DCT
1:24-cv-02836
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Tidal Music LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Tidal Music LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Loaknauth Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02836, S.D.N.Y., 04/15/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Tidal music streaming service infringes two patents related to systems and processes for creating and distributing multimedia content based on electronic submissions from users.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of online media platforms that facilitate the submission, curation, and distribution of user-contributed content, a foundational model for modern social media and streaming services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted claims in both patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 during prosecution before the USPTO. The complaint also notes that the two patents-in-suit share an identical specification and descend from the same family of applications.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2018-09-13 | Date of earliest accused activity evidence provided in complaint |
| 2024-04-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued November 22, 2016 (the "’480 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, media companies faced a "logistical nightmare" managing unsolicited artistic submissions, while artists struggled to have their ideas reviewed by the appropriate industry contacts (’480 Patent, col. 2:47-57). The complaint frames this as an "Internet-centric problem" of how to enable remote collaboration for new media content creation (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-based system organized into a collection of distinct, operatively coupled subsystems to manage the lifecycle of media creation from user submissions (’480 Patent, Abstract). These subsystems include an "electronic media submissions server subsystem" to receive content, a "multimedia creator server subsystem" to select and retrieve submissions using a filter, an "electronic release subsystem" to make the final content available, and an "electronic voting subsystem" for user feedback (’480 Patent, col. 8:31-col. 9:4).
- Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide a structured, networked process for what the complaint terms "crowdsourcing" media content, facilitating the convergence of traditional media like television with the interactive capabilities of the Internet (Compl. ¶11; ’480 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22). The essential elements of this system claim include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and store submissions from users over a public network.
- 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 to develop multimedia content.
- An electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the available multimedia content.
- The complaint does not explicitly assert dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued October 25, 2016 (the "’665 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '665 Patent shares an identical specification with the '480 Patent and addresses the same problem of creating an efficient electronic exchange for media content submissions (Compl. ¶36).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than a system, the '665 Patent claims an electronic method rooted in computer technology (’665 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶37). The method comprises the steps of electronically retrieving media submissions using a filter based on user attributes, generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing, and providing a web-based interface for users to vote on or rate the content (’665 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This patented process provides a defined workflow for sourcing, assembling, and distributing crowdsourced media, aiming to solve the logistical challenges faced by creators and media companies in the early internet era (Compl. ¶36, incorporating ¶11-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44). The essential steps of this method claim include:
- 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 a selected digital format, maintaining submitter identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices.
- 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 assert dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Tidal music streaming service, identified in the complaint as a computer-based system accessible at https://tidal.com/ (Compl. ¶22, ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Tidal service enables artists and users to publish multimedia content, including on-demand music tracks, artist profiles, and user-created playlists, which may contain audio, image, and textual content (Compl. ¶22, ¶25, ¶45). A screenshot of an artist profile for "DJ Drama" is provided as an example of this published content (Compl. p. 8).
- The service allegedly presents this content to other users through curated feeds, such as "featured" and "top-ranked" playlists, or personalized "mixes for you" (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). A screenshot from a tutorial video shows a "Mixes For You" section on the Tidal interface (Compl. p. 9).
- The complaint alleges that Tidal’s system employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" and that content is filtered and suggested to users based on attributes such as user preferences, genre, user name, track name, and album name (Compl. ¶22, ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'480 Patent 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... | The Tidal system includes a subsystem with a web-based portal that allows users (submitters) to log in and upload content such as playlists, photos, and text. | ¶23, ¶52 | col. 6:3-10 |
| wherein the electronic media submissions database further stores data identifying the submitter and data indicating content for each electronic media submission... | Tidal’s submissions database stores data identifying the user (e.g., a name) and the content of the submission (e.g., photo, audio, text). A screenshot shows a user-created playlist with the creator name "Me" displayed. | ¶24, ¶58 | col. 8:35-39 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions... using an electronic content filter... based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes... | The Tidal system selects and retrieves submissions (e.g., tracks, playlists, profiles) using a filter based on user attributes like name, genre, and music preferences to generate curated feeds and personalized mixes. | ¶26 | col. 6:11-19 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... | Tidal’s system employs a release subsystem to serve multimedia content (user profiles, playlists) to user devices, such as computers or smartphones with a web browser or app. | ¶28, ¶62 | col. 6:20-23 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | The Tidal service includes a "Heart Icon" that enables users to vote for or rate multimedia content such as a song track. A screenshot highlights this icon in a list of tracks. | ¶29, ¶64 | col. 6:24-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Tidal’s architecture, as a modern, integrated cloud service, can be mapped onto the patent's distinct "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems. The analysis may focus on whether these terms require distinct hardware or software structures or if mere functional differentiation is sufficient.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that Tidal's "like" function (the heart icon) constitutes an "electronic voting subsystem" as claimed? The court may need to determine if a simple "like" performs the function of the more structured rating and reward system described in the patent's specification (’480 Patent, col. 12:1-15).
'665 Patent 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 located on the one or more data processing apparatus... | The Tidal system retrieves user/artist profiles, music tracks, and playlists from its database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes like name, genre, and search history to create curated feeds. | ¶46-47 | col. 13:3-12 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained... | The Tidal system generates multimedia files, such as artist profiles and user playlists, from retrieved submissions, and maintains the identity of the user/artist submitter with the content. | ¶49, ¶61 | col. 13:13-18 |
| 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 Tidal system transmits multimedia content (profiles, playlists) over the Internet for viewing on user devices like computers and smartphones via its web and app interfaces. A screenshot shows an artist profile available in a web browser. | ¶50, ¶62 | col. 13:19-24 |
| 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... | Tidal provides a graphical user interface (the app or website) with a "Heart Icon" that allows a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for content like a song track. | ¶51, ¶64 | col. 13:25-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does a user creating a playlist or an artist creating a profile constitute the system "electronically generating a multimedia file," or is this action more accurately characterized as user-directed data entry? The interpretation of "generating" may be a key point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system "transmit[] the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers"? A defendant may argue that its content delivery network (CDN) architecture transmits data from its servers to end-user devices, which could be a technically distinct operation from transmitting files among publicly accessible servers.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" ('480 Patent)
Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the '480 Patent requires five distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The definition of this term is critical because infringement depends on whether Tidal's allegedly more integrated, modern architecture can be structurally mapped onto these claimed components. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "subsystem" is construed to require significant structural separation, it could present a challenge to the infringement theory.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification illustrates the "central controller" as comprising multiple processors (e.g., billing, payment) and databases that perform distinct functions, suggesting "subsystem" could refer to functionally or logically separate components, not necessarily physically separate servers (’480 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The block diagrams in the patent consistently depict the various databases and processors as discrete boxes, which could support a construction requiring more concrete structural or hardware-based separation than may exist in a distributed, cloud-based platform (’480 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "electronic content filter" ('480 and '665 Patents)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the "creator" subsystem and the "retrieving" step, which the complaint maps to Tidal's use of user preferences and proprietary algorithms to create curated playlists (Compl. ¶26, ¶47). The dispute will likely center on whether passive, algorithmic content suggestion and user-driven searches fall within the scope of the claimed "filter."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the filter is "based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes," broad language that could encompass modern personalization and recommendation engines (’480 Patent, Claim 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the open search process as one where a "creator and/or third party end user is conducting the search for the purpose of finding appealing content," which may imply a more active, user-directed search tool rather than a passive, system-driven recommendation algorithm (’480 Patent, col. 25:40-44).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the components of a modern, cloud-based streaming service like Tidal be mapped onto the patent's claimed 1999-era architecture of distinct "submissions," "creator," "release," and "voting" subsystems, or is there a fundamental mismatch in system design and operation?
- A second key issue will be one of functional scope: Do modern streaming features, such as algorithmic recommendations, user-driven genre browsing, and "like" buttons, perform the specific functions of the claimed "electronic content filter" and "electronic voting subsystem" as contemplated by the patent's more structured framework for content selection and reward?
- A central legal question may concern patent eligibility: Although the complaint notes that the claims overcame §101 rejections during prosecution, the case will likely involve renewed scrutiny of whether the claims are directed to a patent-eligible technological improvement in computer functionality or to the abstract idea of crowdsourcing media content implemented using conventional computer components.