Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Grubhub Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Grubhub Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00662, N.D. Ill., 01/25/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a place of business in the Northern District of Illinois and allegedly committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online food ordering and delivery platform infringes patents related to a system and method for creating and distributing multimedia content based on user submissions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns early internet-based systems for crowdsourcing, filtering, and distributing user-generated multimedia content, a concept foundational to many modern online platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of both asserted patents, the applicant successfully overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This prosecution history may be central to any invalidity defenses raised by the Defendant.

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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same", issued November 22, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, the patent’s background describes the logistical challenges for individuals to submit creative works (e.g., scripts, songs) to the media industry and for media companies to sort through and manage these submissions (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). The complaint frames this as an "Internet-centric problem" requiring a technical solution for remote content collaboration (Compl. ¶11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked computer system composed of several interconnected subsystems to manage the lifecycle of user-submitted content (’480 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in the system architecture diagram, this includes databases for submissions, creators, and voting, all managed by a central controller, to provide a structured electronic exchange for receiving, searching, developing, and releasing new media content based on user contributions (’480 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the claimed invention "predates modern crowdsourcing solutions" and provided a unique and unconventional combination of subsystems to address the problem of online content collaboration (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are a computer-based system comprising:
  • An "electronic media submissions server subsystem" configured to receive and store electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters.
  • A "user database" containing user attributes.
  • An "electronic multimedia creator server 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 on user devices.
  • An "electronic voting subsystem" configured to enable users to vote for or rate the multimedia content or submissions.
• It is standard practice for plaintiffs to reserve the right to assert dependent claims as the case develops.

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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same", issued October 25, 2016 (Compl. ¶33).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of creating a structured electronic exchange for creative media submissions (’665 Patent, col. 2:41-57; Compl. ¶36).
• The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming the system itself, this patent claims a method performed by a computer system for generating multimedia content (’665 Patent, col. 39:20-40:53). The claimed method includes the steps of electronically retrieving submissions using a filter, generating a multimedia file while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (Compl. ¶37).
• Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the invention as a "highly technical electronic process that cannot be achieved with the human mind" and a "very particular, unconventional, and non-routine system" (Compl. ¶37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are a 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 while maintaining submitter identification within the file.
  • Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices.
  • Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
• It is standard practice for plaintiffs to reserve the right to assert dependent claims as the case develops.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Grubhub online food ordering and delivery platform, including the related Seamless platform, which is also operated by Grubhub (Compl. ¶22, 44; Compl. p. 11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The platform enables restaurant partners ("user-restauranteurs") to create profiles and upload multimedia content, such as menus, descriptions, and images of their food offerings (Compl. ¶22, 45). End-user customers use the platform's website or mobile applications to browse, filter, and order food from these restaurants for delivery or pickup (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a screenshot from a third-party article stating that the Grubhub and Seamless services are "essentially the same" (Compl. p. 11). The system is alleged to use "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions," supported by a screenshot showing the use of various web technologies like Nginx and Cloudflare servers (Compl. ¶22; Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the patent's distinct "subsystems" can be mapped onto Grubhub's modern, cloud-based architecture. The defense may argue that the claimed architecture is more specific or structured than the accused system.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's theory equates aggregating and displaying restaurant listings with the claim limitation of "develop[ing] multimedia content." A central question will be whether this limitation requires a more transformative or creative process, as suggested by the patent's focus on developing new works like scripts and songs, than the accused platform's function of displaying pre-existing commercial content.

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: The construction of "generating a multimedia file" will be critical. The question is whether dynamically rendering a webpage or application screen from database entries satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires the creation of a discrete, self-contained file.
• Technical Questions: Similar to the ’480 Patent, a key factual dispute will be whether the aggregation and display of existing restaurant menus constitutes "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions," as opposed to merely displaying that content.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental architecture of the claimed system. The infringement case depends on mapping the four claimed "subsystems" (submissions, creator, release, voting) onto Grubhub's distributed, cloud-based infrastructure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that "subsystem" implies a more discrete or formally-structured component than exists in a modern microservices architecture.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition for "subsystem," which may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning as a functionally distinct part of a larger system, regardless of its physical implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues the subsystems are "specially configured," "unconventional," and "non-routine" (Compl. ¶13), language that could be used to argue for a narrower construction. Furthermore, Figure 2 depicts the databases associated with these functions as distinct blocks (e.g., Submitter Database 255, Creator Database 260, Points/Voting Database 295/300), which may suggest a more structured and specific arrangement than a generic server performing a function (’480 Patent, Fig. 2).

• The Term: "develop multimedia content" (’480 Patent, Claim 1) and "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" (’665 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: These terms describe the core creative action of the inventions. The viability of the infringement allegations rests on whether aggregating and displaying restaurant listings constitutes "developing" or "generating" content from submissions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the process broadly as selecting and adapting submissions for inclusion in media content (’480 Patent, col. 3:9-11). This could be argued to encompass the selection, filtering, and arrangement of restaurant data into a customized display for a user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background is rooted in the context of creating new, derivative media works like television shows and music from raw ideas submitted by users (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). This context suggests a transformative process, raising the question of whether it covers the simple aggregation and presentation of pre-existing, finished content like a restaurant's menu.

VI. Other Allegations

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

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "develop multimedia content," which originates in the patent's context of creating new artistic works like television scripts, be construed to cover the aggregation and filtered display of pre-existing commercial listings on an e-commerce platform?
• A second key issue will concern architectural mapping: does the claimed combination of four distinct "subsystems," which the applicant characterized as unconventional during prosecution to overcome a patent eligibility rejection, correspond to the technical reality of Grubhub's modern, distributed cloud infrastructure, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch?