Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Fandom Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Fandom, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05858, N.D. Ill., 07/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois based on Defendant Fandom, Inc. maintaining a place of business in Chicago and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Fandom.com online platform infringes two patents related to computer-based systems and methods for creating, distributing, and rating crowdsourced multimedia content.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to early architectural frameworks for online platforms that manage user-submitted media, filter it based on attributes, and present it to a wider audience for rating and consumption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, arguments were made that overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 for the claims at issue in both asserted patents. The two patents share an identical specification and are part of the same patent family.

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: The patent’s background section describes the logistical difficulties faced by both individual creators in getting their artistic works (e.g., scripts, songs) seen by media companies, and by media companies in managing a high volume of unsolicited submissions (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). It identifies a need for a structured "open exchange" for such creative works (Compl. ¶11; ’480 Patent, col. 2:62-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a computer-based system, or an "electronic multi-media exchange," composed of several distinct but interconnected subsystems designed to manage this process (’480 Patent, col. 4:18-24). It includes a submissions subsystem for receiving user content, a creator subsystem for searching and selecting that content, a release subsystem for distributing content developed from the submissions, and a voting subsystem for audience rating (’480 Patent, Fig. 2). The system aims to create a centralized, organized, and interactive platform for sourcing and developing media content (’480 Patent, col. 3:17-24).
• Technical Importance: The complaint frames the invention as a foundational, pre-modern system for crowdsourcing that provided a technical solution to the problem of allowing remote users to collaborate on and develop new media content over the internet (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts direct infringement of independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System):
  • An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a submissions electronic interface configured to receive and store submissions from users over a public network.
  • 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, configured to make the resulting multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
  • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the multimedia content or an electronic media submission.

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 the complaint incorporates the same background and description of the invention for both (Compl. ¶36). The problem addressed and the conceptual solution are therefore the same as described for the ’480 Patent. The primary distinction is that the asserted claim of the ’665 Patent is directed to a method of operation rather than a system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts direct infringement of independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶44).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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 a selected digital format, while maintaining the submitter's identification.
  • 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 electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the computer-based system supporting the website https://www.fandom.com/ ("Fandom") (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Fandom platform enables users to create profiles and publish multimedia content, such as text, images, and video, in the form of crowdsourced wiki pages ("Pages") or in community forums (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user profile page to illustrate how submitter identification is maintained (Compl. p. 17).
• Users can submit content through a web-based portal, which includes an interface for uploading files (Compl. ¶¶18, 23). A screenshot in the complaint depicts this file upload interface (Compl. p. 21).
• The platform allegedly shows content to users based on user or page attributes, such as community or page categories (e.g., "Memes," "Gameplay") (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The platform also allows users to interact with content by posting comments, creating polls, or selecting a "Heart button," which the complaint characterizes as forms of voting or rating (Compl. ¶¶29, 46). A screenshot from a Fandom community forum shows a user-created poll with multiple-choice answers and a "VOTE" button (Compl. p. 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’480 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Fandom platform's general wiki/forum architecture constitutes the specific, structurally distinct "subsystems" required by the claim. The defense may argue that Fandom's integrated platform does not map onto the patent's more siloed "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "electronic content filter" is based on "user attributes" such as community categories (Compl. ¶26). It may be disputed whether a user selecting a pre-defined topic category like "Memes" constitutes a filter based on a "user attribute" as contemplated by the patent, which also describes attributes like user preferences and profiles (’480 Patent, col. 8:20-25).

’665 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the term "electronically generating a multimedia file." The defense may argue that dynamically rendering a webpage from database entries is technically distinct from "generating a file" in the sense of creating a discrete, self-contained data object as might have been understood at the time of the invention.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires transmitting the file to "a plurality of publicly accessible webservers." The complaint alleges this is met by Fandom's use of cloud providers and content delivery networks (Compl. ¶54). The factual and legal sufficiency of this allegation may be contested, focusing on whether Fandom's architecture matches the claimed configuration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’480 Patent (System Claim): "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem"

• The Term: "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem"
• Context and Importance: This term defines a core architectural component of the claimed system. Its construction is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether Fandom's general content management and display architecture can be characterized as this specific subsystem, which is described as being "operatively coupled" to other distinct subsystems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the creator's role broadly as developing content based on submissions, which could be interpreted to cover any server-side logic that organizes and presents user content (’480 Patent, col. 4:8-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires this subsystem to be specifically "configured to select and retrieve" submissions using a filter. The detailed description and figures show distinct databases and processors for different functions, which may support an interpretation that requires a more architecturally segregated component than a modern, integrated web application backend (’480 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 8:45-55).

For the ’665 Patent (Method Claim): "electronically generating a multimedia file"

• The Term: "electronically generating a multimedia file"
• Context and Importance: This is a central active step in the claimed method. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the process Fandom's servers use to deliver content to a user—such as assembling a webpage on-the-fly from various database assets—constitutes "generating a file" in a "selected digital format."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "file" could be argued to encompass any collection of data presented as a single unit to the end-user, such as a fully rendered HTML document delivered to a browser. The patent is not limited to any particular file type.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of the patent, originating from a time when content was often managed as discrete files (e.g., documents, video files), could support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a distinct, storable data object, rather than a transient, dynamically-generated data stream like a webpage.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint alleges only direct infringement for both patents-in-suit.

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

This dispute will likely center on fundamental questions of technological and definitional scope, pitting patent claims drafted in the context of an earlier internet architecture against the functionality of a modern, integrated web platform.

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Do the distinct, "operatively coupled" subsystems recited in the system claim—such as the "submissions server subsystem" and "multimedia creator server subsystem"—find direct structural equivalents in Fandom's distributed, cloud-based architecture, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed modular design and the accused integrated platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the act of a server dynamically assembling and rendering a webpage from a database for a user's browser constitute the method step of "electronically generating a multimedia file," or does the patent's language require the creation of a more discrete, self-contained data object?
• A final question will be one of definitional scope: Can general user interactions common to modern social platforms—such as posting comments, clicking a "like" button, or filtering content by a topic tag—be properly construed as the specific "electronic voting subsystem" and "electronic content filter based on... user attributes" required by the claims?