Outdoor Edge Cutlery Corp v. American Outdoor Brands Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: TikTok Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David R. Bennett & Steven G. Kalberg (Direction IP)
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-05405, N.D. Ill., 08/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining a place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TikTok social media platform infringes three U.S. patents related to systems and methods for creating, curating, and distributing multimedia content based on electronic user submissions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns foundational concepts for crowdsourcing and algorithmically curating user-generated content, a core component of modern social media and content-delivery platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit belong to a family claiming priority back to 1999. The complaint notes that claims in the asserted patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 - "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same" (Issued Nov. 22, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, the media industry faced challenges in generating fresh, quality content, and a logistical "nightmare" existed for both independent artists trying to submit creative works and media companies trying to sort through them (’576 Patent, col. 2:6-57). The patent aimed to solve the technical problem of how to create a networked computer system to allow remote contributors to share and collaborate on content in an organized way (Compl. ¶11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic exchange composed of several distinct, specially configured server "subsystems" that work together (’576 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶11). A "submissions" subsystem receives content from users; a "creator" subsystem uses a filter to select and retrieve submissions to develop new multimedia content; a "release" subsystem makes that new content available to an audience; and a "voting" subsystem allows users to rate the content (Compl. ¶12-18).
• Technical Importance: The system is described as a pre-modern-crowdsourcing solution to the "Internet-centric problem" of managing and collaborating on user-submitted content at scale (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a system claim) include:
  • An electronic media submissions server subsystem for receiving and storing user submissions.
  • An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem, operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
  • An electronic release subsystem, operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing.
  • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the content.

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same" (Issued Oct. 25, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and addresses the same technical problem and solution framework described above (Compl. ¶35). This patent, however, claims the invention as a method rather than a system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method claim) include:
  • Electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
  • Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions while maintaining submitter identification.
  • Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to webservers to be available for viewing on user devices via a web-browser.
  • Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.

U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576 - "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same" (Issued July 2, 2019)

• Technology Synopsis: The ’576 Patent, which shares the same specification as the other patents-in-suit, claims a computer-based system for generating multimedia content (’576 Patent, col. 39:21-23; Compl. ¶57). The system automatically generates this content for viewing on user devices by applying an electronic filter, which has criteria associated with one or more users, to a plurality of electronic media submissions stored in a database (Compl. ¶57).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 17 is asserted (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the TikTok platform's systems for generating personalized content feeds (e.g., "For You" feed) based on user-specific criteria such as content preferences, user interactions, and account settings (Compl. ¶59, ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The TikTok website, application, and associated computer-based platform ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Instrumentality is a social media platform that allows users to create and submit short-form videos with accompanying elements like music, text, and filters (Compl. ¶23). The system operates on a distributed infrastructure of servers, including leased capacity from cloud providers like Amazon, Microsoft, and Alibaba, to store and process these submissions (Compl. ¶22). A core function is the provision of personalized content discovery feeds, such as the "For You" feed, which show users multimedia content selected by an algorithmic "electronic content filter" based on user attributes like viewing history, follows, "likes," and other interactions (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). A screenshot in the complaint shows the main user interface, which presents a vertically scrolling feed of videos under "Following" and "For you" tabs (Compl. p. 8). The platform also includes features for users to rate content, for example by "hearting" or "liking" a video (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,501,480 Patent Infringement Allegations

9,477,665 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory rests on mapping the patent's distinct "subsystems" onto TikTok's modern, distributed, cloud-based architecture. A potential point of contention may be whether TikTok's integrated platform, which employs microservices across various cloud providers, constitutes the collection of discrete "subsystems" recited in the ’480 Patent's claims (Compl. ¶22). For the ’665 Patent, a question arises as to whether TikTok's native mobile application meets the claim limitation of viewing content "via a web-browser," an issue the complaint addresses by alleging the app "functions as a web-browser" (Compl. ¶49).
• Technical Questions: The complaint argues the patented invention is "unconventional and non-routine" (Compl. ¶13, ¶37). The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the claimed functions—receiving data, filtering it based on user attributes, and displaying results—represent specific, unconventional computer processes as claimed, or are closer to abstract ideas implemented with conventional computer components, an argument often raised in software patent disputes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "subsystem" (’480 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is the structural backbone of the asserted system claim. Its construction is critical because the infringement case depends on mapping the various functions of the integrated TikTok platform onto the patent's recited collection of four distinct subsystems (submissions, creator, release, voting).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition, which may support a construction where "subsystem" refers to logically or functionally distinct software modules, regardless of whether they are physically separate hardware. The complaint alleges TikTok uses "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶22).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict the system using separate block diagrams for different components (e.g., ’576 Patent, Fig. 1), which may suggest that architecturally or physically distinct server sets are required to meet the "subsystem" limitation.

The Term: "electronic content filter" (’480 Patent, Claim 1; ’665 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term corresponds to the core algorithmic curation function of the accused platform. Practitioners may focus on whether TikTok's complex, likely machine-learning-based, recommendation algorithm is encompassed by the scope of the claimed "filter."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the filter broadly as being "based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes" (’480 Patent, Claim 1). This language may support a construction covering any algorithm that uses user data for personalization.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint notes that arguments regarding the specificity of the claims were used to overcome a §101 rejection during prosecution (Compl. ¶21, ¶42). Such prosecution history could be cited to argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific filtering logic or embodiments described in the specification, potentially distinguishing it from modern recommendation engines.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. The infringement counts are explicitly for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶22, ¶43, ¶58), and the prayer for relief does not request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. p. 125).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the claims' recitation of distinct "subsystems," which reflects a late-1990s server architecture, be construed to read on the integrated, distributed, and cloud-based microservices architecture of a modern social media platform like TikTok?
• A second key issue will be one of technological evolution: Does TikTok's sophisticated, algorithmic recommendation engine fall within the scope of the patent's "electronic content filter," or can it be distinguished as a fundamentally different technology that operates beyond the patent's teachings?
• A third central question will be one of patent eligibility: Despite having overcome §101 rejections during prosecution, the case will likely revisit whether the asserted claims, when applied to the accused platform, are directed to a patent-eligible technological improvement or to the abstract idea of organizing user-submitted content, implemented with generic computer functions.