DCT
1:22-cv-06890
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Twitter Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Twitter, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DirectionIP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-06890, N.D. Ill., 12/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Twitter platform infringes patents related to systems and methods for creating and distributing media content based on user submissions.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses early forms of crowdsourcing and social media, describing a framework for users to submit content that is then curated, combined, and distributed as new media.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the claims of both asserted patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 during prosecution. The complaint also notes that the two patents-in-suit share an identical specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2022-12-08 | Complaint Filed |
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”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same,” issued November 22, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge, at the time of invention, of creating a system to allow remote users to submit and collaborate on electronic content for the development of new media (Compl. ¶11). The specification describes the logistical difficulties for both artists trying to submit creative works and media companies trying to sort through them, noting the lack of a structured, open exchange for such materials (’665 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer system composed of several distinct, specially configured subsystems working in concert to manage the creation and distribution of media content (Compl. ¶11-13). As detailed in the specification, a central controller manages various databases to handle functions including user submissions, content creation, voting or rating by an audience, and releasing the final content (’665 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:56-62).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the claimed invention predates modern crowdsourcing platforms and offered a novel technical solution for collaborative content creation over the internet (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and store submissions from users over a network.
- A user database storing user attributes.
- 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 to "develop multimedia content."
- An electronic release subsystem configured to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content or submissions.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same,” issued October 25, 2016 (Compl. ¶31).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As this patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent, it addresses the same technical problem of creating a structured online exchange for creative content submissions (Compl. ¶34).
- The Patented Solution: The ’665 Patent claims an electronic method performed by a computer system to implement the content exchange. The method involves electronically retrieving submissions using a filter, generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical interface for users to vote on or rate the content (Compl. ¶34-35; ’665 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the invention as a "highly technical electronic process" that is unconventional and could not be achieved by the human mind (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
- Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the steps of:
- 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 in accordance with a selected digital format, maintaining submitter identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be available for viewing.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's computer-based system for operating the Twitter platform, including its website (twitter.com) and associated applications (Compl. ¶22, ¶42).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Twitter platform operates using a distributed infrastructure of data centers, custom servers, and cloud-based processing across "tens of thousands of servers" (Compl. ¶22, ¶43). The system's relevant functionality includes allowing users to submit "tweets" through an electronic interface, storing these submissions with user-identifying data, and using an "electronic content filter" (e.g., based on which users a person "follows") to select and retrieve tweets to develop and display multimedia content, such as a user's timeline or notifications (Compl. ¶23, ¶25, ¶44). The platform also includes a feature for users to "vote for or electronically rate" content by selecting a "heart" or "like" icon (Compl. ¶27). A screenshot from a 2018 video shows the Twitter interface where a user can input text into a "Compose new Tweet" dialog box (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electronic media submissions server subsystem... configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network and store said electronic media submissions... | Twitter’s computer-based platform includes servers and databases that receive and store submissions ("tweets") from Twitter users over the Internet. A screenshot shows a user profile with associated tweets, followers, and following count (Compl. p. 12). | ¶23 | col. 7:38-44 |
| a user database comprising one or more user attributes stored therein | The Twitter platform stores user attributes in a user database, including user "interests," profile pictures, user names, and users "followed" or "following" that user. | ¶24 | col. 8:20-24 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions... using an electronic content filter... based at least in part on... user attributes to develop multimedia content... | Twitter employs function-specific servers that use a content filter based on user attributes (e.g., who a user "follows") to select and retrieve tweets to develop multimedia content such as a user’s feed and notifications. | ¶25 | col. 8:45-54 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one of more user devices | Twitter’s servers operate to serve content to users, making multimedia content (e.g., tweets in "Notifications" or "Mentions" tabs) available for viewing on user devices. | ¶26 | col. 4:39-46 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | Twitter’s platform provides a "heart" or "like" icon that enables users to vote for or rate content, and the system tracks the total number of such selections. A screenshot highlights these icons and associated vote counts (Compl. p. 17). | ¶27 | col. 8:4-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Twitter's integrated, real-time platform architecture embodies the distinct "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems as claimed. The complaint alleges these are logically separate "function-specific subsystems" within Twitter's servers (Compl. ¶25), a characterization that may be contested.
- Technical Questions: It raises the question of whether an algorithmically-generated, real-time user feed constitutes "develop[ing] multimedia content" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes a more deliberate process of content selection and adaptation.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from an electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter... | The Twitter platform electronically retrieves tweets from its submissions database using a filter based on user attributes (e.g., "follows") to form multimedia content for a user's feed. | ¶44 | col. 24:49-61 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions... wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained with each retrieved submission... | Twitter's system generates multimedia files (e.g., content for display in a browser) from retrieved tweets, and these files maintain the identification of the submitter for each tweet. A screenshot shows curated notifications (Compl. p. 29). | ¶47 | col. 4:39-46 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing... | The system allegedly transmits the generated multimedia files to its "tens of thousands of servers," a plurality of which are publicly accessible to host content for rapid delivery to a geographically distributed user base. | ¶48 | col. 6:63-65 |
| providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for an electronically available multimedia content... | Twitter’s website provides a user interface with a "heart" icon that enables users to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for content, and this data is tracked by the platform. | ¶49 | col. 12:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the dynamic data stream sent to a user's browser constitutes a "multimedia file" that is "generat[ed]" and then "transmit[ted]" as discrete steps. An alternative view could be that Twitter provides a continuous stream of data rather than a discrete file.
- Technical Questions: What is the precise architecture of Twitter's content delivery network, and does it meet the claim limitation of transmitting a file "to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers"? The technical details of how content is hosted and served from edge caches versus central servers will be relevant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'480 Patent: "subsystem"
- The Term: "subsystem"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific combination of four distinct subsystems. The interpretation of this term is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether Twitter's architecture can be mapped onto this modular structure. Practitioners may focus on whether "subsystem" implies a structural separation of hardware or databases, or if it can be satisfied by logically distinct software functions within an integrated platform.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves define the subsystems by their function (e.g., "configured to receive electronic media submissions"). Plaintiff may argue that any components performing these distinct functions satisfy the limitation, regardless of shared hardware.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 2 and 3 of the shared specification depict distinct boxes for components like a "Submission Database," "Creator Database," "Billing Processor," and "Payment Processor," suggesting a structurally modular design that could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring such separation (’665 Patent, Figs. 2-3).
'665 Patent: "multimedia file"
- The Term: "multimedia file"
- Context and Importance: The method claim requires the steps of "generating a multimedia file" and "transmitting the multimedia file." Whether the data package representing a user's timeline constitutes a "file" is central to infringement. A modern, dynamic, infinite-scrolling feed may not align with a 1999-era understanding of a discrete "file."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes content material as anything that "may be stored in file text, video, audio, etc. and transferred through the network system," suggesting a broad definition not tied to a specific format (’665 Patent, col. 3:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common understanding of "file" at the time of the invention may have implied a discrete data object with a defined beginning and end. Defendant may argue that a data stream that is continuously updated and appended is functionally different from a static "file."
VI. Other Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely depend on the resolution of several key questions regarding the application of patent claims drafted in 1999 to a modern social media platform.
- A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: can the modular, multi-"subsystem" system claimed in the ’480 patent be mapped onto Twitter's integrated, real-time architecture, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "multimedia file," as used in the ’665 patent, be construed to cover the dynamic, algorithmically-generated data stream that constitutes a modern social media feed?
- Finally, a central legal question will arise from the prosecution history: to what extent do the patentee's arguments to overcome prior §101 rejections—characterizing the invention as a specific and "unconventional" implementation—limit the scope of the claims and the reach of the doctrine of equivalents against the accused Twitter platform?