Digiframe Tech LLC v. Creedon Tech USA LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digiframe Technologies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Creedon Technologies USA, LLC (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 0:20-cv-01650, D. Minn., 07/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant is incorporated in Minnesota, maintains an established place of business in the district, has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for displaying digital images based on their associated timestamps.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software that automatically organizes and displays digital photos or other media in a contextually relevant manner, for instance, by showing images on a digital calendar interface on the anniversary of the date they were taken.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-23	’774 Patent Priority Date
2016-10-04	’774 Patent Issue Date
2020-07-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,459,774, "Time-based image display," issued October 4, 2016. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional electronic devices that display digital media using "simple methods," such as displaying a single user-selected image or "randomly shuffling through images stored on the device," which lack temporal or contextual relevance. (’774 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that accesses images and their associated timestamps (e.g., EXIF data indicating when a photo was taken) to automatically generate a "slideshow schedule." (’774 Patent, col. 2:33-36). This schedule maps images to specific "time windows" (e.g., a particular day or month). The system then identifies the current time window and displays the corresponding scheduled images, for example, on an "electronic wall calendar." (’774 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:63-col. 3:3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows digital media to be "automatically displayed during periods of time that are relevant to the media," potentially enhancing user engagement by creating a more personalized and context-aware viewing experience. (’774 Patent, col. 2:6-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '774 Patent Claims" in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, 17). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 6, and 11). The elements of independent method claim 1 are representative:
  • displaying, on an electronic display device, an electronic wall calendar comprising an image display area and a calendar display area;
  • displaying, within the calendar display area, a plurality of selectable date boxes...;
  • accessing a plurality of images;
  • obtaining, for each image, a timestamp indicating a date and time for which the image was captured;
  • generating a slideshow schedule based on the timestamps, specifying images for display during specific time windows;
  • identifying a current time window based on a current time;
  • causing display of images specified by the schedule for the current time window;
  • receiving a user selection of a selectable date box;
  • selecting the time window corresponding to the selected date box; and
  • causing display of the images specified for that selected time window.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’774 Patent but does not specify whether it will assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '774 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '774 Patent Claims" as detailed in an external Exhibit 2, which was not provided. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which is not included in the provided filing. (Compl. ¶17, 18). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’774 Patent. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges direct infringement through Defendant's making, using, selling, and testing of these products. (Compl. ¶11, 12). Without the claim charts or specific product details, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products feature an "electronic wall calendar" with "selectable date boxes" as specifically recited in the claims. The dispute could center on whether a more general software interface, such as a standard photo gallery or operating system feature, can be read on by this specific claim language.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the accused products perform the specific functions of (1) generating a "slideshow schedule" that links images to time windows based on their "capture" timestamp, and (2) enabling user interaction with "date boxes" to display images for a selected, non-current date, as required by the independent claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electronic wall calendar"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the first limitation of independent claim 1 and is fundamental to the claimed invention's environment. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the claims apply to a broad range of software applications or are limited to more specialized calendar-centric devices or interfaces.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the "image display device" can be a general-purpose device like a "personal computer or mobile communications device, such as a smart phone." (’774 Patent, col. 3:56-59). This may support an argument that "electronic wall calendar" refers to a software function rather than a specific type of hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The provisional application from which the patent claims priority was titled "Smart Wall Calendar." (’774 Patent, col. 1:7-9). Furthermore, the embodiment shown in Figure 3A is explicitly labeled and described as an "electronic wall calendar 302." (’774 Patent, col. 6:64-65). This could support a narrower definition tied to a dedicated calendar application or device.

• The Term: "timestamp indicates a date and time for which the image was captured"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the type of data used to schedule the images. The construction is critical because it determines whether any user-associated date qualifies, or if the system must use the image's original creation metadata.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a timestamp can be a "user specified timestamp derived from user input," and that a user-specified date "may be the date the image was captured, or any other date specified by the user." (’774 Patent, col. 9:16-23). This could be cited to argue that a user-assigned date fulfills the limitation, even if it is not the actual capture date.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is specific, requiring a timestamp that "indicates a date and time for which the image was captured." The patent repeatedly points to "an EXIF timestamp included in EXIF data for the image" as the canonical example of such a timestamp. (’774 Patent, col. 13:25-29). This language may support an argument that the claim requires the use of objective, camera-generated metadata, not arbitrary user-defined dates.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14, 15). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of its infringement at least since the service of the complaint and has continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶13, 14). This forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness. No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electronic wall calendar," which is described in the patent with specific calendar-based user interface elements, be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of the accused products, especially if they are general-purpose software or operating systems?
• A second central issue will be evidentiary and technical: given the lack of detail in the complaint, a key question is what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims—particularly the generation of a "slideshow schedule" from image capture timestamps and the claimed user interactions with selectable date boxes.