DCT
1:22-cv-01524
Jigsaw Dating Ltd v. Something More Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jigsaw Dating Limited (England and Wales)
- Defendant: Something More, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01524, D. Del., 11/22/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts regular business in the state and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s S'More mobile dating application infringes a patent related to the incremental revealing of a user's profile picture based on user interaction.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the competitive online dating application market, where user engagement mechanisms and methods for fostering meaningful connections are key differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,887,270. No other prior litigation, licensing, or administrative proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,483,276 - Earliest Priority Date (GB) |
| 2022-09-01 | Plaintiff Jigsaw launches its app across Texas (approx.) |
| 2022-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,483,276 issues |
| 2022-11-22 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,483,276 - "Revealing Information Based on User Interaction"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,483,276, titled "Revealing Information Based on User Interaction," issued on October 25, 2022 (the "’276 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem in online dating where user interactions can be "less personable," leading users to make judgments based on "superficial characteristics," such as a single profile picture, without more meaningful evaluation ('276 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by initially obscuring at least part of a user's profile information, such as covering a profile picture with digital puzzle pieces. This obscured content is then incrementally revealed as users engage in communication, for example, by removing one puzzle piece for each message exchanged ('276 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-22). This process is designed to encourage sustained conversation before a full visual reveal.
- Technical Importance: This technical approach sought to shift the basis of initial user evaluation from immediate visual appearance to conversational interaction, thereby fostering more substantive connections ('276 Patent, col. 4:1-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 4 (a device claim) ('276 Patent, col. 51:61-52:51, 52:52-54:20; Compl. ¶39).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1, which the complaint describes as representative, include:
- Receiving an image submitted by a second user account.
- Displaying the image on a first device, with the image at least partially obscured by a "first amount of graphical objects."
- Receiving a "first user-typed message" from the first user.
- Providing the message for receipt by the second user.
- As a result of the first message, displaying the image on the first device with a "second amount of graphical objects that is less than the first amount."
- Displaying a "second user-typed message" received from the second user.
- As a result of the second message, displaying the image on the first device with a "third amount of graphical objects that is less than the second amount."
- Ultimately displaying the image as "unobscured" after additional messages.
- The complaint states infringement of "at least" claims 1 and 4, preserving the option to assert other claims (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "S'More App," a mobile dating application developed and controlled by Defendant Something More, Inc. (Compl. ¶1, 9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the S'More App obscures a user's profile picture with "multiple wedge-shaped pieces" and "incrementally removes those pieces as messages are exchanged" (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint alleges that S'More copied specific functionalities from the Jigsaw App, including an initial display where a profile picture has a "single piece missing" and a "celebratory confetti animation" after the final piece is removed (Compl. ¶10-11). The complaint provides a sequence of screenshots from the S'More App purporting to show the incremental removal of graphical objects from a profile picture as two users exchange messages (Compl. p. 9).
- Plaintiff positions the S'More App as a direct "Imitator" of its own Jigsaw App, which it claims "pioneered" this method of interaction (Compl. ¶1-3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’276 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [1.A] receiving, by a first computing device... an image submitted to the computing system by a second user account, wherein the image is an image that was captured by a camera; | A user's device (e.g., "Bex's device") receives a profile image from another user ("Becca"), which was originally captured by a camera and uploaded to the S'More system (Compl. p. 14). | ¶14-16 | col. 30:5-13 |
| [1.B] displaying, by the first computing device, page content that includes the image, with at least part of the image obscured by a first amount of graphical objects, and with other portions of the page content left unobscured; | The S'More App displays a user's profile image obscured by "ten wedge-shaped graphical objects," while other content like the user's name and messages remain unobscured (Compl. p. 15). | ¶17-18 | col. 1:56-65 |
| [1.C] receiving, by the first computing device, first user input that provides a first user-typed message for receipt by the second user account; | The S'More App on the first user's device receives a typed message, such as "Same! It's so gloomy today," intended for the second user (Compl. p. 16). | ¶19 | col. 33:55-61 |
| [1.D] providing, by the first computing device and for receipt by a second computing device... the first user-typed message, to cause the second computing device to visually present the first user-typed message; | The first user's device sends the message over the internet to the second user's device, causing it to be displayed there (Compl. p. 17). | ¶20 | col. 33:62-67 |
| [1.E] displaying, by the first computing device as a result of the first user-typed message having been input... the image with... a second amount of graphical objects that is less than the first amount of graphical objects... | After the first user sends a message, their device displays the second user's image with nine graphical objects, which is less than the original ten objects (Compl. p. 18). | ¶21 | col. 2:13-22 |
| [1.F] displaying, by the first computing device after the image has been displayed with the at least part of the image obscured by the second amount of graphical objects, a second user-typed message... | After the first reveal, the first user's device displays a reply message from the second user, such as "So much fog!!" (Compl. p. 19). | ¶22 | col. 35:9-16 |
| [1.G] displaying, by the first computing device as a result of the second user-typed message... the image with... a third amount of graphical objects that is less than the second amount of graphical objects... | As a result of the second user's reply, the first user's device displays the image with eight graphical objects, which is less than the previous nine (Compl. p. 20). | ¶23 | col. 2:28-32 |
| [1.H] displaying, by the first computing device... the at least part of the image as unobscured as a result of an additional user-typed message being sent... | After further messages are exchanged, the S'More App on the first user's device displays the second user's profile image as fully unobscured (Compl. p. 21). | ¶24 | col. 2:33-37 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific, sequential, turn-based reveal process. A primary question for the court will be whether the S'More App's functionality matches this sequence precisely. For instance, the claim requires the display on the first device to update "as a result of the first user-typed message having been input at the first computing device." This raises the question of whether there is a technical distinction between this claimed operation and a system where the reveal occurs for both users simultaneously only after a message is successfully sent and received.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on screenshots of the user interface to allege infringement of the method claim (Compl. pp. 12-21). A key evidentiary question will be whether the underlying software code and server logic of the S'More App actually perform the specific steps in the sequence required by the claims. The visual evidence of copying, such as the celebratory confetti animation, may support intent but does not directly read on the elements of the asserted independent claims, which conclude with the image being "unobscured" (Compl. ¶11; '276 Patent, col. 52:43-51).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "graphical objects"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the mechanism of obscuring the image. Defendant may argue that the patent's consistent use of "puzzle pieces" in its figures and examples limits the scope of "graphical objects" to that specific embodiment, potentially excluding its own "wedge-shaped pieces" (Compl. ¶9). Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes obscuring faces using methods other than discrete objects, such as "distorting user faces (e.g., with blurring or pixelating)" ('276 Patent, col. 3:9-10). The use of "puzzle pieces" is presented as an example, not a limitation ('276 Patent, col. 2:18-22), which may support a construction not limited to a specific shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and the detailed description of the primary embodiment consistently refer to and depict "puzzle pieces" ('276 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:20-22). A defendant may argue this repeated and specific disclosure implicitly defines the scope of the more general term "graphical objects."
Term: "as a result of the... message having been input at the... computing device"
- Context and Importance: This phrase in elements [1.E] and [1.G] defines the precise causal trigger and timing for the incremental reveal. The infringement case depends on whether the S'More App's reveal is triggered simply by a user inputting and sending a message, as the claim language suggests, or if it requires a different trigger, such as the successful receipt and reply from the other user.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (trigger is user input): The plain language of the claim links the display change to the message "having been input at the first computing device," which could be interpreted to mean the action of sending triggers the reveal on the sender's own device ('276 Patent, col. 52:16-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (trigger requires exchange): The specification describes the system as removing a puzzle piece "each time one of the users responds to a message that was sent by the other user" ('276 Patent, col. 2:28-32). This language suggests a "response" or a completed exchange is the trigger, which could be construed as a more specific requirement than merely "inputting" a message. This creates a potential ambiguity between the claim language and the specification's description that will likely be a focus of claim construction.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant "copied the Jigsaw App" and its core features (Compl. ¶1, 9-11). It further alleges that "S'More has no reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '276 patent are either invalid or not infringed" (Compl. ¶42) and seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Prayer for Relief, ¶5). These allegations, particularly the claims of direct copying, form the factual basis for a potential claim of egregious infringement that could lead to enhanced damages. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the specific, turn-based, and causally-defined sequence of revealing an image as recited in Claim 1 be interpreted to read on the S'More App's functionality, or will the defendant be able to establish a meaningful technical distinction in how and when the reveal is triggered? The potential tension between the claim language ("as a result of... input") and the specification's description ("responds to a message") may be a critical point of dispute.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of operation: Beyond the user-facing screenshots provided in the complaint, what technical evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the S'More App's underlying software logic performs the exact step-by-step method required by the patent claims, particularly concerning the precise timing and location of the display updates on a user's device?