DCT

1:25-cv-01038

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Yelp Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01038, D. Del., 08/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is 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 for uploading and managing user photos infringe four patents related to methods for reducing bandwidth and memory requirements when transmitting digital images from a portable device to a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently managing image uploads from internet-connected portable devices to online services, a foundational process for modern social media, review platforms, and cloud storage systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the '088 patent, the applicant distinguished prior art by emphasizing the invention's focus on reducing bandwidth for actions requested after an initial upload. It also highlights that the '778 patent issued in 2014, after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice, suggesting the patent examiner found the claims to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter under contemporary standards.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-06 Priority Date for '088, '514, '965, and '778 Patents
2005-03-24 Prosecution Amendment referenced for '088 Patent application
2005-09-13 Prosecution Amendment referenced 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 USPTO issues Alice Preliminary Examination Instructions
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 Issues
2025-08-18 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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088, issued October 23, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of high bandwidth consumption and cost associated with early internet-connected digital cameras, particularly when a user needed to transmit the same large image file multiple times for different purposes (e.g., sending to different groups of people) (Compl. ¶25; ’088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable device uploads a full-resolution image to a server only once. For any subsequent operations, the device sends only a unique "image identifier" and the requested action to the server. The server then uses the stored image to perform the action, thereby "eliminating the need to retransmit the image" and significantly reducing bandwidth usage (Compl. ¶35; ’088 Patent, col. 2:31-41). The specification also discloses reducing the image size on the local device post-upload to conserve storage space (’088 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
  • Technical Importance: This client-server communication method was designed to make web-enabled portable devices more practical by conserving network bandwidth and on-device memory, which were significant technical and cost constraints at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶27; ’088 Patent, col. 2:19-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Independent Claim 14 includes the essential elements of:
    • Uploading captured images to a server for the first time, where the server assigns a respective image identifier to each image.
    • Receiving, from the server, the image identifiers and "action information" that can be applied by the server.
    • Presenting an "action control" based on the received action information.
    • In response to a user selecting the action control, transmitting the action and the corresponding image identifier, rather than the image itself, to the server.
  • Independent Claim 22 includes the essential elements of:
    • Receiving captured images at a server from an image capture device.
    • Assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images by the server.
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device.
    • Downloading "action information" to the image capture device.
    • Receiving a request from the device to apply an action, where the request includes only the image identifier and the requested action, thereby eliminating re-transmission of the image.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514, issued September 8, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '088 patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency and high cost of repeatedly transmitting large digital image files from portable devices over networks with limited bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶24-25; ’514 Patent, col. 2:4-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method, largely from the server’s perspective, for reducing bandwidth. The method involves a hardware server receiving images from a device, assigning image identifiers, and then downloading those identifiers and available "action information" back to the device. When the device sends a subsequent request to perform an action, the request contains only the identifier and action, not the image itself, conserving bandwidth (’514 Patent, col. 9:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provided a solution to the practical challenges of managing media on early mobile devices, where both network throughput and local storage were highly constrained resources (Compl. ¶27; ’514 Patent, col. 2:25-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the essential elements of:
    • Receiving captured images at a hardware server from an image capture device.
    • Assigning an image identifier to the images by the hardware server.
    • Downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device.
    • Downloading 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."

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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, issued December 6, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, discloses a method for reducing network transmission bandwidth. A photo-sharing service receives an image from a portable device, provides an image identifier back to the device, and provides "action information" for download. Subsequent requests from the device to perform an action on the image need only include the identifier and the action, not the full image file (Compl. ¶40).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶69). The complaint also quotes independent claims 7 and 13 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's systems and processes for uploading and managing photos from its customers and users (Compl. ¶69).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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, issued October 21, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: Also from the same patent family, this patent describes a method where an online service receives an image from a device and stores it in an image set. In response to a request from the device to perform an action on that image, the service assigns and transmits back a unique image identifier, which uniquely identifies the image within the set, thereby avoiding the need for re-transmission (Compl. ¶41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶76). The complaint also quotes independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's systems and processes for uploading and managing photos from its customers and users (Compl. ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Defendant's systems and processes for uploading and managing photos of Defendant's customers/users" (Compl. ¶55). This appears to target the functionality within Yelp's website and mobile applications that allows users to add photos to business reviews and profiles, as well as the supporting backend server infrastructure.

Functionality and Market Context

Yelp operates a widely used online platform for crowd-sourced reviews of businesses. User-submitted photographs are a central feature of this service, providing visual context for reviews. The accused functionality is the technical process by which these photos are uploaded from user devices (e.g., smartphones, computers) and subsequently managed by Yelp's servers (Compl. ¶¶55-56). The complaint alleges that this process is architected in a way that reduces bandwidth requirements in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶56). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits E, F, G, and H, but these exhibits were not provided. The narrative infringement theory is therefore summarized below in prose.

Narrative Infringement Theory Summary

The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Yelp's photo management system practices the methods of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶56, 63, 70, 77). The core theory is that when a Yelp user uploads a photo from their device, Yelp's servers receive the photo and assign it an internal identifier. For subsequent actions related to that photo (e.g., attaching it to a review, adding a caption, deleting it), the user's device allegedly communicates with Yelp's servers by sending a request that includes the identifier for the photo and the desired action, rather than re-transmitting the entire image file. This process, Plaintiff alleges, meets the claim limitations requiring transmission of an "image identifier" and a requested "action" instead of the image itself, thereby reducing bandwidth as claimed in the patents.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not provide specific technical evidence detailing how Yelp's systems operate. A central question will be what discovery reveals about Yelp’s actual client-server architecture. Does the system function as alleged, particularly with respect to the server assigning an identifier that is then downloaded to and used by the client device for subsequent requests, as required by claims in the ’088 and ’514 patents?
  • Technical Question: Do the user interface elements in Yelp’s applications (e.g., buttons for "Add Photo" or "Delete") constitute "action information" that is downloaded from the server, or are they simply static components of the client-side application code? The specific implementation will determine whether it meets claim elements requiring the server to provide this information to the device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms. However, based on the technology and the claims, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

The Term: "portable image capture device"

Context and Importance

This term appears in the preamble and body of numerous asserted claims (e.g., ’088 Patent, claim 14). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the claims, which were drafted with early-2000s "web-enabled digital cameras" as the primary embodiment, can be read to cover modern systems involving smartphone apps or web browsers on personal computers.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. Plaintiff may argue its plain and ordinary meaning encompasses any portable device with image capture capabilities, such as a smartphone or tablet.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "digital camera" as the exemplary device and discusses the specific technical problems of that era, such as connecting a camera to the internet via a separate cellphone or modem (’088 Patent, col. 4:39-44). Defendant may argue this context limits the scope of the term to dedicated camera-like devices.

The Term: "downloading action information to the image capture device"

Context and Importance

This step is recited in several independent claims (e.g., ’088 Patent, claim 22; ’514 Patent, claim 1). The dispute will likely center on whether the user interface options presented in the Yelp app are "action information" that is actively "downloaded" from Yelp's server, or if they are simply part of the pre-installed application.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff could argue that any dynamically loaded UI element or menu that enables server-side actions meets this limitation. The specification does not strictly require a static file download.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification depicts a specific "ACTION LIST" (e.g., "Print Images," "Save in MyShoeBox") that is presented to the user (’088 Patent, Fig. 6). Defendant may argue this term requires a discrete list of server-performable tasks to be sent from the server to the device, rather than general functionality built into an application's interface.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that to the extent any steps are performed by third parties (i.e., Yelp users), Defendant is liable for induced infringement. The argument is that Defendant "conditioned the third party's use of the functionality" on performing the claimed steps and "controlled the manner and/or timing" of that functionality, effectively providing the means and instructions for infringement through its platform (Compl. ¶¶56, 63, 70, 77).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief includes a request for a determination that the case is "exceptional," but the body of the complaint does not provide a basis for this request (Compl. p. 20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: What evidence will emerge from discovery to show that Yelp’s modern, cloud-based photo management system implements the specific client-server communication protocol recited in the claims, particularly regarding the server assigning, the client receiving, and the client re-transmitting a unique "image identifier" to initiate subsequent actions?
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "portable image capture device," rooted in the patent’s context of early digital cameras, be construed broadly enough to encompass the diverse range of devices (smartphones, laptops) and access methods (native apps, web browsers) that interact with Yelp's service today?
  • A likely defense will raise a question of patent eligibility: Notwithstanding the complaint's arguments regarding the post-Alice issuance of the '778 patent, Defendant may challenge the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by arguing that they are directed to the abstract idea of using an index (an "image identifier") to avoid transmitting redundant data, a longstanding and fundamental practice in computer science.