DCT

1:25-cv-00681

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Airbnb Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00681, D. Del., 06/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the grounds that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and processes for managing photos infringe four patents related to methods for reducing transmission bandwidth and storage requirements when transferring digital images from a portable device to a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for efficiently uploading and managing digital images by transmitting the full image file to a server only once and thereafter using a smaller, unique identifier to reference the image for subsequent actions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit licensing outreach by the Plaintiff and its affiliated entities to the Defendant, beginning in January 2021 and culminating in the delivery of a draft complaint in April 2025. The complaint also notes that the most recent patent-in-suit was examined and issued by the USPTO in 2014, after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, an event Plaintiff suggests is relevant to the patent eligibility of the entire patent family.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-06 Priority Date for ’088, ’514, ’965, and ’778 Patents
2007-10-23 ’088 Patent Issued
2009-09-08 ’514 Patent Issued
2011-12-06 ’965 Patent Issued
2014-10-21 ’778 Patent Issued
2021-01-27 Plaintiff allegedly sends initial letter to Defendant
2021-08-24 Plaintiff allegedly follows up with Defendant
2022-08-29 Plaintiff's sister entity allegedly contacts Defendant
2022-12-08 Plaintiff's sister entity allegedly contacts Defendant
2023-01-04 Plaintiff allegedly follows up with Defendant
2023-09-08 Plaintiff's parent entity allegedly contacts Defendant
2023-10-18 Plaintiff's parent entity allegedly follows up
2024-05-02 Plaintiff's parent entity allegedly contacts Defendant
2024-06-19 Plaintiff's parent entity allegedly follows up
2024-07-09 Plaintiff's parent entity allegedly follows up
2025-04-30 Plaintiff allegedly sends draft complaint to Defendant
2025-06-02 Complaint Filing Date

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 describes the problem of high bandwidth consumption and cost associated with transmitting digital images from portable devices to online photo-sharing websites, particularly when the same large image file is transmitted multiple times for different purposes (e.g., sending to multiple recipients) ('088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable device uploads a captured image to a server only once. The server stores the image and assigns it a unique identifier. For any subsequent operation involving that image (e.g., printing, sharing), the portable device transmits only the small image identifier and the requested action to the server. The server then performs the action on the full-resolution image it already stores, which "eliminat[es] the need to retransmit the image" and thereby reduces bandwidth usage (Compl. ¶40; ’088 Patent, col. 3:21-30). The system also contemplates reducing the image file size on the portable device after a successful upload to conserve local storage ('088 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
  • Technical Importance: At the time of the invention, this approach aimed to make web-connected portable devices more practical by mitigating the impact of slow and expensive network connections on usability and cost (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Independent Claim 14 recites a method comprising:
    • At the first time captured images are uploaded to a server, assigning by the server a respective image identifier to each of the captured images;
    • Receiving from the server the image identifiers assigned for each of the captured images and action information;
    • Presenting an action control associated with the action based on the action information; and
    • In response to detecting a selection of the action control, transmitting the action and the image identifier, rather than the image itself, from the portable image capture device to the server.
  • Independent Claim 22 recites a method comprising:
    • Receiving captured images uploaded from the image capture device to a server;
    • Assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images by the server;
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device for association with the corresponding uploaded image;
    • Downloading action information to the image capture device including at least one action that can be applied by the server; and
    • Receiving a request from the portable image capture device to apply the action to an uploaded image, where the request only includes the image identifier and the requested action.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement for "one or more of the inventions claimed" (Compl. ¶66).

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: The '514 Patent shares a common specification with the '088 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of excessive bandwidth and storage usage when transmitting digital images from portable devices ('514 Patent, col. 2:25-29; Compl. ¶33).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described in the '088 Patent. An image is uploaded to a hardware server, which assigns an identifier. Subsequent requests to act on the image are sent from the portable device using the identifier and requested action, "thereby eliminating the need to retransmit the image itself" ('514 Patent, Claim 1). The detailed description reiterates the core concept of uploading once and referencing via an ID thereafter ('514 Patent, col. 3:26-35).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the '088 Patent, focusing on efficiency for network-connected portable devices (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
    • Receiving captured images uploaded from the image capture device to a hardware server;
    • Assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images by the hardware server;
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device for association with the uploaded image;
    • Downloading action information to the image capture device that can be applied by the hardware server; and
    • Receiving a request from the portable device to apply the action, where the request includes the image identifier and the requested action rather than the image itself.

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions"

  • 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.
  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a common specification with the other asserted patents, this patent addresses the technical problem of high bandwidth and storage requirements for digital image transmission from a portable device (Compl. ¶33). The patented solution involves a photo-sharing service receiving an uploaded image, providing an identifier for it back to the device, and then receiving subsequent requests that use the identifier and action information to manipulate the stored image, thus avoiding re-transmission ('965 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's "systems and processes for managing photos" (Compl. ¶81).

U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions"

  • 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.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, also describes a method to reduce bandwidth by having an online service provide action information to an image capture device, receive an uploaded image, store it in an image set, and transmit back a unique identifier (Compl. ¶33). Subsequent requests from the device to perform an action on the image use this identifier, obviating the need to send the image data again ('778 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's "systems and processes for managing photos" (Compl. ¶88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "systems and processes for managing photos" (Compl. ¶67).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused functionality "relates to uploading and managing images in such a way as to reduce bandwidth requirements" (Compl. ¶68). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how Defendant's systems operate. Instead, it incorporates by reference external preliminary claim charts (Exhibits H, I, J, and K), which were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 74, 81, 88). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. Due to the lack of specifics, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the accused functionality or its market context beyond its general purpose in Defendant's business.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits H and I for the '088 and '514 patents, respectively, but these exhibits were not provided. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

  • '088 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems and processes for managing photos infringe at least claims 14 and 22 of the '088 patent (Compl. ¶67). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant's photo management functionality performs the claimed method steps for reducing bandwidth. The complaint asserts that Defendant either performs all the steps itself or, where a third party (such as a user) performs a step, Defendant "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" (Compl. ¶68).
  • '514 Patent Infringement Allegations: The infringement theory for claim 1 of the '514 patent is substantively identical to that for the '088 patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems and processes infringe by performing the claimed method steps, either directly or by controlling the actions of third parties, to manage photos in a bandwidth-efficient manner (Compl. ¶¶ 74-75).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit, with a 2000 priority date, describe an architecture centered on a "portable image capture device" connecting to a "server." A central question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "portable image capture device", which the patent illustrates as a digital camera or early cellphone ('088 Patent, col. 3:37-43), be construed to cover a modern smartphone running Defendant's application? Similarly, does the complex, distributed cloud infrastructure of Defendant's platform correspond to the "server" or "photo-sharing service" contemplated by the patents?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and lack technical specifics. This raises the evidentiary question of whether Defendant's systems actually perform the specific functions recited in the claims. For instance, what evidence supports the allegation that Defendant's system performs the step of "downloading action information to the image capture device" ('088 Patent, cl. 22) as opposed to having a pre-programmed application interface that makes API calls to a backend?
    • Divided Infringement: The complaint anticipates a divided infringement defense by alleging that Defendant controls the actions of its users (Compl. ¶68). The viability of this assertion will be a key legal issue, depending on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant directs or controls its users to perform each step of the claimed methods in the manner required by prevailing case law.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "portable image capture device" (appearing in claims 14 and 22 of the '088 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the patent's scope, conceived in the era of early digital cameras, extends to modern smartphones running third-party applications. The infringement analysis hinges on whether a user's phone running Defendant's app qualifies as the claimed "device."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states 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. 3:39-43). This language may support an interpretation that is not limited to standalone digital cameras.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described and illustrated is a "digital camera" ('088 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 3:37). The background focuses on problems specific to "digital cameras" ('088 Patent, col. 1:29-38). A party could argue that the invention is tied to the specific hardware and software architecture of a device whose primary purpose is image capture.

  • The Term: "downloading action information to the image capture device including at least one action that can be applied by the server" (appearing in claim 22 of the '088 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a specific data flow where the server sends a set of available actions to the device. This may not map directly onto the functionality of modern applications, where user interface elements are often part of the client-side code and trigger API calls, rather than being "downloaded" from a server.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes that an "action list... stored on the database... can be downloaded to the user's camera" ('088 Patent, col. 4:3-6). This could be argued to broadly cover any technical means by which a device is made aware of actions the server can perform.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification shows a specific "ACTION LIST" displayed on the device (FIG. 6) and explains that it is created by the service "the first time the user's camera establishes a connection" ('088 Patent, col. 4:9-11). This may suggest a discrete, defined list of functions is downloaded, which a party could argue is distinct from a dynamic, pre-programmed application interface.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges facts aimed at a theory of divided infringement. It states that to the extent a third party (e.g., a user) performs any step, Defendant "conditioned" the use of its functionality on the performance of that step and "controlled the manner and/or timing of the functionality" (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 75, 82, 89). The complaint does not allege inducement based on specific evidence like user manuals or instructions.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their alleged infringement based on a series of communications from Plaintiff and its affiliates starting in January 2021, including a letter containing a draft of the infringement complaint sent in April 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 6-16).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the claims of a patent family from 2000, which describe a "portable image capture device" and a "server," be construed to cover the architecture of a modern, distributed software platform like Airbnb, where users operate the service via an application on a general-purpose smartphone? This raises intertwined questions of claim construction and factual mapping.
  • A key legal battle will likely concern divided infringement: since users perform critical steps like capturing and uploading images, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant sufficiently directs or controls its users' actions to be held liable for infringement of the entire method claim under current legal standards.
  • Finally, a threshold question will be patent eligibility: despite the complaint's pre-emptive arguments regarding the post-Alice issuance of the '778 patent, a defendant will likely challenge the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court will have to determine whether the claims are directed to the abstract idea of using an identifier to organize and manage data, and if so, whether they contain a sufficient inventive concept that amounts to a specific technical improvement to computer functionality.