DCT
1:23-cv-01125
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Monster Worldwide Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Monster Worldwide, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01125, D. Del., 10/10/2023
- 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 for patent venue purposes.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Monster.com online job-search platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating and distributing multimedia content based on user submissions and attributes.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns foundational concepts for online platforms that solicit, manage, filter, and distribute user-generated content, a model central to modern crowdsourcing and social media ecosystems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that arguments presented during patent prosecution overcame eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the asserted claims of both patents-in-suit. The two patents share an identical specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | ’665 Patent Issued |
| 2016-11-22 | ’480 Patent Issued |
| 2017-07-04 | Earliest Date of Accused Functionality Evidenced (Archived Webpage) |
| 2017-09-13 | Earliest Date of Accused Functionality Evidenced (YouTube Video) |
| 2018-03-13 | Date of Accused Functionality Evidenced (Vimeo Video) |
| 2018-06-25 | Date of Accused Functionality Evidenced (YouTube Video) |
| 2023-10-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued November 22, 2016.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the logistical challenges faced by both media creators in sourcing fresh content and by individual artists in submitting their creative works to the proper industry contacts (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). The complaint characterizes this as an “Internet-centric problem” of developing a system for remote contributors to share and collaborate on content (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an “electronic multi-media exchange” system to solve this problem by structuring the process of content creation and distribution (’480 Patent, Abstract). The system is comprised of several distinct server subsystems: one for receiving submissions, one for creators to filter and select submissions, one to release the resulting content to an audience, and one for the audience to vote on or rate the content (’480 Patent, col. 7:31-50; FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The patented solution describes a structured, scalable framework for managing crowdsourced content, predating many of the platforms that now dominate the online content landscape (Compl. ¶11).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are a computer-based system comprising four operatively coupled subsystems:
- an electronic media submissions server subsystem
- an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem
- an electronic release subsystem
- an electronic voting subsystem
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued October 25, 2016.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As this patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent, it addresses the same problem of creating a structured online exchange for media content submissions (Compl. ¶35; ’665 Patent, col. 1:48 - col. 2:65).
- The Patented Solution: The ’665 Patent claims a method, or process, for operating the media exchange system described in the shared specification. The claimed method involves steps for retrieving submissions using a filter, generating a multimedia file from those submissions, transmitting the file to webservers for viewing, and providing a user interface for rating the content (’665 Patent, col. 39:26 - col. 40:57).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims the operational process of the crowdsourcing system, complementing the system claims of the ’480 Patent (Compl. ¶35).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential steps of method claim 1 include:
- electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes
- electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions
- electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing
- providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the Monster.com computer-based system, including its website and associated mobile applications (Compl. ¶22, ¶43).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Monster.com platform allows employers ("submitters") to create and upload job postings, which may include multimedia content such as company logos, photos, and formatted text (Compl. ¶23). Job seekers ("users") can create profiles containing various personal and professional attributes, such as skills, career level, and location (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that Monster uses proprietary algorithms to filter the job postings based on these user attributes and presents "Personalized Feeds" to users (Compl. ¶26, ¶45). The system provides interfaces, such as the screenshot of a job application page, where users enter attributes like their name, email, and career level (Compl. p. 20, ¶25). Users can interact with these job postings by saving them, applying, or, in the mobile app, swiping left or right, which the complaint alleges constitutes a form of voting or rating that is used to improve the personalized feeds (Compl. ¶28, ¶50).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’480 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electronic media submissions server subsystem ... configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters ... and store said electronic media submissions | Defendant's system includes a web-based portal for employers to submit job postings containing multimedia content (logo, photo, text), which are then stored in Defendant’s databases. The complaint provides a screenshot of the job ad creation interface where employers input this content (Compl. p. 14). | ¶23 | col. 7:31-44 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem ... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions ... using an electronic content filter ... based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes | Defendant’s system allegedly uses proprietary algorithms (the "filter") to select and retrieve job postings from its database based on attributes from job seekers' profiles (e.g., career level, skills, location) to create personalized feeds. | ¶26 | col. 7:51-59 |
| an electronic release subsystem ... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices | Defendant's system serves the personalized feeds of job postings to users on devices such as computers and smartphones via its website or mobile app. | ¶27 | col. 4:39-46 |
| an electronic voting subsystem ... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content | Defendant’s system allegedly allows users to "vote" on or "rate" job postings through actions like clicking a heart icon, saving a job, or swiping on the mobile app, with this data used to improve future personalized feeds. The complaint includes a screenshot from a mobile app promotion showing a user swiping on a job listing (Compl. p. 29). | ¶28 | col. 8:5-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed architecture of four distinct "server subsystems" can be read onto Defendant's modern, likely integrated, cloud-based infrastructure. The complaint alleges the use of "separate server subsystems" (Compl. ¶22), but the actual architecture will be a focal point of discovery and expert testimony.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether user actions such as saving a job posting or swiping in an application perform the function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem." The patent describes a system for audience members to formally vote on or rank content, potentially for awards (’480 Patent, col. 11:65 - col. 12:14), raising the question of whether a functional equivalence exists with the accused user-preference indicators.
’665 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from an electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter ... based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes | Defendant’s system retrieves job postings from its database using its matching algorithms (the "filter") based on job seeker attributes stored in a user database. | ¶45 | col. 31:4-15 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained | Defendant’s system generates "Personalized Feeds" of job postings for display to the user, maintaining the employer's identity (e.g., name and logo) with each posting. The complaint includes a screenshot of job search results where each listing clearly identifies the submitter (e.g., "CyberCoders") (Compl. p. 18). | ¶48 | col. 31:16-22 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices | Defendant's system transmits the personalized feeds over the Internet to be displayed on user devices via web browsers or a mobile app. | ¶49 | col. 31:23-28 |
| providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for an electronically available multimedia content | Defendant’s web and app interfaces allow users to transmit preference data by clicking save/apply icons or by swiping, which the complaint alleges is a form of voting or rating. | ¶50 | col. 31:29-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A key claim construction issue may arise from the term "generating a multimedia file." The defense may argue that this requires the creation of a discrete, self-contained file (e.g., an MPEG or JPEG), whereas the accused system dynamically generates a webpage or an in-app view. The proper construction of "file" in this context will be critical.
- Technical Questions: Similar to the ’480 Patent, the analysis will question whether the user interactions on the Monster platform (saving, swiping) constitute the claimed step of transmitting "data indicating a vote or rating." The patent specification ties this concept to a more formal process of ranking content for the purpose of distributing awards (’665 Patent, col. 27:52 - col. 28:15).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’480 Patent:
- The Term: "electronic voting subsystem"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the fourth required subsystem depends on whether user interactions on the Monster platform, such as saving a job or swiping on the app, fall within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if modern user-preference signals map onto the patent's more formal rating and ranking disclosure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 is broad, requiring only that the subsystem be "configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate" the content, which could plausibly cover any user input that indicates preference.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the voting/rating system in the context of a formal contest where "the highest rated concept submitters receive rewards" and the audience rates content "on a scale from 1 to 10" to determine a winner (’480 Patent, col. 12:5-14). This may support an argument that the term requires a more structured, competitive ranking function.
For the ’665 Patent:
- The Term: "generating a multimedia file"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’665 method patent hinges on this step. Its definition will determine whether dynamically rendering a webpage or app screen constitutes "generating a file," a common point of dispute in cases involving older software patents asserted against modern web technologies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that in the context of the invention, a "file" simply means a collection of data formatted for display on a user's device, which would include a dynamically-generated HTML page or a data stream sent to an app.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires generating the file "in accordance with a selected digital format." A defendant could argue this language, combined with the ordinary meaning of "file," implies the creation of a discrete, stored data object with a standardized format (e.g., PDF, MPEG, GIF), not a transient, dynamically assembled data stream for a browser.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s answers to three central questions:
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the claimed system of four distinct "server subsystems," as conceptualized in a 1999 priority-date application, be mapped onto the functionality of a modern, distributed, and likely integrated cloud-based platform like Monster.com?
- A second issue will be one of functional scope: do modern user-engagement actions, such as saving a job posting or swiping on a mobile app, perform the function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem" and "transmitting data indicating a vote or rating," which the patent specification describes in the context of a more formal system for ranking content and distributing awards?
- A key claim construction question will be one of definitional interpretation: does the accused platform's dynamic generation of a personalized webpage or application view for a user constitute "generating a multimedia file" as required by the ’665 patent, or does that term require the creation of a discrete, self-contained data object?