Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Carscom LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cars.com, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law (represented by David R. Bennett and Steven G. Kalberg)
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11770, N.D. Ill., 11/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant has a place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online vehicle marketplace, Cars.com, infringes a patent related to a computer-based system for generating and managing multimedia content submissions via distinct, coupled subsystems.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to early internet-era systems for crowdsourcing, collaborating on, and distributing multimedia content, a precursor to modern online content platforms and marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is part of a larger family of applications and patents, with the complaint noting a chain of continuation applications dating back to an application filed in 2000, which itself claims priority to a 1999 provisional application.

Case Timeline

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

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, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued July 2, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty for individual creators to submit artistic works (e.g., screenplays, songs) to media companies and the "logistical nightmare" for those companies to sort through such submissions ('576 Patent, col. 2:41-58). The complaint frames this as an "Internet-centric problem" requiring a technical solution for remote collaboration (Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a structured "electronic multi-media exchange" where end users can submit content, which is stored in a database. Creators can then search, select, and adapt this submitted content for development, and the resulting multimedia is released to an audience for review or rating ('576 Patent, Abstract). The system is described as a combination of distinct subsystems for submission, creation, and release, distinguishing it from a single, monolithic central controller ('576 Patent, col. 9:55-58; Compl. ¶13).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for an organized, networked marketplace for creative content, predating the rise of modern crowdsourcing platforms (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (via its dependency chain) and dependent claims 17 and 19 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a computer-based system comprising:
  • An "electronic media submissions server subsystem" with an interface to receive a "first electronic media submission" from a user, where the submission includes data identifying the user, date/time, and the content itself.
  • One or more databases storing criteria associated with users.
  • An "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem" with an "electronic content filter" configured to apply user-associated criteria to obtain and develop submissions into multimedia content.
  • An "electronic release subsystem" configured to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
• Dependent Claim 17 adds the requirement of "an electronic voting subsystem configured to allow at least a third user to electronically vote for multimedia content."
• Dependent Claim 19 further specifies that the voting subsystem allows a user "to electronically rate the multimedia content."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Cars.com website and its underlying computer system (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentality is an online marketplace where user-sellers (e.g., dealers) create profiles and publish vehicle listings containing multimedia content like images and text (Compl. ¶22). Other users can search, browse, and filter these listings based on various criteria such as location, vehicle make, and year (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges the platform uses "separate server subsystems" hosted by multiple cloud providers to perform its functions (Compl. ¶22). A screenshot from a YouTube video shows the user interface for filtering search results on the Cars.com site (Compl. p. 22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'576 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether a platform for listing and selling physical goods (automobiles) falls within the scope of a patent whose specification is primarily focused on an "exchange" for creative and artistic works like scripts, music, and television show concepts. The construction of "multimedia content" will be central.
• Technical Questions: A key question is whether the standard e-commerce features of Cars.com constitute the specific, distinct "subsystems" required by the claims. For example, does a general user rating system or a "save" button perform the function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem," which the patent describes in the context of ranking content to determine contest winners and distribute awards?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "electronic media submission"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the entire claim. Its interpretation will determine whether a commercial listing for a physical product like a car can be considered the type of "media" the patent was intended to cover.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification includes "digital photographs" in its list of applicable content material and more broadly refers to "any other form of literary work or idea that might be non-protectable or protectable" ('576 Patent, col. 3:37-40), which a plaintiff may argue covers the combination of text and photos in a car listing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and numerous examples focus almost exclusively on creative and artistic works, such as "television programming, movies, music," "screenplays, comic strips, songs," and creating "fresh ideas for weekly episodes" ('576 Patent, col. 2:20-40). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to artistic works, not commercial listings for tangible goods.

The Term: "electronic voting subsystem"

• Context and Importance: This element is required by asserted dependent claim 17. The dispute may turn on whether a standard website feature like a dealer rating or a "save" function meets the specific requirements of this subsystem as described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, only requiring a subsystem "configured to allow at least a third user to electronically vote" ('576 Patent, col. 40:50-53). Plaintiff's counsel will likely argue that clicking a star or a heart icon is a form of electronic voting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes the voting process in a more structured context, where an audience rates released content (e.g., a TV episode) on a scale, and the "highest rated concept submitters receive rewards" ('576 Patent, col. 12:1-14). Practitioners may focus on whether the accused rating system is used for a similar purpose of ranking and rewarding the "submitters" of the content itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a count for indirect or induced infringement, focusing its allegations on Defendant's direct infringement by "employing a computer-based system" (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objectively reckless conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims, rooted in the context of an "electronic multi-media exchange" for creative works like screenplays and music, be construed broadly enough to read on a commercial e-commerce platform dedicated to the sale of physical goods like automobiles?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural and functional correspondence: Does the accused Cars.com platform, an integrated website, embody the specific, operatively coupled "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems as described and claimed in the patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed architecture and technical operation?