DCT
1:24-cv-01213
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Dailymotion Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dailymotion Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Loaknauth Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01213, S.D.N.Y., 02/17/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York based on Defendant maintaining a place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dailymotion video-sharing platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for an electronic exchange for creating and distributing user-submitted multimedia content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns early server-based systems for managing the submission, filtering, collaborative creation, and rating of "crowdsourced" media content over a public network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the claims at issue for both asserted patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution. The two patents share an identical specification, which may suggest a consistent construction of common terms across both patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,501,480 and 9,477,665 |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2024-02-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, there was a need for a technical solution to allow remote contributors to submit, share, and collaborate on electronic media content over the internet (Compl. ¶11). The patent background highlights the logistical difficulties for both media companies in sourcing new creative material and for individual artists in submitting their work to the right contacts (’665 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a computer system composed of several distinct functional "subsystems" that work together to form an "electronic multi-media exchange" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). A submissions subsystem receives and stores user content; a creator subsystem selects and retrieves that content using a filter; a release subsystem makes the resulting multimedia content available for viewing; and a voting subsystem enables users to rate the content (’480 Patent, Claim 1). This creates a structured process for managing user-generated content from submission to distribution and audience feedback (’665 Patent, col. 3:1-14).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the claimed invention predates modern crowdsourcing platforms and offered a novel, specially configured system to address the then-emerging challenge of managing collaborative online content creation (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a system claim, include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a submissions database and an electronic interface to receive and store media from submitters.
- A user database storing user attributes.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
- An electronic release subsystem configured to make the multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and addresses the same technical problems related to sourcing and managing creative content submissions (Compl. ¶36).
- The Patented Solution: The ’665 Patent claims a method, rather than a system, for generating multimedia content. The claimed process involves electronically retrieving submissions from a database using a filter, generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (’665 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’480 Patent, this invention provided an early, structured method for managing a crowdsourced media exchange online (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include the steps of:
- Electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
- Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, maintaining submitter identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Dailymotion computer-based system and service, accessible at https://www.dailymotion.com/us (the “Accused Instrumentality”) (Compl. ¶22, ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Instrumentality is a video-sharing platform that enables users, referred to as "submitters," to create personalized profiles and upload or share multimedia content such as videos and text (Compl. ¶22, ¶45). This user-submitted content may be displayed to other users in a "Featured Feed" or in search results, based on user preferences and attributes (Compl. ¶22).
- The complaint alleges the system operates using multiple cloud server providers and "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶22). It is also alleged to employ an Application Programming Interface (API) that functions as a filter, allowing content to be retrieved based on parameters such as category, language, tags, keywords, and privacy settings (Compl. ¶23). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows various "Global API Parameters" used by the Dailymotion service (Compl. p. 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electronic media submissions server subsystem... configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network, and store the electronic media submissions in the electronic media submission database... | The Dailymotion platform provides a web-based portal allowing users to log in and upload video and textual content, which is then stored in its databases. The complaint provides a screenshot of the user interface for uploading video content (Compl. p. 13). | ¶23 | col. 7:31-43 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions from the electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter located on the electronic multimedia creator server, said filter being based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes... | Dailymotion's system allegedly uses an API that functions as an electronic content filter to retrieve user profiles and associated media based on user attributes such as category, language, tags, and keywords. A screenshot of Dailymotion's API documentation shows filterable parameters (Compl. p. 26). | ¶26 | col. 8:45-54 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... | The Dailymotion system serves multimedia content, including user profiles and posts, for viewing on user devices such as computers and smartphones via web browsers or applications. | ¶28 | col. 4:46-51 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | The Dailymotion platform provides a user interface with a "Heart Icon" that enables users to rate multimedia content. A screenshot in the complaint depicts this functionality (Compl. p. 33). | ¶29 | col. 12:1-6 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from an electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter... | Dailymotion's platform uses an API that operates as a filter to retrieve video content based on user attributes like category, language, and privacy settings. The complaint includes screenshots of user-selectable attributes during video upload (Compl. p. 20). | ¶46 | col. 25:1-12 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions... wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained with each retrieved submission within the multimedia file... | The Dailymotion system allegedly generates displays of multimedia files (e.g., search result pages) that include user-submitted content along with embedded hyperlinks and textual information identifying the submitter. A screenshot shows search results for "cars" with submitter names listed below each video thumbnail (Compl. p. 29). | ¶49 | col. 26:41-49 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices over a public network... | The complaint alleges that Dailymotion uses a geographically distributed userbase and public webservers to transmit and make multimedia content available for viewing on user devices over the Internet. | ¶50 | col. 4:46-51 |
| providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for an electronically available multimedia content... | The platform provides a user interface, including a "Heart Icon," that enables users to rate content, which the complaint alleges is a form of transmitting data indicating a vote or rating. | ¶51 | col. 12:1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "subsystem" as used in the ’480 Patent, which suggests a modular architecture, can be construed to read on the functionally distinct but potentially integrated components of a modern, cloud-based platform. The complaint's allegation of "separate server subsystems" (Compl. ¶22) suggests this will be a point of dispute. Another question is whether the method step of "generating a multimedia file" in the ’665 Patent can read on the dynamic, on-the-fly assembly of a webpage or content feed, as opposed to the creation of a discrete data file.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether Dailymotion's API and recommendation algorithms perform the specific function of the claimed "electronic content filter." Similarly, the court may examine whether a user clicking a "Heart Icon" (Compl. p. 33) constitutes the "electronic voting" or "rating" recited in the claims, or if the claims require a more complex voting or ranking mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" (’480 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the structure of the asserted system claim. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Dailymotion's modern, distributed software architecture infringes a claim drafted with an architecture of distinct subsystems. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant is likely to argue that its integrated platform is not a collection of discrete "subsystems."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification may describe the subsystems in functional terms (e.g., a submission function, a creator function) rather than requiring them to be physically separate hardware, which could support a broader, functional definition (See generally ’665 Patent, col. 7-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the system's components, such as the "Submitter/Member Database" and "Creator Database," as distinct blocks, which could support an interpretation requiring some degree of structural or logical separation (’665 Patent, Fig. 2). The complaint itself alleges Dailymotion employs "separate server subsystems" (Compl. ¶22), potentially narrowing the scope of what Plaintiff can argue.
The Term: "electronic content filter" (’480 Patent, Claim 1; ’665 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is a key limitation of the "creator" subsystem/step and is central to how the patented invention selects content. The dispute may turn on whether Dailymotion's content retrieval and recommendation engine, which uses a documented API, falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the filter to be "based at least in part on... user attributes" (’480 Patent, Claim 1). This broad language could encompass any server-side mechanism that uses user data—such as categories, tags, or language—to select content for display. The specification states the search can be based on "keyword, boolean, string, etc." (’665 Patent, col. 25:67-col. 26:3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific types of filtering technologies available in 1999, not modern, complex APIs or machine-learning algorithms. The specific embodiments described in the detailed description may be cited to support a narrower construction (’665 Patent, col. 25:1-col. 26:54).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "subsystem," originating from a 1999 disclosure that depicts a modular architecture, be construed to cover the functionally distinct but potentially integrated and distributed components of a modern cloud-based service?
- A second key issue will be one of technological evolution: Does the accused platform's use of a sophisticated API for content retrieval and a simple user engagement feature like a "Heart Icon" meet the specific functional requirements of the claimed "electronic content filter" and "electronic voting subsystem," respectively, or has the technology evolved in a way that creates a technical mismatch with the claim language?
- A third underlying question will be one of patent eligibility: Although the complaint notes the patents overcame 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections during prosecution, defendants in such cases frequently challenge eligibility again in district court. The case may turn on whether the court views the claims as directed to a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or to the abstract idea of managing a media exchange, implemented on generic computer components.