DCT

1:24-cv-00767

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Homeawaycom Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00767, D. Del., 06/28/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's incorporation in the State of Delaware, establishing residency in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for managing property listing photos infringe four patents related to reducing bandwidth and storage requirements when transmitting images between a device and a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently managing digital images by uploading a full image file to a server only once and subsequently using a smaller, unique "image identifier" for any further actions, which was a significant concern given the bandwidth constraints of the early 2000s internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights aspects of the patent prosecution histories, noting that arguments were made to distinguish prior art during the '088 patent's examination and that the '778 patent issued after the Supreme Court's Alice decision, suggesting the examiner considered its subject matter patent-eligible under contemporary standards.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-06 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2005-03-24 Prosecution Amendment Date for '088 Patent Application
2005-09-13 Prosecution Amendment Date for '088 Patent Application
2007-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088 Issues
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 Issues
2011-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 Issues
2014-06-25 Date of Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 Issues
2024-06-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of excessive bandwidth consumption and high cost associated with transmitting digital images from a camera to an online service, particularly when the same large image file is sent multiple times to different recipients or destinations ('088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:8; Compl. ¶25). It also notes the prohibitive cost and limited memory of digital cameras at the time ('088 Patent, col. 1:53-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable device uploads a captured image to a server only once. The server assigns a unique "image identifier" (ID) to the stored image. For any subsequent operations, such as sending the image to another destination, the device transmits only the small image ID and the requested action to the server, which then performs the action on the stored image. This approach "eliminat[es] the need to retransmit the image" ('088 Patent, col. 9:15-22; Compl. ¶38). The patent also describes reducing the on-device image file size after a successful upload to free up memory ('088 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
  • Technical Importance: At a time of increasing digital camera popularity coupled with relatively slow and expensive internet access, this method offered a way to make online photo sharing more practical and cost-effective for consumers (Compl. ¶¶24-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Independent Claim 14 requires, in summary:
    • Uploading captured images for a first time to a server.
    • The server assigning a respective image identifier to each image.
    • The device receiving the image identifiers and "action information" from the server.
    • Presenting an "action control" to the user based on that information.
    • In response to a user selection, transmitting the action and the image identifier, rather than the image itself, to the server.
  • Independent Claim 22 requires, in summary:
    • A server receiving captured images uploaded from a device.
    • The server assigning an image identifier to the images.
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the device for association with the images.
    • Downloading "action information" to the device.
    • The server receiving a request from the device that includes only the image identifier and the requested action.

U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family, the '514 Patent addresses the same core problem of reducing the bandwidth and storage needed to manage digital photos between a portable device and a network server ('514 Patent, col. 1:21-27; Compl. ¶27).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is structurally similar to that of the '088 Patent. It describes a method where a "hardware server" receives uploaded images from a device, assigns an image ID, and then downloads both the IDs and "action information" back to the device. When a user wishes to apply an action, the device sends a request containing the image ID and the action, but not the image file itself, to the server for execution ('514 Patent, col. 8:50-10:5; Compl. ¶39).
  • Technical Importance: This patent continues to build on the foundational concept of using server-side image processing initiated by lightweight, ID-based requests from a client device, further refining the art of efficient online image management (Compl. ¶¶27-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, in summary:
    • Receiving captured images uploaded from a device to a "hardware server."
    • The hardware server assigning an image identifier to the images.
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the device for association with the uploaded image.
    • Downloading "action information" to the device.
    • Receiving a request from the device to apply an action, where the request includes the image identifier and requested action rather than the image itself.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965, "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," issued December 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to address bandwidth and storage reduction for digital images. The claimed methods involve a "photo-sharing service" that receives an uploaded image, provides an image identifier to the image capture device, and later receives requests from the device that use the identifier to specify an action, thereby avoiding re-transmission of the large image file (Compl. ¶40).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s "systems and processes for managing photos of property listings" of infringement (Compl. ¶68).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778, "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," issued October 21, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for reducing network transmission requirements in which an "online service" provides action information to an image capture device. The service then receives an uploaded image, stores it in an image set, and in response to a request from the device, transmits a unique image identifier back to the device for subsequent use (Compl. ¶41).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s "systems and processes for managing photos of property listings" of infringement (Compl. ¶75).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Homeaway.com, Inc.’s (operator of Vrbo) "systems and processes for managing photos of property listings" (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 61, 68, 75).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused functionality involves the uploading and subsequent management of images for online property listings (Compl. ¶54). It asserts that this functionality operates "in such a way as to reduce bandwidth requirements" (Compl. ¶55). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of Defendant's system, instead incorporating by reference preliminary claim charts in Exhibits E-H, which are not included with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 61, 68, 75). Defendant is identified as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Expedia, Inc., positioning it as a significant entity in the online travel and property rental market (Compl. ¶2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include claim charts within the body of the document, instead incorporating them by reference as exhibits that were not provided. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory.

  • '088 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claims 14 & 22)
    The complaint alleges that Defendant’s photo management system practices the claimed methods. The theory suggests that a user (e.g., a property owner) uploads property photos to Defendant's server (the "first time... images are uploaded"). Defendant's system is alleged to assign an internal identifier to each photo ("assigning... a respective image identifier"). The user is then presented with options to manage these photos (e.g., reorder, delete), which constitutes the "action control." When the user performs an action, the system allegedly transmits a request to the server that references the photo by its identifier rather than re-sending the full image file, thereby "eliminating the need to retransmit the image" (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).

  • '514 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
    The infringement theory for the '514 patent is substantially similar. It alleges that Defendant's servers act as the claimed "hardware server" that receives uploaded images. The system then allegedly assigns an identifier and communicates it back to the user's device (e.g., a web browser), along with available "action information." Subsequent user-initiated actions are allegedly performed via requests that contain the image identifier and the action, but not the image itself, mapping to the claim's core steps (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the term "portable image capture device," which the patents describe in the context of a "digital camera" ('088 Patent, col. 4:14-16), can be construed to cover a modern user's general-purpose computer or smartphone that accesses Defendant's web service. The defense may argue for a narrow construction tied to the specific hardware disclosed, while the plaintiff may point to broader language including "cellphone or PDA" ('088 Patent, col. 3:39-42) to support a wider scope.
    • Technical Questions: The claims recite specific steps like "downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device for association with the corresponding uploaded image" ('514 Patent, Claim 1). A technical dispute may arise over whether the standard operation of a web browser (e.g., receiving HTML containing image URLs or other data attributes) constitutes this claimed step, or if the patent requires a more specific, stateful download process for local management on the device itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "portable image capture device"

  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble or body of asserted claims (e.g., '088 Patent, Claim 14), is central to the dispute. The accused system is a web service primarily accessed via general-purpose computers and smartphones. The applicability of the patents may depend on whether these user platforms qualify as the claimed "device." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either confine the patent to the now-dated technology of early web-enabled cameras or expand its reach to modern web application architectures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single type of hardware, stating that "any portable device capable of capturing images could be used, such as a cellphone or PDA equipped with a lens attachment, for instance" ('088 Patent, col. 3:39-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes "digital cameras" as the context for the invention, discussing their specific memory and cost constraints ('088 Patent, col. 1:29-38). The patent's own summary describes the invention as a method for a "portable image capture device, such as the digital camera" ('088 Patent, col. 3:21-24), and its architectural diagram is explicitly that of a digital camera ('088 Patent, Fig. 2).

The Term: "downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation from '088 Claim 22 and '514 Claim 1 is critical for mapping the patent claims to the accused web-based system. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the routine data exchange between Defendant's server and a user's web browser meets the definition of "downloading... identifiers... for association with the corresponding uploaded image."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific "download" protocol. A party could argue that any transmission of the identifier from the server to the client device for use in a subsequent request, such as embedding it in the web page's code, satisfies this element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow charts and description imply a distinct process where the device receives and stores identifiers for later use in managing on-device files ('088 Patent, col. 6:1-5, describing the server returning assigned IDs to the camera). This could support an interpretation requiring a more deliberate download for local, persistent association, rather than the transient use of an identifier within a single web session.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads liability for divided infringement. For each asserted patent, it alleges that to the extent a third party (i.e., a user) performs some of the claimed method steps, Defendant is still liable because it "conditioned the third party’s use of the functionality... on the performance of that step" and "controlled the manner and/or timing of the functionality" (e.g., Compl. ¶55, 62, 69, 76). This language directly tracks the legal standard for establishing liability for divided infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does request a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorney's fees, but it does not plead facts concerning pre-suit knowledge of the patents or other egregious conduct typically required to support a willfulness claim (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶F).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "portable image capture device," rooted in the patent's descriptions of early 2000s digital cameras, be construed to cover modern general-purpose computers and smartphones interacting with Defendant's web-based service?
  • A second key issue will be one of technical mapping: does the standard operation of a web application, where a browser transiently handles identifiers like URLs or data attributes, satisfy the claims' more specific requirements, such as "downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device for association with the corresponding uploaded image"?
  • Finally, as the claimed methods involve actions on both the user's device and Defendant's server, the case may turn on a question of divided infringement: has Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant directs or controls its users' actions to the degree necessary to be held liable for practicing the entire claimed method?