DCT
1:25-cv-05161
Canva US Inc v. DigiMedia Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Canva US, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia) and IP Investments Group, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Turner Boyd Seraphine LLP; Thompson Hine LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05161, N.D. Ga., 09/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because both Defendant entities are Georgia limited liability companies with their principal places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its online visual communications platform does not infringe four patents owned by Defendant DigiMedia related to methods for reducing bandwidth and memory usage when transmitting digital images.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to systems where a portable device uploads an image to a server once, receives a unique identifier for that image, and subsequently uses that small identifier—rather than re-transmitting the large image file—to request server-side actions like printing or sharing.
- Key Procedural History: This action follows a lawsuit filed by Defendant DigiMedia against a related Canva entity on August 18, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of the same four patents. The complaint alleges that this is part of a broader assertion campaign by Defendants, who have filed at least eleven similar lawsuits against other technology companies.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-10-06 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2007-10-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088 Issued |
| 2009-09-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 Issued |
| 2011-12-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 Issued |
| 2014-10-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 Issued |
| 2020-01-03 | Assignment of Patents-in-Suit to DigiMedia Recorded |
| 2025-08-18 | DigiMedia files Texas Litigation against Canva Pty Ltd |
| 2025-09-10 | Canva files this Declaratory Judgment Complaint |
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 on October 23, 2007 (Compl. ¶15).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of transmitting large digital image files from portable devices, such as digital cameras, over networks with limited bandwidth. The problem is compounded when a user needs to send the same image multiple times for different purposes (e.g., to different work groups), consuming significant bandwidth with each transmission (’088 Patent, col. 1:64–col. 2:8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where an image is uploaded from the portable device to a server only once. The server assigns a unique "image identifier" to the stored image. For any subsequent requests to perform an action on that image (e.g., print, send to another user), the portable device transmits only the small image identifier and the requested action, eliminating the need to re-transmit the large image file itself. The patent also discloses reducing the size of the image on the local device after upload to conserve storage memory (’088 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-51).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to make early web-enabled portable devices more efficient by separating the image data from the commands used to manipulate that data, conserving limited network bandwidth and on-device storage (’088 Patent, col. 2:42-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of at least independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶42).
- The essential elements of independent claim 14 include:
- Uploading captured images for a first time to a server, with the server assigning a respective image identifier to each image.
- Receiving, at the portable device from the server, the image identifiers and action information (e.g., a list of possible actions).
- Presenting an action control based on the received action information.
- In response to a user selection, transmitting the action and the image identifier, rather than the image itself, from the portable device to the server to perform the action.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 - "Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514, issued on September 8, 2009 (Compl. ¶17).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’088 Patent, the ’514 Patent addresses the high cost and bandwidth consumption associated with transmitting large digital image files, particularly when the same image is transmitted multiple times for different server-side operations (’514 Patent, col. 2:3-13).
- The Patented Solution: The patented method involves a hardware server receiving images uploaded from an image capture device and assigning an image identifier to each. These identifiers, along with information about actions the server can perform, are then downloaded back to the image capture device. To initiate a server-side action, the device sends a request containing the image identifier and the requested action, rather than the image file, thereby reducing bandwidth usage (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-51).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a framework for client-server communication optimized for devices with constrained connectivity, a common issue in the early 2000s when the patent application was filed (’514 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Receiving captured images uploaded from an 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.
- 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 action rather than the image itself.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 (Multi-Patent Capsule) - "Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965, issued on December 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶19).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to reduce network bandwidth by uploading an image from a capture device to a "photo-sharing service," which in turn provides an image identifier to the device. The service also provides the device with information about actions it can perform on the image. Subsequent requests from the device to the service to perform an action use the identifier, avoiding re-transmission of the image file (’965 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by DigiMedia (Compl. ¶52).
- Accused Features: Canva’s "online visual communications and collaboration platform" (Compl. ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 (Multi-Patent Capsule) - "Transmission bandwidth and memory requirements reduction in a portable image capture device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778, issued on October 21, 2014 (Compl. ¶21).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method where an "online service" first provides action information to an image capture device. After the device uploads an image, the service stores it in an "image set" and receives a request from the device to perform an action. In response to that request, the service transmits a unique image identifier for the uploaded image back to the device (’778 Patent, Abstract). The sequence of events differs from the other patents in the family.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by DigiMedia (Compl. ¶57).
- Accused Features: Canva’s "online visual communications and collaboration platform" (Compl. ¶57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is identified as Canva’s "online visual communications and collaboration platform" (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint is a declaratory judgment action and provides minimal technical detail regarding the functionality of the accused platform. It is broadly described as a platform for online visual communications and collaboration (Compl. ¶3). The complaint does not contain specific allegations detailing how the platform operates concerning image uploads, identifiers, or server requests. Instead, it focuses on denying that the platform meets the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶43, 48, 53, 58).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, it does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a traditional claim chart. Instead, it reproduces the asserted claims from a prior litigation and alleges that Canva's platform does not meet their limitations. The following tables summarize the claim elements that Canva alleges its platform does not practice.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'088 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first time captured images are uploaded to a server, assigning by the server a respective image identifier to each of the captured images... | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶43 | col. 9:24-31 |
| receiving from the server the image identifiers assigned for each of the captured images and action information... | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶43 | col. 9:32-37 |
| presenting an action control associated with the action based on the action information | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶43 | col. 9:38-40 |
| in response to detecting a selection... transmitting the action and the image identifier assigned to the at least one uploaded image, rather than the image itself, from the portable image capture device to the server... | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶43 | col. 9:41-50 |
'514 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving captured images uploaded from the image capture device to a hardware server on the network | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶48 | col. 8:50-52 |
| assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images by the hardware server | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶48 | col. 8:53-54 |
| downloading the image identifiers to the image capture device for association with the corresponding uploaded image | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶48 | col. 8:55-58 |
| downloading action information to the image capture device including at least one action that can be applied by the hardware server to the uploaded images | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶48 | col. 8:59-62 |
| receiving a request from the portable image capture device to apply the action... wherein the request includes the image identifier... and the requested action rather than the image itself... | The complaint alleges that Canva's platform does not perform this step. | ¶48 | col. 8:63-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether a modern cloud-based software service accessed via a user's smartphone or computer falls within the scope of the claims, which are directed to a "portable image capture device." The patents’ specification appears to contemplate devices like early digital cameras and PDAs (’088 Patent, col. 4:36-40).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's blanket denial of infringement raises the question of whether Canva's client-server architecture follows the specific sequence of operations recited in the claims. For instance, does the user's device ("client") receive an identifier from the server and then transmit that identifier back to the server to request an action, as required by claim 14 of the ’088 Patent, or does the platform utilize a different communication protocol? The complaint does not provide the technical facts needed to resolve this question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "portable image capture device" (e.g., ’088 Patent, cl. 14; ’514 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central, as the patents were filed in 2000 and describe technology for devices like digital cameras. Its applicability to modern smartphones and computers running a web application will be a key point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused instrumentality is a software platform, not a hardware device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention could be used with "any portable device capable of capturing images," including "a cellphone or PDA equipped with a lens attachment" (’088 Patent, col. 4:36-40), language that could support extension to modern multi-function devices like smartphones.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures consistently depict a device whose primary function is image capture, with communications as an added feature (’088 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:15-25). The problem solved—conserving limited on-device memory by reducing image size post-upload—was a specific concern for early digital cameras that may be argued to limit the term's scope to such devices.
The Term: "transmitting the action and the image identifier... from the portable image capture device to the server" (e.g., ’088 Patent, cl. 14)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core bandwidth-saving step and its specific implementation. The dispute will likely focus on whether the client device in Canva's system formulates and sends this specific type of request.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase could be interpreted to cover any modern client-server protocol where a client application references a server-stored asset by an ID to request a server-side action.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies the transmission is "from the portable image capture device." This may support a narrower construction requiring the client hardware/software itself to originate the specific "action + identifier" request packet, which might be distinguishable from how a web browser or modern app interacts with a cloud service to manipulate an already-displayed asset.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations related to indirect or willful infringement. Instead, it includes a count for "Violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act" based on Defendants' alleged "bad faith assertions of patent infringement" (Compl. ¶¶60-75).
- Bad Faith Assertions: The complaint alleges that Defendants' demand letter and prior lawsuit were asserted in bad faith. The asserted basis for this claim includes the demand letter's failure to provide factual allegations or claim charts, its offer to license a portfolio of "approximately 800 patent assets" for a lump sum, and the allegation that Canva's platform does not infringe based on a plain reading of the claims (Compl. ¶¶61, 66).
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 technological context of early-2000s digital cameras and PDAs, be construed to read on a modern user's computer or smartphone interacting with a sophisticated, cloud-based software-as-a-service platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural congruence: does the client-server communication protocol of the Canva platform, in actual operation, map onto the specific, sequential steps of uploading an image, receiving an identifier, and then transmitting that identifier back to the server to request an action, as recited in the asserted claims?
- The case also presents a significant procedural and equitable dimension, centered on the declaratory judgment plaintiff's allegations of a bad-faith assertion campaign. The resolution of these claims may influence strategic decisions, venue disputes, and the potential for fee-shifting, running in parallel to the technical infringement analysis.