DCT
1:18-cv-01424
Location Based Services LLC v. Fantastic Fox Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Location Based Services, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Fantastic Fox, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01424, D. Del., 09/13/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant’s status as a Delaware corporation and thus a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Flickr photo mapping service infringes a patent related to systems for organizing and displaying digital images on a map as a function of location and time-based parameters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of geographic and temporal data with digital image collections, a foundational feature for many online photo management, social media, and mapping services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent’s filing date predates the August 2008 release of the first commercially popular cameras with built-in GPS capabilities, a fact presented to support the assertion that the claimed invention was unconventional. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-02-15 | ’733 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2008-08-01 | Nikon P6000 camera release (contextual date) |
| 2012-11-13 | ’733 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-09-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,311,733, "Interactive Key Frame Image Mapping System and Method," issued November 13, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a field of technology related to maps and systems for associating images with geographic locations, implying a limitation in prior art methods that may have only allowed for simple, static connections between an image and a map point (Compl. ¶10; ’733 Patent, col. 5:40-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that organizes images not just by location, but also as a function of time and/or image history parameters (’733 Patent, Abstract). It describes a "mapping module" that uses a data store and an associated table to link image metadata to a timeline. This enables a user to interact with the map in a time-centric way, for instance by scrolling along a timeline to see a series of time-related images appear at their corresponding map locations, effectively replaying a journey or event (’733 Patent, col. 1:49-59, col. 5:52-61). The concept is illustrated in the patent’s Figure 3, which depicts a timeline (302) linked to distinct data stores for Location A (310) and Location B (320) (’733 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of dynamic, personalized iconographic maps where images are integrated with a timeline, providing a richer user experience than a static gallery of geotagged photos (’733 Patent, col. 5:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶12, 13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
- a processor;
- a memory coupled to the processor;
- a mapping module coupled to the memory, where the module includes a data store that collects and stores images of a map area "as a function of a time line, a location or an image history parameter;" and
- the data store includes a table that associates image metadata with the timeline, location, or history parameter, enabling the "instantiation of a time-related image" at its location on the map.
- The complaint notes infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Flickr photo mapping" service is the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Flickr service is a computer system comprising processors and memory that infringes the ’733 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The accused functionality involves the system’s ability to "correlate image information with map data" (e.g., GPS data) (Compl. ¶13). It is alleged that the "flikr server" acts as a data store that stores images as a function of when and where they were taken, organizes them based on this correlated map data, and uses a table to associate metadata with these parameters to display a "time-related image" at a location on a map (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market context.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint supports its infringement allegations by citing to figures from the patent itself, such as Figure 3, which is a block diagram illustrating how data stores for different locations can be associated with points on a timeline (Compl. ¶14).
’733 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; | The Accused Instrumentalities are computer programs operating on a computer, which includes processors and memory. | ¶13 | col. 10:42-43 |
| a mapping module coupled to the memory, the mapping module including a data store configurable to collect one or more images of a predetermined area on a map, the data store configurable to store the one or more images as a function of a time line, a location or an image history parameter; | The system allegedly includes a "mapping module" that correlates image and map data. This module includes a data store ("the flikr server") that collects and stores images "as a function of the time line, location they were taken, and an image history parameter." | ¶13-14 | col. 10:44-50 |
| and the data store configurable to store a table, the table configurable to associate metadata for the one or more images with one or more of: the time line, the image history parameter and the location, the association to enable an instantiation of a time-related image from the one or more images at the location on the map. | The data store allegedly organizes images based on correlated map data and is configurable to store a table. This table associates image metadata with time, location, and history parameters to "enable an instantiation of a time-related image from the one or more images at the location on the map." | ¶14 | col. 10:51-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 6 recites a "mapping module" that includes a "data store" and a "table." A central question may be whether the accused Flickr service, likely a distributed cloud-based architecture, constitutes a "mapping module" with these specific components as required by the claim, or if its functions are performed by distinct, non-integrated systems.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the data store to "store" images "as a function of" a timeline, location, or history parameter. A technical dispute may arise over whether the Flickr server's architecture performs storage in this specific manner, or if it merely stores images with associated metadata that can be filtered by these parameters later. The distinction between an integrated organizational structure and a filterable tagging system could be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mapping module"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core infringing component. Its construction will determine the scope of system architectures that can be found to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint broadly equates it with the general function of correlating image and map data (Compl. ¶13).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the term is not limited to a specific implementation, stating that the invention's functionality "can be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination" and that the module's components can be "partially coupled to the memory and partially coupled to other components such as to firmware" (’733 Patent, col. 2:48-51, col. 6:35-42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 1 depicts the "key frame module" (36, 46) as a discrete component within a specific computer architecture, which could support an argument that a "module" is a more self-contained unit than a distributed set of functions (’733 Patent, Fig. 1). Further, the claim recites that the module "including a data store... and a table," which may imply a specific, integrated structure.
The Term: "as a function of"
- Context and Importance: This phrase qualifies how images must be stored relative to time and location. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's storage method meets this functional requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes organizing images to be "accessed via a time line," which could support a functional interpretation where any storage method that enables retrieval based on these parameters satisfies the limitation (’733 Patent, col. 1:22-23).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "organizing the one or more images on the map as a function of..." could be interpreted to require that the time and location parameters form the primary basis of the data's organizational structure, rather than being one of several filterable metadata tags (’733 Patent, col. 1:11-13).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes requests for an injunction against inducing and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶2). However, the complaint pleads only a single count for direct infringement and does not allege the specific facts regarding knowledge and intent required to support a claim for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement, nor does it allege facts that would typically support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objectively reckless conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "mapping module"? Will it be defined broadly by its function, thereby potentially capturing a wide range of cloud-based services, or will it be limited to a more discrete, integrated software structure as arguably depicted in the patent’s figures?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused Flickr system’s method of storing images with various metadata tags meet the claim requirement to "store" images "as a function of" a timeline and location, or is there a fundamental mismatch between a filterable database and the integrated organizational structure described in the patent?
- An early procedural question will concern the sufficiency of the pleadings: The complaint's infringement allegations largely track the language of the asserted claim. A threshold issue may be whether these allegations provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under the prevailing Twombly/Iqbal standard.