DCT

1:18-cv-00366

British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC InterActiveCorp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00366, D. Del., 03/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because each defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ social media products, including dating applications (Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid) and a video hosting service (Vimeo), infringe six patents related to data communications and information services.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents cover a range of technologies foundational to modern online services, including location-based content delivery, remote data visualization, adaptive video streaming, and dynamic user profiling.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of potential infringement for three of the patents-in-suit as early as September 7, 2015, and for the remaining patents as early as December 15, 2016, through a series of letters and meetings between counsel. This history forms the basis for the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-10-16 ’450 Patent Priority Date
1997-04-14 ’040 Patent Priority Date
1997-10-22 ’079 Patent Priority Date
2000-11-29 ’200 Patent Priority Date
2001-05-29 ’450 Patent Issued
2002-05-28 ’040 Patent Issued
2002-12-31 ’105 Patent Priority Date
2003-06-10 ’079 Patent Issued
2007-03-29 ’297 Patent Priority Date
2007-07-10 ’105 Patent Issued
2011-07-05 ’200 Patent Issued
2015-09-07 Alleged notice of ’450, ’040, and ’105 Patents
2015-11-03 ’297 Patent Issued
2016-12-15 Alleged notice of ’079, ’200, and ’297 Patents
2018-03-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,240,450 - "Network Data Visualization System and Method for Downloading Visualization Software to a User Station After User Authentication"

  • Issued: May 29, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes prior art data visualization techniques as requiring data to be stored locally on a computer and necessitating technical users to write new software for each different visualization, which limited remote access for non-technical users (Compl. ¶49; ’450 Patent, col. 1:40–49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user at a remote location requests access to a database. After authenticating the user, the system downloads a "data visualisation software tool" (such as a Java applet) to the user's station. This tool then enables the user to retrieve, process, and view the complex data in a graphical and understandable format (Compl. ¶¶49-50; ’450 Patent, col. 2:14–18, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This client-server approach for visualization was intended to "give remote access to data, together with visualisation capability, to non-technical users" (Compl. ¶49; ’450 Patent, col. 1:47–49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims of the ’450 Patent that are asserted to be infringed.

U.S. Patent No. 6,397,040 - "Telecommunications Apparatus and Method"

  • Issued: May 28, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings of prior art information systems, which could either provide personalized information only at a fixed location, broadcast the same information to all users in an area, or transmit information only along a pre-defined travel route, potentially overwhelming users with irrelevant data (Compl. ¶61; ’040 Patent, col. 1:43–2:26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that tracks a user's location, accesses data indicating localities for which information sources are relevant, and generates a "shortlist of information sources" for the user based on their current location. This filtered list is then transmitted to the user's terminal, allowing them to select relevant information without being overloaded (Compl. ¶62; ’040 Patent, col. 12:35–50, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided for "personalised information distribution which alters the information delivered dynamically in accordance with the location of each of the users," a key concept for modern location-based services (Compl. ¶63; ’040 Patent, col. 3:8–12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims of the ’040 Patent that are asserted to be infringed.

U.S. Patent No. 6,578,079 - "Communications Node For Providing Network Based Information Service"

  • Issued: June 10, 2003
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies for users accessing digital content from multiple different providers, which required separate agreements, logins, and bills (Compl. ¶73). The patented solution is a communications node that authenticates a user once and provides a unified list of all content items the user has rights to access from various sources, streamlining the retrieval and payment process (Compl. ¶¶74, 75).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint.
  • Accused Features: The "purchased" or "rented" video features of the Vimeo product/service (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 7,243,105 - "Method and Apparatus for Automatic Updating of User Profiles"

  • Issued: July 10, 2007
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies a shortcoming in prior art profile update systems that used pre-designed rules and offered little user control or personalization (Compl. ¶85). The invention proposes an improved method using an inference engine that applies a first set of rules weighted by a set of "personalized rule weightings," which are themselves generated from a second set of "meta-rules" and user preference data, allowing for more targeted and efficient profile updates based on user activity (Compl. ¶¶84, 86).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint.
  • Accused Features: The "Daily Matches feature" of Match.com and the "basic operation (e.g., the quiz question feature)" of OkCupid (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 7,974,200 - "Transmitting and Receiving Real-Time Data"

  • Issued: July 5, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses challenges in streaming real-time data over packet networks, such as packet jitter and start-up delays caused by initial buffering (Compl. ¶98). The invention describes an adaptive streaming method where a server first sends data encoded at a lower quality but at a higher transmission rate to rapidly fill a client-side buffer; once the buffer reaches a predetermined level, the server switches to sending a higher-quality stream, reducing start-up delay while improving user experience (Compl. ¶99).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint.
  • Accused Features: The "adaptive streaming feature" provided in the Vimeo and Vimeo Live products/services (Compl. ¶102).

U.S. Patent No. 9,177,297 - "Distributing Data Messages To Successive Different Subsets of Group Members Based on Distribution Rules Automatically Selected Using Feedback From a Prior Selected Subset"

  • Issued: November 3, 2015
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of sending messages to large groups of people to get a quick response (Compl. ¶111). The invention describes a method of sending a message to a first small subset of members, receiving feedback from them, and then "automatically select[ing] a second distribution rule" based on that feedback to propagate the message to a second, different subset of members, thereby creating a more controlled and automated distribution process (Compl. ¶¶109-110).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint.
  • Accused Features: Tinder's "Smart Photos" feature, which tests a user's photos and reorders them based on feedback from other users (Compl. ¶¶7, 112, 114). The complaint includes a screenshot from Tinder's blog showing the user interface for enabling this feature (Compl. ¶7, Fig. 4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • ’450 Patent: Vimeo's "Advanced Stats features" (Compl. ¶52).
  • ’040 Patent: Tinder, Match.com's "Mixer" feature, and OkCupid's "Quickmatch and Locals" features (Compl. ¶65).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Vimeo: The complaint alleges that Vimeo provides media content creators with data visualizations, such as charts and graphs, that show network access and usage statistics for their content (Compl. ¶9). Figure 5 in the complaint depicts a "Source URL Report" dashboard for creating and exporting custom reports on video performance (Compl. ¶9, Fig. 5).
  • Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid: These are social media dating services. The accused features are those that identify potential matches based on geographical proximity (Compl. ¶¶4, 60). The services are alleged to use a phone's physical location to present users with a list of profiles of other users who are nearby (Compl. ¶¶5-6). Figure 1 of the complaint shows the Tinder application displaying a potential match who is "1 mile away" (Compl. ¶4, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert specific claims of any patent-in-suit. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis in a claim chart format. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’450 Infringement Allegations (Narrative Summary): The complaint alleges that IAC infringes by providing Vimeo's "Advanced Stats features," which supply charts, graphs, and statistics to customers (Compl. ¶¶51-52). This functionality is alleged to practice the patented method of providing data visualization to a remote user (Compl. ¶48).

    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether providing a web-based analytics dashboard, as depicted for Vimeo, constitutes "downloading" a "data visualisation software tool" to a user station, as described in the patent specification, which contemplates technologies like Java applets (Compl. ¶50; '450 Patent, col. 4:30-31). The specific implementation of Vimeo's features will be critical in determining if they fall within the scope of the patent's claims.

  • ’040 Infringement Allegations (Narrative Summary): The complaint alleges that the accused dating services infringe by providing users with "shortlists of information" (i.e., profiles of potential matches) based on their geographic location (Compl. ¶¶60, 64). This functionality is alleged to map to the patented method of tracking a user's location and generating a shortlist of relevant "information sources" (Compl. ¶62).

    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether a "user profile" in a dating app constitutes an "information source" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis may turn on whether the patent's context limits the term to more traditional information services (e.g., local business or tourist information) or if it can be read more broadly to cover user-generated content like dating profiles.
      • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the apps are "based on geographic location of your mobile device" (Compl. ¶5). A technical question will be whether the specific method used by Defendants to determine location and generate match lists performs the same steps as those required by the asserted claims of the ’040 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not assert any specific claims of the patents-in-suit and therefore provides no basis for an analysis of key claim terms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that IAC actively induces and contributes to infringement. The inducement allegations are based on claims that IAC provides software to users and third parties with instructions for infringing uses, and that this software has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶51, 65, 78, 90, 103, 115).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "knowing, deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of BT's rights" for all six patents (Compl. ¶¶56, 69, 81, 93, 106, 118). This allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a series of notice letters and communications that allegedly began on September 7, 2015 for the ’450, ’040, and ’105 patents, and on December 15, 2016 for the ’079, ’200, and ’297 patents (Compl. ¶¶45-46).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technological applicability: can patents with priority dates from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which describe technologies such as downloadable Java applets for visualization ('450 Patent) and location-based lists of information services ('040 Patent), be construed to cover modern, dynamically-rendered web applications like the Vimeo analytics dashboard and Tinder’s real-time, location-based profile matching?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: for patents covering multi-step methods, such as the feedback-based message distribution of the ’297 Patent, does the accused functionality (Tinder's "Smart Photos") actually perform the specific sequence of claimed steps—for example, does A/B testing user photos based on swipe data constitute "receiving feedback" and "automatically select[ing] a second distribution rule" in the manner claimed?
  • A potential threshold issue may concern pleading sufficiency: the complaint's failure to identify any specific asserted claims for any of the six patents-in-suit could raise the question of whether it provides Defendants with sufficient notice of the infringement allegations to satisfy federal pleading standards, potentially leading to early motion practice.