DCT

1:23-cv-06389

SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-06389, S.D.N.Y., 07/24/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Meta maintains multiple places of business and conducts significant and continuous business activities within the Southern District of New York, including marketing and selling the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook Crisis Response/Safety Check features and its Ad Platform infringe four patents related to the creation and use of dynamic, event-based "situational networks."
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a network architecture where a specific event or "situation"—such as a natural disaster or a marketing campaign—serves as the basis for temporarily interconnecting a relevant subset of users from a larger social network.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant knew or should have known of the asserted patent family since at least August 9, 2016, when a related patent was cited during the prosecution of a Meta patent application concerning social location information. The complaint also references the prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit, arguing that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office found the core "situational network" concept to be an unconventional and patent-eligible improvement over prior art network technologies.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-02-02 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit (provisional filing)
2012-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,249,932 Issues
2012-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,332,454 Issues
2014-10-01 Meta launches "Safety Check" feature (approximated from "late 2014")
2016-08-09 Date of Meta's alleged knowledge of the patent family
2016-10-01 Meta launches "Events from Facebook" app (approximated from "2016")
2018-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,877,345 Issues
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,470,682 Issues
2023-07-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,470,682 - "Method and system for using a situational network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11470682, "Method and system for using a situational network," issued October 11, 2022. (Compl. ¶10)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional networks, which were described as static and computationally inefficient for identifying and interconnecting a specific subset of users impacted by a real-time event or "situation." (Compl. ¶¶19, 22, 37)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "situational network," a temporary network formed in response to a specific event (e.g., a natural disaster). (Compl. ¶19) The system receives an indication of a situation, forms a network of participants determined to be in geographic proximity, presents a "roll call query" to their devices to solicit their status, and aggregates the responses into a list. (’682 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-24)
  • Technical Importance: This architecture was designed to allow for faster response times and more efficient use of computing resources compared to traditional static networks by focusing only on the relevant subset of users. (Compl. ¶19, ¶22)

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 and 11-14. (Compl. ¶75)
  • Independent Claim 1 is a system claim for a server, comprising:
    • A network controller configured to receive an information item identifying a situation and make it available to a first plurality of user devices.
    • A central processing unit configured to verify the information item is related to the situation.
    • In response to verifying, the server makes a message board available to a second plurality of user devices.
    • The second plurality of user devices is identified based on being geographically proximate to the situation.
    • The message board comprises a roll call list that includes status responses to roll call queries provided to the second plurality of user devices. ('682 Patent, col. 34:10-34)

U.S. Patent No. 9,877,345 - "Method and system for using a situational network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9877345, "Method and system for using a situational network," issued January 23, 2018. (Compl. ¶11)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the other patents-in-suit, the technology addresses the challenge of dynamically connecting users impacted by a specific event, which conventional static networks could not do efficiently. (Compl. ¶¶19, 37)
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for accessing situation-related information. The method involves identifying an event, forming a temporary network of participants based on their geographic proximity to that event, polling them for their status, and compiling the responses into a "roll call list." (’345 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶35)
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided an unconventional network architecture that improved on prior computer networking technologies by enabling dynamic, event-based connections rather than static ones. (Compl. ¶¶19, 36)

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 13-15. (Compl. ¶93)
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method claim for accessing situation-related information, comprising the steps of:
    • Receiving an indication of an occurrence of a situation.
    • Forming a situational network with a plurality of participant devices determined to be geographically proximate to the situation.
    • Presenting a roll call query to each of the devices to solicit a reply related to a participant's status.
    • Receiving a status response from one or more participants.
    • Aggregating the status from responsive participants into a roll call list. (’345 Patent, col. 36:11-23)

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,332,454 - "Creating a projection of a situational network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8332454, "Creating a projection of a situational network," issued December 11, 2012. (Compl. ¶12)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on creating a "projection," or a filtered subset, of nodes from a larger social network to form a situational network. The projection is based on criteria such as the geographic locations of devices corresponding to users in the network. (’454 Patent, Abstract)
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 2, 4-6, 10, and 12-13. (Compl. ¶111)
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses both Facebook Safety Check/Crisis Response and the Facebook Ad Platform/Meta's Marketing API of infringing the ’454 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶111, 123)

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,249,932 - "Targeted advertising in a situational network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8249932, "Targeted advertising in a situational network," issued August 21, 2012. (Compl. ¶13)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent applies the situational network concept to targeted advertising. It describes a system where an "occurrence of a situation" (e.g., a marketing opportunity) triggers the automatic connection of a plurality of individuals into a network to receive advertisements based on their "affiliation" to the situation. (’932 Patent, Abstract)
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 22 and dependent claims 2-7. (Compl. ¶149)
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Facebook Ad Platform/Meta's Marketing API of infringing the ’932 Patent. (Compl. ¶150)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses two main product categories: (1) Facebook Crisis Response / Safety Check and (2) Facebook Ad Platform / Meta's Marketing API. (Compl. ¶¶57, 65)

Functionality and Market Context

  • Crisis Response / Safety Check: This feature is automatically activated in response to a crisis, such as an earthquake or explosion. (Compl. ¶58) It uses various signals (e.g., profile city, current device location, IP address) to identify users likely in the affected area, establishes a temporary network, and prompts them to mark themselves as safe. (Compl. ¶60) Users can then see the status of friends and communicate within the crisis-specific network. (Compl. ¶¶59, 61) The complaint includes a screenshot of a tweet showing the Safety Check feature activated for an explosion in New York City. (Compl. p. 24)
  • Ad Platform / Marketing API: This system is alleged to create situational networks for targeted advertising. An advertiser defines a campaign (the "situation") and a target audience, and the platform connects the devices of individuals in that audience to deliver ads. (Compl. ¶¶29, 65) The complaint alleges that this process establishes a situational network based on the advertising campaign and automatically connects users' devices to it. (Compl. ¶65, ¶138)

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference as exhibits, but these exhibits are not attached to the filed complaint. The following summaries are based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

'682 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A server for providing roll call based information, the server comprising: a network controller configured to: receive an information item from a user device, wherein the information item identifies a situation; and make the information item available to a first plurality of user devices; Meta's servers receive notice of an incident from a global crisis reporting agency or from user posts, which identifies a "situation." This information is then made available on the Facebook platform. ¶80 col. 4:11-24
a central processing unit, coupled to the network controller, configured to verify that the information item is related to the situation; and The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide specific detail on how Meta's system performs the "verifying" step. It notes Meta looks at a number of factors to determine if a user is in an affected area. ¶81 col. 34:19-21
in response to the verifying, make a message board related to the situation available to a second plurality of user devices; In response to an incident, Meta activates Safety Check and makes a Crisis Response page (the "message board") available to users determined to be in the vicinity. ¶¶80, 84 col. 34:22-25
wherein the second plurality of user devices was identified based on the second plurality of user devices being geographically proximate to the situation; Meta's servers use factors including the city listed in a user's profile, current GPS location, and other internet signals to determine who is in the vicinity of the incident. ¶81 col. 34:26-29
wherein the message board comprises a roll call list that includes status responses to roll call queries... Facebook sends notifications to nearby individuals requesting they mark themselves as safe (the "roll call query"). By soliciting these responses, Facebook creates a database of individuals marked "safe" (the "roll call list"). ¶¶82, 83 col. 34:30-34

'345 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving an indication of an occurrence of a situation; Facebook receives notice of a crisis event from a global crisis reporting agency or from user posts indicating the occurrence of a crisis. ¶98 col. 4:11-14
forming a situational network related to the occurrence of the situation with a plurality of participant devices determined to be geographically proximate to the situation... Facebook uses factors such as profile city, current GPS location, and other internet signals to determine who is in the vicinity of the incident, thereby forming a network of affected users. ¶99 col. 6:1-8
presenting a roll call query to each of the plurality of participant devices soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant; Safety Check sends a notification to the devices of individuals determined to be nearby, requesting that they mark themselves as safe. ¶100 col. 32:31-35
receiving a status response from one or more of the participants; and aggregating the status from responsive participants into a roll call list. By sending notifications and soliciting responses, Facebook creates a database of individuals marked as "safe." This database can be accessed from the Crisis Response page generated for the situation. ¶101, ¶102 col. 32:41-45
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether an advertising campaign, as implemented by the Facebook Ad Platform, constitutes a "situation" within the meaning of the patents. Likewise, it raises the question of whether an algorithmically-defined advertising audience is equivalent to a set of participants "determined to be geographically proximate to the situation," as the claims require.
    • Technical Questions: For the Crisis Response feature, the complaint alleges that notice of an incident comes from a "global crisis reporting agency" or "user posts." (Compl. ¶¶80, 98) A potential point of contention could be whether receiving information from an agency server, rather than directly from an end-user's device, satisfies the claim limitation "receive an information item from a user device."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "situational network"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted inventions. Its construction will likely determine whether Meta's accused features—particularly the Ad Platform—fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is central to the infringement case for the advertising-related allegations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "a situational network 3000 is created when an occurrence or expected occurrence of an event or situation 3005 causes connections... to be established between, within or among a set of participants." ('682 Patent, col. 4:11-17)
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed descriptions and figures heavily feature examples related to crisis events (hurricanes, tornadoes, fires) and travel/navigation, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to those contexts. ('682 Patent, col. 5:1-11; Fig. 25, Fig. 27)

  • The Term: "geographically proximate"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the scope of participants in the asserted independent claims of both the '682 and '345 patents. The infringement analysis for both Crisis Response and the Ad Platform depends on whether Meta's methods of identifying users meet this requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this concept as users being in "relatively close geographic positions" without defining a specific distance or boundary. ('682 Patent, col. 6:1-3)
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples, such as a localized snowstorm or a specific highway mile marker, suggest a tangible and confined geographic area related to a physical event, which could be contrasted with a geographically dispersed advertising audience. ('682 Patent, Fig. 25; col. 24:15-18)

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Meta aided and instructed its customers and users on how to use the infringing features of Safety Check/Crisis Response and the Ad Platform. (Compl. ¶¶87, 105, 143) It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused features are not staple articles of commerce and constitute a material part of the claimed inventions. (Compl. ¶¶88, 106, 144)
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Meta knew or should have known of the patent family since at least August 9, 2016. This allegation is based on the prosecution history of Meta's own U.S. Patent No. 9,412,136, during which a member of the asserted patent family was allegedly made known to Meta. (Compl. ¶16) This pre-suit knowledge allegation forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "situational network," which is described in the patent specifications with a focus on crisis events, be construed broadly enough to read on Defendant's targeted advertising system, where a marketing campaign is alleged to be the triggering "situation"?
  • A key technical question will be one of functional implementation: does Meta's method of identifying users for its Ad Platform, which relies on advertiser-defined demographic and interest-based criteria, satisfy the specific claim requirement of forming a network with devices "determined to be geographically proximate to the situation"?
  • The dispute may also turn on the question of willfulness: what evidentiary weight will be given to the allegation that Meta was aware of the asserted patent family as early as 2016, stemming from the prosecution of its own patent application, and what impact could this have on potential damages if infringement is found?