DCT
1:23-cv-01327
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Meet Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Meet Group, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01327, D. Del., 11/20/2023
- 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.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portfolio of social networking and dating applications infringes two patents related to a system and process for an electronic multi-media exchange.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for soliciting, managing, filtering, and distributing user-submitted electronic media to create new multimedia content for an audience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that arguments similar to those presented in the infringement allegations were used to overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 during the prosecution of both asserted patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2019-06-23 | Earliest Cited Accused Product Functionality Date (YouTube) |
| 2023-11-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same (issued Nov. 22, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes an "Internet-centric problem" from the late 1990s: the lack of a structured, efficient system to allow remote individuals to submit creative ideas (like scripts, songs, or books) to media companies and for those companies to manage the logistical challenge of sorting and utilizing such submissions (Compl. ¶11; ’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-based "electronic media exchange" composed of several distinct, interacting "subsystems" (Compl. ¶12). A submissions subsystem receives and stores electronic content from users; a creator subsystem filters these submissions based on user attributes to develop new multimedia content; a release subsystem makes this new content available to an audience on user devices; and a voting subsystem allows users to rate the content or the original submissions (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 16-18; ’480 Patent, col. 3:55-4:4).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that this system architecture represents an early, unconventional approach to what would later be known as crowdsourcing for media content creation (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22). The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 71).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a system claim, include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a submissions interface to receive and store submissions.
- A user database storing user attributes.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem, operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using an electronic content filter based on user attributes to develop multimedia content, while maintaining the submitter's identification.
- An electronic release subsystem, operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the multimedia content or an electronic media submission.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same (issued Oct. 25, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of creating an organized electronic exchange for creative media submissions (Compl. ¶36; ’665 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: While the underlying system is the same, the ’665 Patent claims a specific process performed by that system. The claimed method involves electronically retrieving submissions using a filter, generating a multimedia file from those submissions in a selected format, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (Compl. ¶¶36-37; ’665 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the claimed process as a "highly technical electronic process that cannot be achieved with the human mind" and a non-routine system for generating content based on user criteria (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44). The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 71).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, 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 in accordance with a selected digital format, while maintaining the submitter's identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content or a submission.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the Tagged.com website and its associated mobile application, as well as other systems operated by The Meet Group, including MeetMe, hi5, LOVOO, Growlr, and Skout (Compl. ¶¶22, 45).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are social networking and dating platforms that enable users to create personalized profiles, which include images and text (Compl. ¶22). Users can browse the profiles of other users, and the system displays profiles based on user-selected preferences and attributes such as age and location (Compl. ¶27). The platforms also allow users to "rate and match with other users" and share multimedia content in a live feed (Compl. ¶22, ¶45). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for setting filtering preferences like gender, age, and proximity (Compl. p. 26).
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 the electronic media submissions in the electronic media submission database... | The Accused Instrumentality provides a web-based portal for users (submitters) to create profiles by uploading content such as photos and text, which are stored in a database (Compl. ¶23). A screenshot shows the user sign-up and profile photo upload interface (Compl. p. 13). | ¶23 | col. 5:62-6:11 |
| a user database comprising one or more user attributes stored therein... | Users create accounts with attributes including name, age, gender, location, and interests, which are stored in a user database (Compl. ¶25). A screenshot displays a user profile creation page where these attributes are entered (Compl. p. 25). | ¶25 | col. 39:50-54 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions... using an electronic content filter... said filter being based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes... | The system selects and retrieves user profiles (submissions) using a filter based on user attributes (e.g., age, gender, location) to display those profiles to other users (Compl. ¶26-27). | ¶26-27 | col. 10:45-51 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... | The system serves the multimedia profile and post content to users' devices (computers or apps) in response to a user logging in, making it available for viewing (Compl. ¶28). A screenshot shows a user's profile being displayed within the application interface (Compl. p. 31). | ¶28 | col. 4:39-42 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content or an electronic media submission... | The system enables users to "Like" or "Comment" on content in a live feed, or to rate other user profiles by swiping or selecting icons (Compl. ¶29, ¶33). A screenshot illustrates "Like" and "Comment" buttons below a user's post (Compl. p. 33). | ¶29, ¶33 | col. 6:4-9 |
'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... said filter being based at least in part on... user attributes... | The Accused Instrumentality electronically retrieves user profiles (submissions) from its database using a content filter based on user attributes like age, gender, and location, which affect which other profiles are displayed to a user (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 38:50-60 |
| 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... | The system generates multimedia files (e.g., the display of user profiles) from the retrieved submissions in a format compatible with the user's device (browser or app), while maintaining the submitter's name and profile picture (Compl. ¶49, ¶62). | ¶49, ¶62 | col. 3:55-4:4 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices over a public network... | The system transmits the user profile and post content for display on various user devices in response to a user logging in to the platform (Compl. ¶50). | ¶50 | col. 4:43-46 |
| 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... | The system provides a GUI (e.g., buttons or swipe functions) that allows users to "Like," comment on, or otherwise rate other users' profiles or posts (Compl. ¶51, ¶68). | ¶51, ¶68 | col. 12:1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused social networking and dating applications fall within the scope of the patents' "electronic multi-media exchange." The patents' background emphasizes a system for formal creative works like scripts and songs, raising the question of whether a user's profile picture and "About Me" text constitute "electronic media submissions" used to "develop multimedia content" as contemplated by the claims, or if this is a misapplication of the patent's scope to a different technology.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused system employs "separate server subsystems" corresponding to the claimed subsystems (Compl. ¶22). The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused product's architecture actually contains these distinct, operatively coupled subsystems, or if it is a more integrated system that Plaintiff has functionally mapped to the claim language. Evidence of the actual server architecture will be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electronic media submissions"
Context and Importance
This term's definition is fundamental. The case may turn on whether user-generated social media profile content (photos, text, interests) is equivalent to the "submissions" of media material (e.g., scripts, songs, books) described in the patent specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to professional creative works. The specification states submissions can include "any form of content material that may be stored in file text, video, audio, etc." (’480 Patent, col. 3:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background repeatedly frames the problem and solution in the context of formal creative works, listing "books, screenplays, comic strips, songs, etc." as examples of what people have created (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-43).
The Term: "develop multimedia content" (’480 Patent) / "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" (’665 Patent)
Context and Importance
Practitioners may focus on whether filtering and displaying existing user profiles to another user constitutes "developing" or "generating" new content from submissions. Defendant may argue this is merely displaying data, not creating new content as contemplated by the patents.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not explicitly define the level of transformation required. Plaintiff's theory is that the curated presentation of profiles based on a filter is itself the "developed" content (Compl. ¶27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification refers to a process where material is "selected and adapted into content" and an "adaptation process is completed," which suggests a more transformative act than simply displaying retrieved profiles (’480 Patent, col. 12:47-52, Fig. 5C).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain separate counts or specific factual allegations for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent claims, which describe a system for a "media exchange" rooted in the context of formal creative submissions like screenplays and songs, be construed to cover the routine functions of a modern social networking or dating application, such as creating a user profile and browsing the profiles of others?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural and functional mapping: Does the accused platform's software architecture actually employ the distinct, operatively coupled "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems as claimed, or is this an attempt to map the claim limitations onto the functions of a more integrated, and fundamentally different, software system?