DCT

1:24-cv-06260

Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Seeking Alpha Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06260, S.D.N.Y., 12/06/2024
  • 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 infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial news and analysis platform, Seeking Alpha, infringes two patents related to systems and methods for an electronic, crowdsourced multi-media exchange.
  • Technical Context: The patents address online platforms that solicit, manage, develop, and distribute user-submitted content, a foundational model for modern social media and content-sharing websites.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the claims of both asserted patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 during prosecution, with the applicant arguing the claims were directed to specific technical solutions, not abstract ideas. The complaint also references an IPR proceeding involving a related patent where certain feedback-related features were reportedly not challenged.

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
2024-12-06 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, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued November 22, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the logistical difficulties faced by both creators trying to submit artistic works (e.g., screenplays, songs) to the media industry and by media companies inundated with such submissions, leading to a deficit of fresh, quality content (’480 Patent, col. 2:8-41). The complaint characterizes this as an "Internet-centric problem" requiring a technical solution for remote collaboration and feedback (Compl. ¶11).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-based system architected as an "electronic multi-media exchange" composed of four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems": one for receiving submissions, one for creating new multimedia content from those submissions, one for releasing the content, and one for enabling user voting or rating (’480 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:43-col. 8:47). This distributed structure is intended to manage the entire lifecycle of crowdsourced content, from submission to audience feedback.
    • Technical Importance: The specification suggests that distributing system functions across separate subsystems "yields a more dynamic and flexible system, less prone to catastrophic hardware failures affecting the entire system" (’480 Patent, col. 10:10-12).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
    • Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System):
      • An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a database for storing user submissions and submitter data.
      • A user database for 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 available for viewing.
      • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the available multimedia content or a submission within it.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued October 25, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The '665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of facilitating an online exchange for creative content (’480 Patent, col. 2:8-41; Compl. ¶65).
    • The Patented Solution: The '665 Patent claims a method, rather than a system, for operating such an exchange. The claimed process involves electronically retrieving submissions using a filter based on user attributes, generating a new multimedia file from the submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to publicly accessible webservers, and providing a graphical user interface for users to submit votes or ratings on the content (’665 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the claimed method provides a technical improvement by enabling a two-way feedback mechanism, which it contrasts with the one-way media distribution common at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶90). The method also addresses technical problems of format incompatibility between submitted and desired content (Compl. ¶85).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
    • Essential Elements of Claim 1 (Method):
      • Electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using a content filter based on user attributes.
      • Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, while maintaining the identification of the submitter with each submission.
      • 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 multimedia content or a submission within it.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the computer-based system operating the website https://seekingalpha.com/ (Compl. ¶50, 96).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes Seeking Alpha as a platform where users, analysts, and contributors can create profiles and submit content such as articles, blogs, and comments (Compl. ¶52, 99). The platform stores these submissions in databases along with data identifying the submitter, such as a name and profile picture (Compl. ¶53, 100).
    • The system allegedly uses an "electronic content filter" that relies on user attributes (e.g., investing style, sector of interest) and article attributes (e.g., stock ideas, dividends) to determine which submissions appear to a user (Compl. ¶55, 98). This functionality is demonstrated in a screenshot showing a user's ability to filter news articles by industry or sector of interest (Compl. p. 41).
    • The platform provides content on user devices (e.g., computers with a web browser or mobile apps) and allows users to provide feedback on content, for example through a "Like" button or by posting comments (Compl. ¶51, 58, 103). A screenshot of the Seeking Alpha user interface shows a "Like" button beneath a user's comment (Compl. p. 51).

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 and store said electronic media submissions in said electronic media submissions database... Defendant's system provides a web-based portal, such as a "submission wizard," for users to upload articles, blogs, and comments over the Internet, which are stored in its databases. A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a help page for Seeking Alpha's "submission wizard" (Compl. p. 24). ¶52 col. 6:50-65
a user database comprising one or more user attributes stored therein; Defendant's system stores user profiles and user attributes, such as investing style or sectors of interest, in a user database. ¶54 col. 7:27-30
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... user attributes to develop multimedia content... Defendant's system uses a filter based on stored user and article attributes (e.g., sectors of interest) to select and display content submissions to users, thereby developing the multimedia content viewed by the user. ¶55 col. 7:1-26
an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices; Defendant's system serves articles, contributor profiles, and other multimedia content to user devices, such as computers and smartphones with web browsers or apps, in response to a user logging in. ¶57 col. 8:13-21
an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content or an electronic media submission... Defendant's system provides a "Like" button and comment functionality, which allegedly enables users to vote for or rate articles and comments provided by submitters. ¶58 col. 8:36-47
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether Seeking Alpha's integrated software platform can be mapped onto the patent's claimed architecture of four distinct, "operatively coupled" subsystems. A central question will be whether logical software modules on a unified platform constitute separate "subsystems" with their own "data processing apparatus" as required by the claim language and described in the specification (Compl. ¶33).
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system's display of filtered articles "develops" multimedia content in the manner required by the "multimedia creator server subsystem" element, as opposed to simply presenting pre-existing content?

'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 one or more data processing apparatus... said filter being based at least in part on... user attributes; The accused system retrieves articles and comments from its database using a filter based on user attributes (e.g., investing style, followed authors) and article attributes (e.g., stock tickers) to determine which content to display. A screenshot shows a feature to "Filter By Ticker" for comments (Compl. p. 23). ¶98 col. 4:5-17
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 system allegedly generates multimedia files (e.g., webpages displaying articles and comments) in a format compatible with the user's device, while maintaining the submitter's name and profile picture with the content. ¶101 col. 4:18-24
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 does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, specifically regarding transmission to a "plurality of publicly accessible webservers." col. 4:25-32
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 system provides a user interface with features such as a "Like" button and comment section, allowing users to transmit data indicating a rating or vote for an article or another user's comment. ¶103 col. 4:33-41
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the interpretation of "electronically generating a multimedia file." Does dynamically rendering a webpage that incorporates user-submitted text and images meet this limitation, or does the claim require the creation of a new, discrete file (e.g., a PDF, video, or packaged compilation) from the submissions?
    • Evidentiary Questions: What factual basis supports the allegation that the accused system transmits the generated file to a "plurality of publicly accessible webservers," as opposed to serving content from its own server infrastructure? The complaint does not appear to address this specific architectural detail.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’480 Patent

  • The Term: "subsystem" (e.g., "electronic media submissions server subsystem")
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on mapping the functions of the Seeking Alpha platform to the four distinct subsystems recited in Claim 1. The definition of "subsystem"—and whether it requires physical, virtual, or merely logical separation—will be critical to determining if the accused platform's architecture meets this structural limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the functional term "subsystem" without specifying a requirement for separate physical hardware. A party could argue that distinct software modules performing the claimed functions, even if running on the same server, meet the definition. The specification describes the components functionally (e.g., the submissions system "supervises the request and distribution of submissions," col. 3:46-48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself argues that the invention's distributed hardware structure is a key inventive concept, alleging that the subsystems have "separate functionalities on separate processing apparatuses" (Compl. ¶33-34). Figure 3 of the patent depicts distinct hardware blocks for different processors (e.g., "Payment Processor," "Billing Processor"), which may support a narrower construction requiring some form of hardware or resource separation.

For the ’665 Patent

  • The Term: "electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to whether displaying user-generated content on a webpage constitutes infringement. If "generating a multimedia file" is construed narrowly to mean creating a new, distinct, and downloadable file, the infringement case may face challenges. If construed broadly to include the dynamic assembly and rendering of a webpage from database content, the plaintiff's position may be stronger.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that submitted content "may be transformed in the same form or adapted into multi-media content for distribution" (’665 Patent, col. 3:28-30). This language suggests that adapting content for display could be considered "generating" a file.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Prior art described in the patent background involves media companies reviewing discrete submissions like "scripts" and "songs" (’665 Patent, col. 2:51-53). A party could argue that "generating a multimedia file" in this context implies creating a similarly discrete work product (e.g., a video, a formatted document) rather than simply displaying text and images on a transient webpage.

VI. Other Allegations

No allegations of indirect or willful infringement are present in the complaint.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the integrated Seeking Alpha platform, which performs various content management functions, embody the specific, distributed architecture of four distinct and "operatively coupled" subsystems as claimed in the '480 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch?
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "generating a multimedia file from... submissions," as used in the '665 Patent, be construed to cover the dynamic rendering of a webpage containing user articles and comments, or does it require the creation of a new, self-contained digital artifact?
  • A final question will be one of patent eligibility: given the extensive discussion of §101 in the complaint, the case will likely involve a significant dispute over whether the claims, despite their allowance, are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as crowdsourcing or organizing human activity) or to a specific, unconventional, and technical improvement to computer functionality.