DCT
1:24-cv-02853
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Triller Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Triller, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Loaknauth Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02853, S.D.N.Y., 04/16/2024
- 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.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media platform infringes patents related to a computer-based system and method for creating and distributing multimedia content based on user submissions.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of social media platforms and systems for managing and curating user-generated content, a highly competitive and commercially significant market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the claims of both asserted patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. The patents share an identical specification, and their underlying applications claim priority back to a provisional application filed in 1999, suggesting an extended prosecution history.
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 Issued |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issued |
| 2024-04-16 | 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
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," Issued November 22, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the logistical challenges faced by media companies in managing the influx of artistic submissions (e.g., scripts, songs) and the difficulty for creators in reaching the right contacts, which limited the availability of fresh, innovative content for media like television (U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked computer system that serves as a structured exchange for media content (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, Abstract). The system is described as a collection of distinct "subsystems"—for submissions, creation, release, and voting—that work together to receive content from users, allow creators to filter and select that content, develop it into new media, distribute it to an audience, and enable the audience to provide feedback (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, col. 7:31 - col. 8:65; FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the claimed invention predates modern crowdsourcing platforms, positioning it as an early technical solution for managing user-generated content in a networked environment (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem configured to receive and store electronic media submissions from users.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem, operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using a filter based on user attributes.
- An electronic release subsystem, operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the resulting multimedia content available for viewing.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the available multimedia content.
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," Issued October 25, 2016 (Compl. ¶33).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Sharing an identical specification with the ’480 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of creating an efficient, networked exchange for the submission, development, and distribution of media content (Compl. ¶36; U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: Instead of a system, this patent claims a method performed by a computer system. The claimed process involves specific electronic steps: retrieving media submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes, generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical interface for users to vote or rate the content (U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, Abstract; col. 13:1-13).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’480 Patent, the invention is framed as a foundational technical process for the kind of user-driven content creation that is now central to modern social media (Compl. ¶11, ¶36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential steps of the method in Claim 1 include:
- Electronically retrieving electronic media submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes.
- Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions while maintaining the submitter's identification within the file.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface for users to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the computer-based system operating the Triller social media service, accessible at Triller (Compl. ¶22, ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Triller platform as a system that allows users to create personalized profiles and to submit, share, and view multimedia content such as videos, photos, and text (Compl. ¶22, ¶45). The platform displays content to users in a live feed, allegedly based on user preferences and attributes (Compl. ¶22). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the main user interface, which features a vertically scrolling feed of user-submitted short-form videos (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Triller utilizes multiple cloud server providers and employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions," including content management, web hosting, and data centers (Compl. ¶22, ¶45).
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... | Triller’s system receives user content (profiles, photos, videos, text) via a web-based interface that allows users to log in and upload submissions, which are stored in a database (Compl. ¶23). | ¶23 | col. 7:31-43 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions... using an electronic content filter... based... on... user attributes... | Triller's platform allegedly uses a content filter based on user attributes (e.g., user name, selected post categories, hashtags) to select and retrieve content for display to other users (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 24:51 - col. 25:14 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... | The Triller system serves multimedia content, including user profiles and posts, to user devices such as computers or smartphones via a web browser or app (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 12:59-62 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | The Triller app provides a "Heart Icon" and a comment function, which the complaint alleges enables users to electronically rate or vote on content (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 27:54 - col. 28:15 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Triller's integrated, cloud-based infrastructure can be said to contain the distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems" recited in the claim. The patent's figures depict a more modular architecture than is typical of modern web services, potentially creating a dispute over structural equivalence (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, FIG. 2).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the function of clicking a "Heart Icon" (a "like") meets the "vote for or electronically rate" limitation. The patent specification discusses a more granular rating system, such as a "scale from 1 to 10," which raises the question of whether a binary like/dislike function falls within the claim's scope (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, col. 12:2-6).
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... based... on... user attributes... | The Triller system retrieves user-submitted media from its database using a filter that relies on user attributes (e.g., username, selected categories, hashtags) to determine which content to display on users' live feeds (Compl. ¶46). | ¶46 | col. 24:51 - col. 25:14 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions... wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained with each retrieved submission... | Triller allegedly generates multimedia files for display where the submitter's identity (e.g., username and profile picture) is maintained and displayed with the content (Compl. ¶49). | ¶49 | col. 4:45-46 |
| 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 Triller system transmits multimedia content from its servers to be viewed on user devices via a browser or application, making the content electronically available over the internet (Compl. ¶50). | ¶50 | col. 4:42-43 |
| 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... | Triller's application provides a graphical user interface containing a "Heart Icon" and a comment feature, which allows users to transmit data indicating their rating of the content (Compl. ¶51). | ¶51 | col. 27:54 - col. 28:15 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "generating a multimedia file" may be a point of contention. It raises the question of whether Triller’s system, which dynamically serves content for a live feed, performs the step of creating a discrete "file" in the manner contemplated by the patent, or whether it streams data packets that are assembled on the client side.
- Technical Questions: As with the ’480 Patent, a key technical question is whether the "Heart Icon" functionality for "liking" content is technically and legally equivalent to the claimed step of enabling a "vote or rating."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" (’480 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the structure of the system claimed in the ’480 Patent. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Triller's modern, cloud-based architecture, which may be highly integrated, infringes a claim reciting four distinct, coupled subsystems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent often describes the subsystems in functional terms. Plaintiff may argue that any server or group of servers performing a claimed function (e.g., receiving submissions) constitutes a "subsystem," regardless of shared hardware. The specification describes the central controller's components functionally (e.g., "billing processor," "payment processor") (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, col. 5:44-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent diagrams depict discrete, separated hardware and database units (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, FIG. 2, FIG. 3). Defendant may argue this implies a requirement for more significant structural or logical separation than exists in its platform.
The Term: "vote for or electronically rate" (’480 and ’665 Patents)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the voting/rating element in both asserted patents depends on this term's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality is a binary "like" (a heart icon), while the patent specification provides examples of more granular rating systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is disjunctive ("vote for or... rate"), suggesting either action is sufficient. Plaintiff could argue that a "like" is a form of positive vote or a binary rating, falling within the plain meaning of the terms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example where "the audience may rate it on a scale from 1 to 10" (U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, col. 12:2-6). Defendant may cite this embodiment to argue that the term requires a more nuanced evaluation than a simple "like."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. While the factual allegations describe Defendant enabling users to perform certain actions, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the required elements of knowledge and intent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: can the claimed architecture of distinct "subsystems" from a patent with a 1999 priority date be construed to read on a modern, highly integrated social media platform built on cloud infrastructure?
- A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: does the act of "liking" content via a heart icon fall within the meaning of "vote for or electronically rate," particularly when the patent's own description provides examples of more complex, scaled rating systems?
- Finally, a key legal question will be one of patent eligibility: despite overcoming §101 rejections during prosecution, the asserted claims, which recite systems and methods for managing and curating user-generated content online, will likely face a challenge under the Alice framework as being directed to an abstract idea without a sufficient inventive concept.