Be TopNotch Wyoming LLC v. MY Wedding Workbook LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Be TopNotch Wyoming, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: My Wedding Workbook, LLC d/b/a Planning Pod (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chavous Intellectual Property Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02882, D. Colo., 10/09/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is incorporated in the state, maintains a registered agent and a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s event management software platform infringes a patent related to methods for requesting, managing, and sharing photos and videos associated with an event.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of event calendaring with photo-sharing functionalities, aiming to streamline the collection and distribution of media from event attendees.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104 - "Assign Photographers on an Event Invite and Automate Requesting, Uploading, and Sharing of Photos and Videos for an Event"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,373,104, “Assign Photographers on an Event Invite and Automate Requesting, Uploading, and Sharing of Photos and Videos for an Event,” issued June 21, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the logistical difficulties and delays involved in organizing photo-taking for an event, collecting the resulting photos from various individuals using different methods (e.g., email, messaging), and sharing a consolidated album with guests (’104 Patent, col. 1:26-54). The process is described as time-consuming and lacking a streamlined workflow (’104 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that integrates a mobile device's calendar function with its photo-sharing capabilities (’104 Patent, col. 2:9-16). An event owner can create an event invitation that includes a specific request for designated invitees to act as "photographers." This action automatically creates a centralized digital album for the event, allows photographers to upload media, and enables the owner to share the album with guests according to predefined preferences (’104 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-65). Figures 1A-C illustrate the user interface for creating an event and enabling the photo request feature.
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide an "end-to-end solution" that automates the entire process from requesting photos to sharing the final album, reducing the manual coordination required by event hosts (’104 Patent, col. 15:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21, 52).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A computer-implemented method for sharing photos and videos for an event, comprising:
  • creating an event on a computer, where the event is to be photographed or recorded;
  • sending invitations for the event to invitees, where the invitations include a request to take photos or videos of the event;
  • receiving an acceptance from one or more invitees to take photos or videos; and
  • assigning one or more of the accepting invitees as photographers.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims from the ’104 Patent (Compl. ¶7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Planning Pod's Planning Pod Connect product" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is described as online "event-management-software" (Compl. ¶21). Its alleged functionality includes tools for creating an event, sending invitations to invitees, managing vendors, and sharing files, photos, and videos related to the event (Compl. ¶22, 23, 25).
• The complaint alleges that Defendant instructs its customers to use these features for pre-event, event, and post-event periods (Compl. ¶22, 24). It is marketed to customers in Colorado and elsewhere through Defendant's website (Compl. ¶6, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

9,373,104 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent’s specification heavily features embodiments on a "mobile device" and integration with a native "calendar program" and "camera app" (’104 Patent, col. 3:6-15). The complaint accuses a web-based software platform (Compl. ¶21). A potential dispute may arise over whether the term "computer" as used in the claims, when read in light of the specification, can be construed to cover the distributed server-client architecture of the Accused Product.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the Accused Product performs the claimed steps but supports them primarily by citing to general marketing webpages (e.g., event-management-software.cfm, vendor-management-for-events.cfm) (Compl. ¶21-33). A key technical question is whether the general "file sharing" or "vendor management" features of the Accused Product perform the specific function of including "a request to take photos and/or videos" within an event invitation, as the patent appears to contemplate with a dedicated UI element (’104 Patent, Fig. 1A, element 102).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "photographers"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis because it defines the role of the person capturing media. The complaint alleges that the Accused Product’s "vendor-management" features satisfy limitations related to photographers (Compl. ¶24, 29). The construction of "photographers" will determine if a professional "vendor" in an event management system is the same as a "photographer" in the context of the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the claims, which may support giving it a plain and ordinary meaning not limited to any specific type of user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes "photographer invitees" as a subset of "event invitees" (’104 Patent, col. 13:42-46). This context, along with the patent's focus on streamlining collection from guests, may support a narrower construction limited to event attendees rather than third-party professional vendors.

• The Term: "invitations... include a request to take photos and/or videos"

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the invitations sent by the Accused Product contain the specific "request" required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent illustrates this as a discrete, selectable function within the event creation interface (’104 Patent, Fig. 1A, element 102), which may be more specific than a general communication or file-sharing instruction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not specify the form of the "request," which could support an interpretation where any instruction to take photos associated with the invitation suffices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the request as an integrated feature of the calendar invitation process, directly "triggering the auto-creation of a new photo/video album" (’104 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the "request" may need to be a specific, functional element of the software, not just text in an email.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by selling, advertising, and providing instructions for its customers to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20, 59, 60). Contributory infringement is also pleaded (Compl. ¶59).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement will be knowing and intentional upon service of the complaint, forming the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶51).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused "Planning Pod" software, a general event management platform, actually perform the specific, integrated method claimed in the ’104 patent? The dispute may center on whether its generic "vendor management" and "file sharing" features meet the claim requirements of assigning "photographers" and embedding a "request to take photos" within an event invitation itself.
• The case will also likely involve a core issue of definitional scope: can the term "photographers," which the patent describes in the context of event "invitees," be construed to cover the professional "vendors" managed by the accused software? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for infringement.