DCT

1:19-cv-02318

Ghaly Devices LLC v. Humor Rainbow Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02318, S.D.N.Y., 07/19/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Humor Rainbow maintains a regular and established place of business, has transacted business, and committed acts of patent infringement in the Southern District of New York.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s OKCupid mobile application infringes a patent related to a handheld device for determining and displaying a degree of compatibility between two individuals.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic matchmaking systems that use personality and preference data to calculate and present a compatibility score between users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving Defendant’s parent company, Match Group, specifically Match Group, Inc. v. Bumble Trading Inc., to argue that technology for particular use in a matchmaking app is not abstract. The complaint also notes that the patent-in-suit was cited as prior art during the prosecution of several other patents in the field, including those assigned to TiVo, Microsoft, and eHarmony. Plaintiff alleges it sent notice letters with infringement analysis to Defendant's parent company in October 2017 and February 2019.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-22 U.S. Patent No. 6,685,479 Priority Date
2004-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,685,479 Issues
2017-10-16 Match Group allegedly receives "First Letter" regarding '479 Patent
2017-10-25 Match Group allegedly responds to "First Letter"
2019-02-05 Match Group allegedly receives "Second Letter" from Ghaly Devices
2019-02-XX Humor Rainbow allegedly responds to "Second Letter"
2019-07-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,685,479 - Personal Hand Held Device

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while psychologists have long used personality classifications to predict compatibility, no device had been developed to allow two individuals to "instantly ascertain and/or predict the degree to which they are compatible based on their personality traits, mutual interests and the like" (’479 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld personal device that allows a user to input answers to a plurality of questions regarding personal preferences, hobbies, and personality characteristics (’479 Patent, col. 3:1-12). The device includes a "control program" that processes this data using a "personality profile system" and can communicate with a second, similar device to calculate a "degree of compatibility" based on common items and matched attributes (’479 Patent, col. 11:1-25). The result is then indicated to the users, for example, through a colored light display (’479 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
  • Technical Importance: The invention proposed a portable, self-contained electronic solution to automate and expedite the social process of determining personal compatibility, moving it beyond traditional methods. (Compl. ¶13, 21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 42. (Compl. ¶53).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 42 include:
    • a housing
    • a plurality of entry control mechanisms to operate the device
    • computer memory to store user's data
    • means to communicate data to and from another device
    • a microprocessor to control the operation of the device
    • a control program to produce personality attributes using a personality profile system, match data with a second user, and calculate a degree of compatibility based on common items
    • a display (liquid crystal or light emitting diodes) to indicate the degree of compatibility
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but does reference infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Instrumentality" is defined as a "networked device having the OKCupid mobile application installed thereon," such as an iPhone or Android-based smartphone. (Compl. ¶41, 43). The system also includes the "OKCupid server application" that works in conjunction with the mobile app. (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The OKCupid mobile application allows users to answer questions on various topics and assign an "importance" level to each question. (Compl. ¶69). The application and its associated server use this information to calculate a "match percentage" or "degree of compatibility" between two users. (Compl. ¶68, 71). This compatibility score is then displayed on users' profiles, often accompanied by a color code. (Compl. ¶74). The complaint provides screenshots from the OKCupid application showing a user answering questions and selecting an importance level ("A little," "Somewhat," "Very"). (Compl. ¶70, p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'479 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 42) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A device for determining a degree of compatibility between a first set of data corresponding to a first person and a second set of data corresponding to a second person The Accused Instrumentality (smartphone with OKCupid app) operates to determine a degree of compatibility between users. ¶54-55 col. 13:1-5
[a] a housing; A smartphone, such as an iPhone, provides the physical housing. The complaint provides a picture of an iPhone as an example of a device with a housing. ¶56, p. 12 col. 5:50-54
[b] a plurality of entry control mechanisms to operate the device, A smartphone’s controls, including the power button, volume buttons, and touch points on a touch screen, are alleged to be the entry control mechanisms. ¶57-59 col. 5:59-64
[c] computer memory to store user's data, The smartphone's built-in RAM or ROM is alleged to be the computer memory that stores user data, such as answers to questions. ¶60-61 col. 6:5-8
[d] means to communicate data to and from another device, The smartphone's network capabilities, such as Wi-Fi or cellular radio, are alleged to be the means to communicate with other devices, including the OKCupid server. ¶62-64 col. 12:45-48
[e] a microprocessor to control the operation of the device, The smartphone's CPU (e.g., Apple's A11 chip) is the microprocessor that controls the device by executing the OKCupid mobile application. ¶65-66 col. 6:3-4
[f] a control program to produce user's personality attributes... using a personality profile system... and to calculate a degree of compatibility... based in part on the number of common items between desired and calculated attributes or parameters; The OKCupid mobile application and server application function as a control program. It uses a "point-based system" where users answer questions and assign importance levels to produce attributes and calculate a weighted compatibility score. ¶67-69 col. 14:10-23
[g] a liquid crystal display, or light emitting diodes display, to indicate said degree of compatibility between the two users. The smartphone's LCD or LEDD screen provides a visual depiction of the compatibility score, which is allegedly encoded in a color pattern. The complaint includes screenshots of OKCupid profiles with color-coded percentage scores. ¶73-74, p. 18 col. 6:18-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "device" can be read to cover a distributed client-server system (smartphone app + remote server), as opposed to the self-contained, peer-to-peer "hand held personal device" primarily described in the patent's specification. The complaint anticipates this by pleading infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, arguing a distributed architecture is an "insubstantial difference." (Compl. ¶77).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the OKCupid algorithm, which calculates a match percentage based on user answers and stated preferences, performs the same function as the "personality profile system" claimed in the patent. The patent specification references specific behavioral and personality profile models (Compl. ¶12; '479 Patent, col. 9:57-64), raising the question of how broadly the claim term should be construed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "personality profile system"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core functionality of the claimed invention. The infringement case depends on whether the OKCupid algorithm, which uses a question-and-answer-based system with importance weighting, qualifies as a "personality profile system." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent references established psychological profiling systems, and the defendant may argue its system is technically distinct. (Compl. ¶12, 17, 68).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the processing of personal data "consists of grouping and archiving the data into a plurality of categories and identifying the personality traits and profiles of the player based on predefined classifications." (’479 Patent, col. 3:13-17). This could support a reading that encompasses any system that classifies users based on their inputs.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the system is based on established psychological models, stating, "An example of such profile determination is known as the DISC dimensions of behavior." (’479 Patent, col. 7:40-42). This could support a narrower construction tied to systems that analyze inherent behavioral traits rather than just stated preferences on topics like hobbies or interests.

  • The Term: "device for determining a degree of compatibility"

  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble of claim 42, frames the entire apparatus. Its construction is critical because the accused instrumentality is a distributed system (smartphone and server), whereas the patent specification appears to describe a singular, self-contained handheld device that communicates peer-to-peer. (Compl. ¶77; '479 Patent, FIG. 1).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 42 itself requires a "means to communicate data to and from another device," which could be interpreted to include communication with a remote server over a network, not just another handheld device in close proximity. (Compl. ¶77; '479 Patent, col. 14:8-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict a single, portable "personal hand-held device." (’479 Patent, col. 5:50-51, FIG. 1). The default operation is described as being in a "receiving standby mode until it receives data from a similar device," suggesting direct peer-to-peer interaction. (’479 Patent, col. 3:25-28).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Humor Rainbow knowingly and intentionally encourages its customers to infringe. (Compl. ¶93). The alleged acts of inducement include marketing the OKCupid app, providing instructions to download and use it from app stores, and disseminating technical information on how to use the infringing features. (Compl. ¶92, 94). A screenshot of the "GET THE APP" buttons is provided as evidence of instruction. (Compl. ¶94, p. 22). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c). (Compl. ¶99).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge of the '479 Patent. It claims that Defendant’s parent company, Match Group, received letters in October 2017 and February 2019 that included "a detailed analysis mapping" claims of the patent to the OKCupid application, and that this knowledge was shared with Humor Rainbow. (Compl. ¶79-85, 90). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement continued despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶88-89).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the claimed "device," which the patent describes as a self-contained unit, be construed to read on the accused client-server system where critical processing allegedly occurs on Humor Rainbow's remote servers rather than entirely within the user's smartphone? The outcome may turn on claim construction and the applicability of the Doctrine of Equivalents.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional equivalence: does the OKCupid system, which calculates compatibility from user answers and importance ratings across various topics, constitute the "personality profile system" required by the claim? This will likely involve a debate over whether the term is limited to psychological or behavioral profiling systems versus any system that categorizes users based on their inputs.
  • A key evidentiary question for willfulness and indirect infringement will be knowledge and intent: what specific information was contained in the 2017 and 2019 notice letters, and can the plaintiff prove that this knowledge was imputed from the parent company (Match Group) to the subsidiary defendant (Humor Rainbow) to establish the requisite scienter for these claims?