a "concomitant image."
- Asserted Claims: Claims 9 (storage medium) and 19 (method) (Compl. ¶49).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is or contains a non-transitory storage medium with instructions for performing the claimed method, including displaying a character combined with a concomitant image (Compl. ¶52, pp. 16-17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Sora App" and associated "Computing Hardware and Processes," collectively identified as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶10, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies Sora as a "text-to-video App" within OpenAI's "GPT family of large language models" (Compl. ¶10, 12). The complaint includes a screenshot that shows a user interface for captioning a video of a person dancing. The sample caption, "@sama says:"I'm uttering these words while I'm dancing" while he's dancing," suggests the Accused Product generates video synchronized with speech derived from user-provided text (Compl. p. 5, ¶19). The complaint alleges Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports the Accused Product in the United States (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,397,972 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) composing an electronic message, via a first device... | The Accused Product practices the step of composing an electronic message, via a first device. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:5-17 |
| (ii) selecting a well-known animation character, via the first device | The Accused Product practices the step of selecting a well-known animation character, via the first device. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:18-24 |
| (iii) transmitting the electronic message, via the first device | The Accused Product practices the step of transmitting the electronic message, via the first device. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:25-32 |
| (iv) transmitting the well-known animation character, via the first device | The Accused Product practices the step of transmitting the well-known animation character, via the first device. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:25-32 |
| (v) receiving the electronic message, via a server... | The Accused Product practices the step of receiving the electronic message, via a server. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:33-40 |
| (vi) receiving the well-known animation character, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of receiving the well-known animation character, via the server. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:33-40 |
| (vii) converting the electronic message into speech... via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of converting the electronic message into speech... via the server. | ¶19, p. 6 | col. 10:41-45 |
| (viii) generating moving images of the well-known animation character, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of generating moving images of the well-known animation character, via the server. | ¶19, p. 7 | col. 10:46-50 |
| (xi) receiving the speech, via a second device... | The Accused Product practices the step of receiving the speech, via a second device. | ¶19, p. 7 | col. 10:55-61 |
| (xiv) displaying the moving images, via the second device | The Accused Product practices the step of displaying the moving images, via the second device. | ¶19, p. 7 | col. 10:66-11:1 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,574 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) receiving an electronic message... via a server... | The Accused Product practices the step of receiving an electronic message, via a server. | ¶30, p. 9 | col. 10:33-40 |
| (ii) receiving a well-known animation character, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of receiving a well-known animation character, via the server. | ¶30, p. 10 | col. 10:33-40 |
| (iii) converting the electronic message into speech... via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of converting the electronic message into speech... via the server. | ¶30, p. 10 | col. 10:41-45 |
| (iv) generating moving images of the well-known animation character, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of generating moving images of the well-known animation character, via the server. | ¶30, p. 10 | col. 10:46-50 |
| (v) transmitting the speech, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of transmitting the speech, via the server. | ¶30, p. 10 | col. 10:51-54 |
| (vi) transmitting the moving images, via the server | The Accused Product practices the step of transmitting the moving images, via the server. | ¶30, p. 10 | col. 10:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's only visual evidence depicts a video of a real person dancing (Compl. p. 5). This raises the question of whether a video of a person, who may or may not be publicly recognized, meets the claim limitation of a "well-known animation character."
- Technical Questions: The patents describe "generating moving images" through computer animation techniques like CGI, rigging, and keyframing (’972 Patent, col. 3:32-4:67). The complaint alleges a "text-to-video App" infringes (Compl. ¶10). This may create a dispute over whether the accused product's use of a generative AI model to create video is equivalent to the animation methods described in the patent specifications. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical architecture of the Sora App.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term
"well-known animation character"
Context and Importance
This term appears in the asserted independent claims of all four patents-in-suit. Its construction is critical because the accused Sora product is a text-to-video generator, which may create realistic videos of people or scenes that may not be "well-known" or what is traditionally considered an "animation character." Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis may depend on whether an AI-generated video of a person (including a "selfie") falls within its scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that 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). The inclusion of "oneself or a 'selfie'" may support an interpretation that covers user-generated likenesses.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The modifier "well-known" and the consistent use of examples of famous figures (Clint Eastwood, Jerry the Mouse, the "Avatar" character) could support a narrower construction requiring a degree of pre-existing public recognition, which an ordinary user's selfie or a generic AI-generated person might not possess.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing the Accused Product to "customers and end-users" with knowledge of the patents and intent to cause infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶17). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant provides components "specially made or adapted for use in practicing" the patents that are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶18).
Willful Infringement
The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of willful infringement (Compl. p. 17, ¶A). The complaint's inducement counts contain conclusory allegations of knowledge (e.g., "with knowledge of the '972 Patent") but do not plead specific facts indicating when or how Defendant acquired pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
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," illustrated in the patents with examples of famous fictional characters and actors, be construed to cover the potentially realistic, AI-generated videos of people or scenes created by the accused Sora App?
- A key technological question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused product’s method of creating video from a text prompt using a generative AI model constitute the patent's claimed step of "generating moving images of the... animation character," which the specification describes in the context of traditional computer animation techniques like CGI and keyframing?
- An evidentiary question for certain claims will be one of architectural correspondence: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the accused system’s architecture precisely mirrors the claimed distribution of tasks (e.g., composing, converting, displaying) among a user's device, a server, and a recipient's device?