DCT
4:20-cv-01996
Quad City Patent LLC v. Zoosk Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Quad City Patent, LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: Zoosk, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Frederic M. Douglas
- Case Identification: 4:20-cv-01996, N.D. Cal., 05/06/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of California, including an office in San Francisco where it employs engineers, designers, and other personnel.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online dating platform, including the Zoosk.com website and associated mobile applications, infringes a patent related to a computer-implemented method for an automated services marketplace.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves online platforms that automatically match buyers and sellers of services by standardizing service descriptions and evaluating user-defined criteria without human intervention.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights the prosecution history of the asserted patent, noting that the patent examiner found the claims allowable over prior art due to the inclusion of a step for recognizing participant characteristics by analyzing acoustic or imagery signals, a feature the examiner considered unconventional and not subject to evaluation without personal intervention.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-07-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,272,575 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2007-01-01 | Alleged Infringement by Zoosk Begins (approximate) |
| 2007-09-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7272575 Issues |
| 2020-05-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,272,575 - Method And System For Facilitating Service Transactions
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a "neutral platform" capable of facilitating service transactions by automatically and simultaneously comparing multiple service proposals with multiple variables, which existing systems at the time allegedly lacked (’575 Patent, col. 2:9-12). Prior art systems were described as limited to specific industries, reliant on manual selection of providers, and lacking true, binding auction mechanisms (’575 Patent, col. 2:39-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that creates a "service marketplace" where services can be traded like commodities by using a standardized "set of service classification and material terms" (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-58). The system automatically evaluates and matches offers from sellers with requests from buyers based on the "degree of identicalness" of these terms, without human intervention. A central feature of the method is its ability to recognize attributes of participants—such as speech, emotion, and social intelligence—by analyzing "acoustic or imagery signals" to improve communication and matching within the marketplace (’575 Patent, col. 8:30-45; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The patented approach sought to increase the efficiency and scope of online service transactions by creating a standardized, automated, and neutral exchange, moving beyond the limitations of what it characterized as online yellow pages or simple project-posting boards (’575 Patent, col. 2:9-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A computer-implemented method for facilitating a services marketplace between multiple buyers and sellers of services.
- Defining a set of service classification and material terms.
- Registering a plurality of participants.
- Compiling offers and requests described by the classification and material terms.
- Automatically evaluating and matching the offers and requests without human intervention based on the degree of identicalness of the terms.
- Communicating the result to matched participants.
- The offers and requests being unknown to the other party prior to the communication step.
- Recognizing at least one of speech, language, emotion, social intelligence, character, or characteristics of a participant by analyzing acoustic or imagery signals collated with the participant.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-58 include further limitations not found in the prior art, but Count 1 is limited to direct infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶30, 36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the Zoosk.com online dating website and its associated "Dating Apps," including applications for Facebook, iOS, and Android (Compl. ¶¶8, 12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Zoosk operates an online marketplace where users, acting as "buyers and sellers" of dating-related services, create profiles with personal information and preferences (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). The platform employs various technologies, such as "SmartPick™" and "Behavioral Matchmaking™," to analyze user data and behavior to suggest potential matches (Compl. pp. 16, 18, 25).
- The complaint alleges that users can find and connect with other users through various features, including a "Carousel" for viewing potential matches, a "Search" function, and messaging capabilities (Compl. p. 17). The platform also includes a "Photo Verification" feature that requires users to submit a short "selfie" video to verify their profile pictures (Compl. p. 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| defining a set of service classification and material terms; | The Zoosk platform prompts users to define preferences such as gender, age, and personal interests, which allegedly constitute the claimed "service classification and material terms." The complaint provides a screenshot of the "How to Add or Edit Interests on Your Profile" help page to support this. | ¶40.b, p. 13-14 | col. 4:51-58 |
| registering a plurality of participants of the service marketplace; | Users register for the Zoosk service by providing personal information through a sign-up page, thereby becoming "participants" in the marketplace. This is supported by a screenshot of the Zoosk sign-up form. | ¶40.c, p. 15 | col. 9:24-40 |
| automatically evaluating and matching the offers and the requests, without human intervention, based upon the degree of identicalness of said set of service classification and material terms...; | Zoosk’s "SmartPick™" feature is alleged to automatically evaluate and match users based on their profiles and preferences. The complaint cites a help page explaining that "SmartPick is technology that learns from the behaviors and preferences of Zoosk members to introduce people who are likely be interested in each other." | ¶40.e, p. 18 | col. 12:4-14 |
| communicating to matched participants of the result generated by the evaluating and matching step; | The Zoosk platform communicates matches to users through notifications, messages, and the "Connections" feature, which shows mutual matches. The complaint references a help page describing how users can connect with others through these features. | ¶40.f, pp. 22-23 | col. 12:15-18 |
| the offers being unknown to service buyers and requests being unknown to service sellers prior to the communicating step; | The complaint alleges that Zoosk's "Carousel" feature, which presents potential matches one by one for a "yes" or "no" decision, satisfies this limitation because users are not aware of other potential users (offers/requests) until the system presents them. | ¶40.g, p. 26-27 | col. 12:19-22 |
| recognizing at least one of speech, language, emotion, social intelligent, character and characteristics of at least one of the participants by analyzing acoustic or imagery signals...; | Zoosk's "Photo Verification" process, which requires a user to submit a "short 'selfie' video" for review by moderators, is alleged to be an analysis of "imagery signals" to recognize a user's "characteristics." This allegation is supported by a screenshot of the photo verification interface. | ¶40.g, p. 26 | col. 12:23-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether an online dating service qualifies as a "services marketplace" with "buyers and sellers" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples of more traditional commercial services like legal and accounting (’575 Patent, col. 2:40-44). The defense may argue that users are not transacting for "services" in a commercial sense.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the final "recognizing" limitation raises a significant technical question. The complaint posits that Zoosk's "Photo Verification" video analysis meets the claim element of analyzing "imagery signals" to recognize "character and characteristics." A court may need to determine if this identity verification function is technically equivalent to the patent's description of recognizing "emotion," "truthfulness," "temperament," and "social intelligence" through analysis of facial expressions and voice (’575 Patent, col. 25:5-24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term:
"services marketplace"- Context and Importance: The applicability of the entire patent to the accused platform depends on whether an online dating service is considered a "services marketplace." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant is likely to argue that its social platform is distinct from the commercial transaction platforms described in the patent's specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "any tangible or intangible place where services are offered for sale or transacted," which could encompass Zoosk's platform (’575 Patent, col. 3:55-58).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s examples focus on professional and freelance services such as writing, design, legal, and accounting, suggesting a more commercial context than a dating service (’575 Patent, col. 2:40-44). The consistent use of "buyers" and "sellers" may also imply a commercial relationship.
The Term:
"recognizing at least one of speech, language, emotion, social intelligent, character and characteristics ... by analyzing acoustic or imagery signals"- Context and Importance: This limitation was identified in the complaint as a key reason for the patent's allowance (Compl. ¶25). Therefore, its construction will be critical to both infringement and validity analyses.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that recognition can be performed visually by analyzing "facial expression/facial muscle movement" from "image sequences" (’575 Patent, col. 25:6-16). Plaintiff may argue that analyzing a "selfie" video to confirm a user's identity is a form of recognizing a "characteristic" from "imagery signals."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this step as performing a sophisticated analysis to identify traits like "emotion (anger, surprise), truthfulness, temperament (hostility), and personality (shyness)" (’575 Patent, col. 25:21-24). Defendant may argue that Zoosk's Photo Verification, which appears to be a liveness check to match a face to a photo, does not perform the claimed function of recognizing these complex behavioral and psychological attributes.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Zoosk directs and controls its users to perform the claimed method through its platform, apps, and websites (Compl. ¶42). The complaint cites Zoosk's terms of service, which provide instructions for using the service, as evidence of inducement (Compl. ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’575 Patent and its infringement "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action" (Compl. ¶33). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term
"services marketplace,"which the patent illustrates with examples of commercial and professional services, be construed to cover the user interactions on the Zoosk online dating platform? This determination will frame the entire infringement analysis. - The case may ultimately turn on a question of technical congruence: does the accused "Photo Verification" feature, which appears to confirm a user’s identity from a video, perform the specific function of
"recognizing ... emotion, social intelligent, character and characteristics"as taught and enabled by the patent specification? The degree of mismatch between the accused functionality and the patent's detailed description of this key limitation will be a central point of dispute.