Be TopNotch Wyoming LLC v. Liberty Media Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Be Topnotch Wyoming, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Liberty Media Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chavous Intellectual Property Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02916, D. Colo., 10/14/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, transacts business in the state, and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Evite online invitation and event planning service infringes a patent related to methods for coordinating event-based photo and video sharing.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of event management software with automated systems for requesting, collecting, and sharing media captured by event attendees.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative 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 technical problem of coordinating photo and video capture at events as a fragmented and manual process. It notes the difficulties event owners face in individually contacting invitees to act as photographers, collecting the resulting media from disparate sources like email and messaging apps, and the delays this causes in creating and sharing a centralized event album (’104 Patent, col. 1:27-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method that integrates a calendar function with a photo-sharing system on a computing device. An event owner can create an event and, within the invitation itself, designate specific invitees as "photographers" (’104 Patent, Abstract). This action automatically creates a digital album and triggers a series of automated requests and reminders to the assigned photographers to capture and upload media during defined pre-event, event, and post-event periods, thereby streamlining the collection and sharing process (’104 Patent, col. 2:8-15; Fig. 2A).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a technical framework for transforming a manual social coordination task into an automated, software-driven workflow integrated directly into the event planning process (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21, 56).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Creating a computer-implemented event to be photographed or video recorded.
  • Sending invitations that include a request to take photos/videos.
  • Receiving an acceptance from invitees to take photos/videos.
  • Assigning one or more accepting invitees as photographers.
  • Defining a pre-event period and a post-event period.
  • Sending requests to assigned photographers to take photos/videos during the pre-event and post-event periods.
  • Sending a reminder to assigned photographers to take photos/videos during the event.
  • Sending at least one reminder to assigned photographers to share photos/videos from all three periods (pre-event, event, post-event).
  • Sharing the collected photos/videos.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s “Evite product,” an online service for creating and managing event invitations (Compl. ¶20, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Evite product is a computer-implemented method for sharing photos and videos related to an event (Compl. ¶22). Users can create an event, send invitations to guests, and track RSVPs (Compl. ¶23-25). The service allegedly includes a "Private Sharing Feed" that allows event attendees to upload and share photos "before, during, and after an event" (Compl. ¶32). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows an Evite news and comments stream that lists activities such as "photos added" (Compl. p. 6). The complaint also presents a news article describing the addition of a photo-sharing feature to Evite as part of every invitation (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’104 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "assigning... as photographers," as used in the patent, reads on the accused functionality. The defense may argue that Evite’s feature is a general crowdsourcing tool where any guest can upload photos, whereas the patent describes a more formal designation of specific invitees to a "photographer" role. The complaint's screenshot of a "photographers" contact group raises the question of whether this user-created label is sufficient to meet the claim limitation (Compl. p. 8).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "defining a pre-event period and a post-event period" limitation is met by Evite's ability to share photos "before, during, and after an event" (Compl. ¶32). A potential point of contention is whether this general capability meets the claim’s requirement of "defining" these periods, which the patent specification illustrates with specific, user-configurable time durations in hours (’104 Patent, Fig. 2A).
• Technical Questions: The complaint maps the claim element "sending... a reminder to take photos" to Evite’s general "Event Reminders" feature (Compl. ¶29; Compl. p. 11). It remains a question for the court whether this general event reminder performs the specific function required by the claim—reminding assigned photographers specifically to take photos—or if it is a generic reminder about the event's date and time.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "assigning one or more of said accepting invitees as photographers"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely focus on whether Evite's functionality, which appears to allow any guest to upload media, performs the specific act of "assigning" certain invitees to a distinct role. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the patented method from a generic, undifferentiated photo-sharing feed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to streamline the collection of photos from event attendees, suggesting any mechanism that designates certain invitees for this purpose could be covered (’104 Patent, col. 1:27-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly illustrates an "Assign Photographers" user interface where an event owner selects specific individuals from an invitee list for this role, implying a more formal designation is required than simply creating a contact group (’104 Patent, Fig. 3A-3B; col. 8:51-67).

The Term: "defining a pre-event period and a post-event period"

• Context and Importance: Infringement of this element may depend on whether a system that allows open-ended uploads before and after an event's official time satisfies the term "defining." The complaint’s evidence is a news article, not a technical depiction of the accused product's interface for setting these periods (Compl. ¶32).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes sending requests for photos taken during pre- and post-event "activities," which could be construed to cover any uploads occurring outside the event's scheduled time, regardless of a formal time-based definition (’104 Patent, col. 14:15-28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and specification repeatedly describe these periods using specific user interface fields labeled "Pre-event Duration (hours)" and "Post-event Duration (hours)," suggesting the patent contemplates a system that allows for the explicit, time-bound definition of these windows (’104 Patent, Fig. 2A; col. 8:31-40).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant "sells, offers to sell and advertises the Accused Product through websites... specifically intending that its customers use it on computer devices" in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶49). It further alleges that Defendant "instructs its customers" to use the product in accordance with the patented invention (Compl. ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief seeks a finding of intentional and knowing infringement based on Defendant's conduct after service of the complaint (Compl. p. 25, ¶7).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional specificity: does the accused Evite product’s generalized, crowdsourced photo-sharing system perform the specific, role-based, and temporally-defined steps required by Claim 1? The case may turn on whether "assigning... photographers" and "defining" pre/post-event periods require the formal, structured software implementation described in the patent's embodiments or can be met by more generic social features.
• A key evidentiary question will concern the operational reality versus marketing description of the accused product. The court will likely require evidence beyond user interface screenshots and news articles to determine if Evite's underlying system actually sends photographer-specific requests and reminders and uses defined time periods for uploads, as claimed in the patent.