Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Snap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Snap Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04862, N.D. Ill., 07/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Snap Inc.'s alleged place of business in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat social media platform infringes three patents related to systems and methods for creating and distributing multimedia content based on user submissions and attributes.
• Technical Context: The patents address the field of online platforms for managing, curating, and presenting user-generated content, a foundational technology for the modern social media and content creator economy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the three asserted patents share an identical specification. It also states that arguments made during prosecution overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the claims of the ’480 and ’665 patents, suggesting Plaintiff anticipates that patent eligibility may be a central issue in this litigation.

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”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, issued November 22, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section, shared across all asserted patents, describes the logistical challenges faced by individual creators in getting their artistic works seen by media companies, and the parallel difficulty for those companies in sourcing new, high-quality creative material from a wide pool of talent (U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576, col. 2:41-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked computer system that serves as a multi-media exchange to solve this problem (Compl. ¶11). It is architected as a collection of distinct, specially configured "subsystems" that manage the entire lifecycle of user-generated content: an "electronic media submissions server subsystem" to receive content, an "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem" to filter and assemble content, an "electronic release subsystem" to distribute it, and an "electronic voting subsystem" to gather user feedback (Compl. ¶12; '576 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to create a structured meeting ground for creators and content developers ('576 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the invention predates modern crowdsourcing solutions and provides a novel, unconventional computer architecture to address the "Internet-centric problem" of managing collaborative, user-submitted media content (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent recites a computer-based system comprising four essential subsystems:
  • An electronic media submissions server subsystem for receiving and storing user submissions.
  • An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem, operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, having an electronic content filter based on user attributes to develop multimedia content.
  • An electronic release subsystem, operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, to make the multimedia content available for viewing.
  • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the multimedia content or an individual submission within it.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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, issued October 25, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of efficiently connecting content creators with media developers (Compl. ¶35).
• The Patented Solution: The ’665 Patent claims a method of operating a computerized system for generating multimedia content, rather than the system itself. The claimed process involves the core functions of retrieving submissions based on a filter, generating a multimedia file while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a user interface for rating the content (Compl. ¶36).
• Technical Importance: This patent claims the operational process of the system described in the ’480 patent, providing a different scope of protection focused on the actions performed by the system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Claim 1 of the ’665 Patent recites an electronic method 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, wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained.
  • Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing.
  • Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576 - “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576, issued July 2, 2019.

Technology Synopsis

Sharing the same specification as the other asserted patents, the ’576 Patent addresses the problem of sourcing and developing user-submitted content (Compl. ¶57). Its claims are directed to a computer-based system focused on the automatic generation of multimedia content by applying an electronic filter, which uses criteria associated with specific users, to a database of media submissions (Compl. ¶57).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 17 and dependent claim 18 (Compl. ¶58).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Snapchat’s system for automatically generating and providing personalized "discovery feeds" based on filtering content according to user-specific criteria like viewing history, follows, and other preferences (Compl. ¶59, ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s Snapchat website and platform (the “Accused Instrumentality”) (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a computer-based system that uses a distributed cloud infrastructure (including Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services) to provide users with personalized media feeds, such as the "Discover" feed (Compl. ¶7, ¶22). The system's functionality involves receiving user-submitted media, referred to as "snaps" or "stories," via a public network (Compl. ¶23). It then employs an algorithmic system to organize and rank this content based on a combination of user preferences and behaviors, such as viewing history, subscriptions, and explicit actions like hiding or skipping content (Compl. ¶25, ¶26). This curated content is then delivered to users for viewing on their devices (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides a screenshot of the Snapchat "Discover" feed, which displays aggregated "Stories," content from publishers, and personalized content for the user (Compl. p. 8; ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’480 Patent Infringement Allegations

’665 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "subsystem" architecture, described in a patent with a 1999 priority date, can be read onto a modern, distributed cloud computing environment. The defense may argue that Snapchat's logically distinct software functions operating on shared cloud infrastructure do not meet the claim requirement for distinct "subsystems," which they might contend implies separate physical hardware as depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., '576 Patent, FIG. 3). The complaint appears to anticipate this by alleging Snap "employed separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" within its cloud environment (Compl. ¶22).
• Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether a user's implicit behaviors, such as viewing content for a longer time or skipping it, constitute an affirmative "electronic vote for or... rate" as required by claim 1 of the ’480 Patent. The complaint alleges this broad interpretation (Compl. ¶28), while a defendant could argue the claim requires a more explicit user action, such as clicking a "like" button or a star rating, which may not be the primary feedback mechanism in the accused system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "subsystem" (e.g., "electronic media submissions server subsystem")

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the system claims of the ’480 and ’576 patents. Its construction will be critical to determining whether Snapchat's software architecture, which runs on third-party cloud platforms, infringes claims that recite a system composed of multiple distinct "subsystems." Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires physically separate hardware or if it can be met by logically distinct software modules operating in a distributed environment.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the functions of the various databases and processors in terms of their roles (e.g., "submitter/member database," "billing processor"), which could support an interpretation that "subsystem" is defined by its function rather than its physical implementation ('576 Patent, col. 7:56-61, col. 8:17-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent, such as Figure 3, depict the system with separate boxes for each "CONTROLLER" and "PROCESSOR," which could support an argument that the inventors contemplated physically distinct hardware components, consistent with the server architecture of the late 1990s ('576 Patent, FIG. 3). The complaint's own characterization of the subsystems as "unconventional and particularly configured" may be used to argue against a broad, generic interpretation (Compl. ¶12).

Key Term: "electronic vote for or electronically rate"

• Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 of the ’480 Patent is central to whether Snapchat’s mechanism for gauging user interest infringes. The complaint alleges that implicit user behaviors like viewing duration and skipping content meet this limitation (Compl. ¶28). The case may depend on whether "vote" or "rate" requires an explicit, affirmative user action.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system where "end users of the audience rate the released content" and notes that rewards can be based on a "high rating of the released content," without limiting the mechanism of rating ('576 Patent, col. 4:46-51). This could support including any user-provided signal of preference.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow chart in Figure 19 depicts a "voting/rating feature" and shows a step where an "End User rates content on a scale of 1 to 10," suggesting a specific, quantitative rating mechanism ('576 Patent, FIG. 19). The defense may argue that this embodiment limits the term to explicit user inputs rather than inferred preferences from viewing behavior.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "subsystem," rooted in a patent describing the server architecture of the late 1990s, be construed to cover the logically separated but physically co-hosted functions of a modern, distributed cloud-computing platform? The outcome may depend on whether the term is interpreted functionally or as requiring distinct physical hardware.
• A second key issue will be one of functional definition: Does a user's implicit interaction with content—such as extended viewing, favoriting, or skipping—constitute an "electronic vote" or "rate" as required by the claims? The court's construction of this phrase will determine whether Snapchat's algorithmic feedback loop falls within the scope of the patented voting system.
• Finally, a central validity question will likely be one of patent eligibility: Despite overcoming § 101 rejections during prosecution, will the claims be challenged as being directed to the abstract idea of organizing and presenting user-submitted content based on feedback, an established practice in media, merely implemented on a generic computer network? The plaintiff’s extensive pre-emptive arguments on this point in the complaint suggest this will be a significant battleground.