Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Manuel Tijerino (Louisiana) (Pro Se)
  • Defendant: Spotify USA Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-02290, E.D. La., 03/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's substantial business presence in the Eastern District of Louisiana and on acts of infringement allegedly committed in the state, specifically enabling Louisiana-based artists to use the accused platform.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Spotify for Artists" platform infringes a patent related to a "User-Defined Internet Jukebox" system that allows artists to self-publish and monetize their music.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns digital music distribution platforms that provide tools for independent artists to upload, manage, and earn royalties from their content, bypassing traditional music industry gatekeepers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff invited Defendant to license the patent in July 2024, prior to filing suit. It also notes that during patent prosecution, claims were initially rejected on grounds of obviousness before the patent was ultimately granted, which Plaintiff attributes to the inventive concept of real-time distribution of "new media."

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-27	'925 Patent Priority Date
2013-12-01	Spotify for Artists program launched
2015-09-29	'925 Patent Issue Date
2018-09-20	Alleged direct infringement begins (Spotify allows direct artist uploads)
2019-07-31	Alleged direct infringement period ends
2024-07-11	Plaintiff sends license invitation to Defendant
2024-08-13	Plaintiff sends license reminder to Defendant
2025-03-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,146,925 - "User Defined Internet Jukebox Kiosks Set Top Box"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and expense independent musicians face in getting their music distributed and played on internet jukeboxes, which often require an existing record deal or submission to a company with filtering processes (’925 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "self-service IT Web 2.0 jukebox method and system" that allows any artist to create an account, directly upload their media (e.g., music, videos) to a central server, and have that media become instantly available for playback on a network of internet-connected jukeboxes (’925 Patent, col. 1:51-64). The system is designed to automatically handle royalty calculations and payments to the artist, providing a direct link between the artist and their audience without third-party gatekeepers (’925 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-18).
• Technical Importance: The described technology provides a framework for an open, real-time, self-publishing ecosystem for digital music, empowering artists to control the distribution of their own work and earn revenue directly (’925 Patent, col. 1:51-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 3 (a non-transitory computer-readable medium).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include a sequence of steps performed by a processor:
  • Providing a series of user interfaces for a user (artist) to create an account, log in, and add new, previously unstored media to the system.
  • Receiving the new media and automatically identifying and storing its metadata in a database.
  • Storing the new media file in a central device, making it automatically requestable for playback over the internet via an API call.
  • Automatically analyzing the audio signal to determine and store a manipulated Root Mean Square (RMS) value as metadata.
  • Receiving a request for playback from a "jukebox" and, in response, streaming the media to the jukebox.
  • Automatically calculating amounts earned by an artist and a "venue" playing the media.
  • Receiving an indication of payment and performing audio normalization and compression on the signal based on the calculated RMS value.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 2, 14, and 16 are also relevant and reserves the right to assert them (Compl., p. 4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies Defendant's "Spotify for Artists" program and associated platform as the accused instrumentality (Compl., p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the "Spotify for Artists" platform provides functionality for artists to upload their music and make it available on the Spotify service (Compl., p. 5, 51). The allegations focus particularly on a period from September 2018 to July 2019, when Spotify allegedly allowed artists to upload their music directly to its platform (Compl., p. 51, 54).
• The complaint alleges that the accused platform performs functions that mirror the patent claims, including artist account management, media uploading, audio analysis, metadata management, and royalty calculation and reporting (Compl., pp. 8-35).
• The complaint positions Spotify as a dominant global streaming service, suggesting the commercial importance of the accused platform (Compl., p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory for the ’925 Patent.

Plaintiff’s central theory is that the "Spotify for Artists" platform, as it operated particularly between 2018 and 2019, performed each step of the method recited in Claim 1. The complaint walks through the claim element by element, alleging that Spotify’s platform provides the required user interfaces for artists to create accounts and upload new music (Compl., pp. 8-10). It alleges Spotify’s backend servers receive this media, automatically extract metadata, and store both the media file and its metadata in a database architecture (Compl., pp. 11-16).

The complaint further alleges that Spotify’s system makes this new music available for streaming via an API, which is consumed by client software (e.g., the Spotify app on a phone or computer, which the complaint equates to a "jukebox") (Compl., pp. 17-21). A significant portion of the infringement analysis is dedicated to the audio processing steps, where the complaint alleges that Spotify’s loudness normalization feature performs an analysis equivalent to the claimed RMS value calculation and manipulation to ensure consistent volume across tracks (Compl., pp. 22-26, 33-35). Finally, the complaint alleges that Spotify’s royalty system, which tracks plays by territory to pay rights holders, performs the claimed step of "automatically calculating... amounts earned by an artist and a venue," by equating the term "venue" with the "territory" used for performance rights organization (PRO) licensing (Compl., pp. 30-32).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the scope of the term "jukebox". The question for the court will be whether the definition in Claim 14 ("at least one of computer device, an internet jukebox, kiosk, set-top box, or cell phone") is broad enough to read on Spotify's software applications running on general-purpose devices, as alleged by the Plaintiff (Compl., p. 43; ’925 Patent, col. 12:28-31).
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "public venues" will be critical. The court will need to determine if the term, as used in the patent, is limited to physical establishments like bars (which are discussed in the specification), or if it can be interpreted more broadly to encompass the global, digital audience of a streaming service, as the Plaintiff argues (Compl., p. 38; ’925 Patent, col. 2:11).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether Spotify's audio normalization technology (which the complaint states uses loudness units relative to full scale, or LUFS) is technically equivalent to the patent's specific claim of "determining a root mean square (RMS) value" and then "further mathematically manipulat[ing]" it to derive a "positive RMS value less than 1" (’925 Patent, col. 10:27-33).
  • Technical Questions: A significant point of contention will be the claim limitation requiring the system to calculate amounts earned by "an artist and a venue" (’925 Patent, col. 10:46-48). The question is whether Spotify's royalty system, which pays rights holders based on territorial usage, meets this limitation, given Plaintiff’s argument that "venue" should be construed as "territory" in the context of PRO licensing (Compl., p. 30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "jukebox"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the patent's applicability. A narrow construction could limit the patent to dedicated hardware, while a broad construction could allow it to cover software applications on consumer devices. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused instrumentality is a software platform, not a physical jukebox in the traditional sense.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 14 explicitly defines "jukebox" as "at least one of computer device, an internet jukebox, kiosk, set-top box, or cell phone" (’925 Patent, col. 12:28-31). The specification also states the software is "OS and architecture agnostic" and can run on cell phones and TVs (’925 Patent, col. 8:18-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and detailed description frequently refer to jukeboxes in physical "establishments" and discuss features like bill acceptors and credit card readers for payment by customers at a venue (’925 Patent, col. 1:15-18, col. 6:65-col. 7:2).

• The Term: "automatically calculating... amounts earned by an artist and a venue"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a core function of the claimed invention. The dispute will center on whether Spotify's royalty calculation process, which is based on territories and rights holders, satisfies the "and a venue" requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff argues that in the context of modern music licensing, "venue" is functionally equivalent to "territory" for royalty purposes (Compl., p. 30). The patent’s overall purpose is to enable artists to "earn fees and royalties" from playback, suggesting a focus on the monetization function itself (’925 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where earnings are shared between artists, the provider, and the physical "venue" where the jukebox is located, and discusses automated payment of "rent, and other fees due the venue" (’925 Patent, col. 8:58-col. 9:2; Abstract). This could support an interpretation that "venue" means a specific physical business establishment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a brief allegation of continued infringement by offloading activities to "third-party partners," suggesting Spotify promotes and collaborates with these partners to perform infringing acts (Compl., p. 5).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent via license offer letters sent in July and August 2024 (Compl., p. 3). It also alleges that Spotify's decision to stop allowing direct artist uploads demonstrates knowledge of its infringing activity (Compl., p. 53).

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "jukebox" and "public venue", which are rooted in the patent’s descriptions of physical machines in establishments like bars, be construed broadly enough to cover a global, software-based streaming service and its users’ general-purpose devices?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional equivalence: does Spotify’s royalty accounting system, which pays various rights holders based on territorial plays, perform the specific function of calculating earnings for an "artist and a venue" as required by the claim? Similarly, does its audio processing technology meet the precise mathematical manipulation of an RMS value recited in the patent?
• Given the patent's subject matter (a method for managing content distribution and payments via software) and the dual method/system claim structure, a dispositive question of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may arise, focusing on whether the claims are directed to an abstract business practice without a sufficient inventive concept to render them patentable.