DigiMedia Tech LLC v. CoStar Realty Information Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00682, D. Del., 09/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the grounds that the defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for managing photos infringe patents related to methods for reducing data transmission bandwidth by uploading a digital image once and thereafter referencing it with a unique identifier for subsequent actions.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the severe bandwidth and storage limitations of early internet-connected portable devices, such as digital cameras, in the early 2000s.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel and licensing agent attempted to contact Defendant to discuss licensing the patents-in-suit between April and May 2025, but received no response. During the prosecution of the '088 Patent, the applicant distinguished prior art by arguing that the invention reduced complexity and cost on the image capture device by offloading image-related functions to a centralized server, requiring only the transmission of a requested action and an image identifier, not the image data itself.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-10-06	Priority Date for ’088, ’514, and ’965 Patents
2007-10-23	’088 Patent Issued
2009-09-08	’514 Patent Issued
2011-12-06	’965 Patent Issued
2025-04-30	Plaintiff sends draft complaint to Defendant
2025-05-02	Plaintiff's agent follows up with Defendant
2025-05-14	Plaintiff's counsel follows up with Defendant
2025-05-19	Plaintiff's agent sends follow-up email
2025-09-15	Complaint Filed

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

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

Issued October 23, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, transmitting digital images from portable devices consumed significant bandwidth, which was both slow and expensive. The problem was compounded when a user needed to send the same high-resolution image to multiple recipients or for multiple purposes, as this required transmitting the entire image file repeatedly over the network (Compl. ¶34; ’088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a portable image capture device uploads a captured image to an online server only once. The server then stores the image and assigns it a unique "image identifier." For any subsequent operations (e.g., sending, printing, sharing), the device transmits only the lightweight image identifier and the requested action to the server. The server then performs the action on the full-resolution image it already has in storage, thereby "eliminating redundancy in image transmission" and conserving bandwidth (Compl. ¶37; ’088 Patent, col. 3:21-30). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates this core process flow.
• Technical Importance: This method was designed to make mobile image sharing more practical and affordable in an era of slow wireless data speeds (e.g., 9.6-14.4 Kbps) and limited on-device storage (Compl. ¶¶28, 30-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22 ('088 Patent, col. 9:23, 11:11).
• Independent Claim 14 includes the following essential elements:
  • Uploading captured images for a first time to a server, where the server assigns a respective image identifier to each.
  • Receiving the image identifiers and "action information" from the server.
  • Presenting an action control based on the action information.
  • In response to a selection, transmitting the action and the image identifier, "rather than the image itself," from the portable device to the server.
• Independent Claim 22 includes the following essential elements:
  • A server receiving captured images uploaded from an image capture device.
  • The server assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images.
  • Downloading the image identifiers and "action information" to the image capture device.
  • The server receiving a request from the device to apply an action, where the request "only includes the image identifier" and the requested action.

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

Issued September 8, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’088 Patent and sharing a common specification, the ’514 patent addresses the same problem of excessive bandwidth and storage consumption from repeated transmissions of digital images from portable devices (Compl. ¶23; ’514 Patent, col. 2:3-12).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is functionally identical to that described for the ’088 Patent: a one-time image upload followed by subsequent operations managed by transmitting only an image identifier and a requested action between the device and a server (’514 Patent, col. 2:31-48).
• Technical Importance: The technical context and importance are the same as described for the ’088 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('514 Patent, col. 7:52).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A hardware server receiving captured images uploaded from an image capture device.
  • The hardware server assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images.
  • Downloading the image identifiers and "action information" to the image capture 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."

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

Issued December 6, 2011

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family and sharing a common specification, discloses methods for reducing network bandwidth in a client-server photo-sharing system. The core concept involves a portable device uploading an image to a photo-sharing service once, after which the service provides an image identifier back to the device. Subsequent user-requested actions are executed by sending the identifier, not the full image file, to the service.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (’965 Patent, col. 8:58, 10:59).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "systems and processes for managing photos" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶77).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by its commercial name. It refers generally to "Defendant's systems and processes for managing photos" (Compl. ¶¶63, 70, 77).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused functionality involves "uploading and managing images in such a way as to reduce bandwidth requirements" (Compl. ¶¶64, 71, 78). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details about how Defendant's systems operate. The infringement allegations are supported by reference to preliminary claim charts (Exhibits G, H, and I), which were not included with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶¶63, 70, 77). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits G, H, and I to detail its infringement allegations, but these exhibits were not provided. The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint.

The core narrative theory appears to be that Defendant's photo management platform embodies the patented method. The plaintiff alleges that users of Defendant's systems upload images to Defendant's servers. For subsequent actions involving those images, the complaint suggests that Defendant's systems do not require re-transmission of the full image file but instead use a reference or identifier for the stored image, thereby reducing bandwidth in a manner that allegedly infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶64, 71, 78). This process is alleged to meet the claim limitations of receiving an uploaded image, assigning it an identifier, and then receiving subsequent requests that use the identifier "rather than the image itself" to perform an action.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the term "portable image capture device," which is foundational to the patents' claims and described in the context of early-2000s digital cameras and PDAs, can be construed to cover the modern technological ecosystem in which the accused systems operate, which likely involves smartphones and web browsers on desktop computers interacting with a cloud-based server infrastructure.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are made "on information and belief" and lack specific evidence of the internal workings of the accused systems. A key factual question will be whether the accused systems actually perform the claimed steps. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that when a user requests an action on an uploaded photo, the system transmits only an "image identifier" and the "requested action," as strictly required by several claims, rather than transmitting other data, such as a low-resolution thumbnail or a more complex data object?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "portable image capture device"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble or body of all asserted independent claims (e.g., ’088 Patent, cl. 14, 22; ’514 Patent, cl. 1). Its construction is critical because it may define the scope of technologies to which the claims apply. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claims are limited to the specific device types contemplated at the time of invention or if they can read on modern user devices like smartphones and laptops interacting with Defendant's services.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single type of device, 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. 3:39-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's preferred embodiment and detailed descriptions heavily feature the "digital camera" as the exemplary device (’088 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 3:36-39). The background section frames the problem being solved specifically in the context of emerging digital cameras with direct internet connectivity (’088 Patent, col. 1:36-50).

The Term: "request only includes the image identifier assigned to the at least one uploaded image and the requested action"

• Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 22 of the '088 patent is exemplary of the core inventive step, which requires separating the image data from the action instruction to save bandwidth. The definition of "only includes" will be central to the infringement analysis, as it dictates what data can be transmitted from the client to the server without falling outside the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "only includes" should be interpreted functionally, meaning the request should not include any data that would defeat the purpose of saving bandwidth, such as the high-resolution image itself, while allowing for incidental protocol-related data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a strict interpretation, asserting that if the client's request to the server contains any substantive data beyond the identifier and the action (e.g., user metadata, session tokens, or even a thumbnail preview), it does not meet the "only includes" limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that to the extent any claim steps are performed by a third party (i.e., a user), 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. ¶¶64, 71, 78). These allegations appear aimed at satisfying the requirements for liability for divided infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it pleads facts that could support such a claim by alleging pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a draft complaint and made multiple follow-up attempts to engage in licensing discussions starting on April 30, 2025, providing Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit and the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶6-10). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorney's fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological change: can claims rooted in the technical limitations of a "portable image capture device" from the year 2000 be construed to cover a modern, distributed, cloud-based software service that interacts with a wide array of devices, including desktop web browsers, that were not the primary focus of the invention?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: absent the referenced claim charts, the complaint provides no direct evidence of the accused systems' internal architecture. The case may turn on whether discovery reveals that Defendant's systems in fact practice the specific claimed method of transmitting only an "image identifier" and "action" for subsequent image management, as opposed to another, non-infringing technical implementation.