Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Shutterstock Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Spider Search Analytics LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Shutterstock, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Chaudhari Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00745, D. Del., 05/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of a web crawling service to identify advertising channels infringes a patent related to methods for crawling the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns automated methods for systematically discovering and retrieving information from web pages, a foundational process for data aggregation and business intelligence.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,454,430, "System and method for facts extraction and domain knowledge repository creation from unstructured and semi-structured documents," issued November 18, 2008.

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of automatically analyzing the "virtually infinite amount of information available to public" on the internet, which is presented in unstructured or semi-structured formats designed for human consumption, not machine analysis. (’430 Patent, col. 1:33-40). Existing keyword search systems are identified as insufficient for answering complex, aggregated questions. (’430 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to systematically find and extract facts from documents to build a structured "domain knowledge repository." (’430 Patent, Abstract). A core part of this solution involves a web crawling method that begins from a set of initial seed URLs, termed "crystallization points," and recursively explores linked pages to discover relevant information for analysis. (’430 Patent, FIG. 4; col. 12:32-40).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to move beyond simple document indexing toward automated, structured data extraction, enabling more sophisticated querying and analysis of information sourced from the web. (’430 Patent, col. 1:56-63).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶12, 19). The patent contains three independent claims. (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method for crawling the internet to locate pages relevant to an application and thus building a Web Crawler
    • starting from a base set of application-dependent web pages or crystallization points
    • applying breadth-first recursive crawling

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is a "method" performed by Defendant Shutterstock that utilizes the "80legs" web crawling service. (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Shutterstock uses the 80legs API to create "dozens of web crawls each month," starting from a "base set of application-dependent web pages" that Shutterstock selects. (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The purpose of this activity is alleged to be the extraction of "custom-defined data elements" which are downloaded to Shutterstock's own database and "leveraged locally to identify new ad channels." (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’430 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused method of "applying a mixture of breadth-first and depth limited recursive crawling" meets the claim limitation of "applying breadth-first recursive crawling." (Compl. ¶14; ’430 Patent, col. 27:38). The court may need to determine if "depth limited recursive crawling" is a species of, or is distinct from, the claimed "breadth-first" method.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's primary evidence for the crawling methodology is a citation to a public webpage from the third-party service 80legs. (Compl. ¶14). A key evidentiary question will be whether this general description of the 80legs service accurately reflects the specific method actually used by Shutterstock and proves that Shutterstock itself performs every step of the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "crystallization points"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the starting point of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because infringement requires the accused process to initiate from a set of pages meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the set of web pages allegedly selected by the Defendant qualifies. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself equates the term with a "base set of application-dependent web pages," which could be argued to be broad. (’430 Patent, col. 27:35-36). The specification also refers to them simply as "initial URL's." (’430 Patent, col. 12:38).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, high-quality examples of crystallization points, such as "the Urls of Fortune 10,000 companies' web sites and 1000 business publications' websites." (’430 Patent, col. 13:10-13). This could support an argument that the term implies a curated, pre-vetted list rather than any arbitrary set of starting pages.

• The Term: "breadth-first recursive crawling"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical action of the claimed method. The infringement case depends on demonstrating that the accused service performs this specific type of crawling. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term should be given its standard meaning in computer science, covering any recursive crawl that explores all neighbor nodes at the present depth prior to moving on to nodes at the next depth level.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where "all links from a particular page are first explored then each one of them is used as a starting point for the next step." (’430 Patent, col. 13:31-35). A party could argue that the accused "mixture" of crawling types, which allegedly includes "depth limited" crawling, deviates from this specific process and thus falls outside the claim's scope. (Compl. ¶14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "knowledge of infringement of the ’430 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint." (Compl. ¶18). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness, as reflected in the prayer for "enhanced damages." (Compl., Prayer ¶5).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "breadth-first recursive crawling," as defined in the patent, be interpreted to read on the "mixture of breadth-first and depth limited recursive crawling" allegedly performed by the accused service?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of attribution and proof: What evidence will be sufficient to demonstrate that Shutterstock's use of the third-party 80legs service constitutes direct infringement, and can the general technical descriptions from the service provider's website prove that every limitation of the asserted claim was met in the specific method used by the Defendant?