Content Aware LLC v. Clarifai Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Content Aware, LLC (Virginia)
  • Defendant: Clarifai, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07733, S.D.N.Y., 09/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s content recognition and data categorization products and services infringe a patent related to analyzing digital content to identify objects, brands, and demographic information for marketing and business intelligence purposes.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using artificial intelligence and machine learning to automatically analyze digital media (e.g., photos, videos) to extract and categorize detailed information about objects, brands, and locations depicted in both the foreground and background.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,107,098 - System and method for content recognition and data categorization

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that while vast amounts of digital content are created daily, data extraction tools are "barely scratching the surface of what can be mined and cataloged per piece of content" (’098 Patent, col. 2:8-10). It identifies a need for processes that can discern, catalog, and categorize not just the primary subject of content, but also details about "demographics, goods, location, brands, etc. in the background" (’098 Patent, col. 2:12-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that captures digital content and uses machine learning to identify and analyze objects within it (’098 Patent, Abstract). The system is described as stripping details from the content—including from both foregrounds and backgrounds—and cataloging them in relational databases (’098 Patent, col. 6:35-44). This processed data can then be used to determine brand correlations, track consumer behavior, and provide business intelligence to subscribers, enabling "pricing discovery, greater brand awareness, and marketing strategy" (’098 Patent, col. 6:57-59). The overall system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing content provider devices, a central server with processing and data collection modules, and various databases (’098 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to provide a more granular and comprehensive analysis of user-generated content than was previously available, allowing businesses to gain a deeper understanding of consumer behavior and brand associations (’098 Patent, col. 6:54-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A computing system with a server maintaining a database and storing user profiles, each associated with a "brand identifier."
  • Collecting captured content in different formats from third-party sources.
  • Identifying objects in the content using Optical Character Recognition (OCR).
  • Transforming extracted data into a standardized format by "stripping" the content for details and cataloging items from foregrounds and backgrounds using "active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes."
  • Searching the database to identify potential brand identifiers associated with the user profile based on the collected data.
  • Determining potential associated brand identifiers to present to the user.
• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in charts, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts contained within an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '098 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the defendant, Clarifai, Inc., directly infringes the ’098 Patent by making, using, and selling its "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). However, it does not provide specific infringement allegations within the body of the complaint itself. Instead, it incorporates by reference a set of claim charts from Exhibit 2, which is not included in the provided document (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the available information. The complaint asserts that these charts demonstrate how the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '098 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. Without the claim charts, it is unclear which specific features of Defendant's products are accused of meeting each claim limitation. The case will depend on the evidence presented to support the general allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" (Compl. ¶16).
• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the interpretation of the claim language relative to the functionality of the accused products. For example, a question for the court could be whether the defendant’s AI-driven data analysis methods constitute "stripping the one or more captured content for one or more details" and "uploading the one or more details with additional fields cataloging various items displayed in foregrounds and backgrounds" as required by Claim 1.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question may be whether the architecture and operation of the accused systems align with the specific process recited in the claims. For instance, does the defendant's system perform the claimed sequence of collecting content, identifying objects via OCR, transforming data by "stripping," and then searching for brand correlations, or does it employ a fundamentally different data processing workflow?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "transforming extracted data...to a standardized format by stripping the one or more captured content for one or more details" (from Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical process of converting raw content into structured, analyzable data. The definition of "stripping" will be critical, as it may determine whether the accused system's data extraction and processing methods fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific type of data removal and re-cataloging or if it can be read broadly to cover any form of feature extraction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "Details of the content then may be stripped from the content, and uploaded to a cloud storage location with additional fields cataloging various items displayed, both in the foregrounds and backgrounds of each picture, discretely" (’098 Patent, col. 6:35-39). This could support a reading that covers a wide range of data extraction and re-formatting processes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall process described involves a multi-step flow: capture, identify objects, analyze, transform, catalog, and notify (’098 Patent, Fig. 3). A defendant might argue that "stripping" must be understood in the context of this specific sequence, potentially limiting it to processes that physically separate metadata or object identifiers from the original content file for discrete cataloging, rather than more integrated analysis methods.

• The Term: "brand identifier" (from Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is central to the patent's purpose of connecting content to commercial brands. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the objects and concepts identified by the accused system qualify as "brand identifiers."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a very broad definition: "A brand or logo may include, but is not limited to a trademark, animation, text, movies, movie clip, movie still, TV shows, books, musical bands or genres, celebrities, historical or religious figures, geographic locations, colors, patterns, occupations, hobbies or any other thing that can be associated with some demographic information such as a sports team" (’098 Patent, col. 6:14-20). This language could support an expansive interpretation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that despite the broad list, the term should be construed in light of the patent's commercial focus on "brand analysis," "marketing strategy," and "brand awareness" (’098 Patent, col. 6:13, 58-59). This could suggest the term is limited to identifiers with a primarily commercial or source-indicating function, potentially excluding more general concepts like "colors" or "hobbies" unless they are explicitly linked to a commercial entity in context.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by "distribut[ing] product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’098 Patent, ¶14). The specific materials are referenced in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that its service "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that any subsequent infringing activities by the defendant are therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary specificity: The complaint's complete reliance on an unprovided exhibit to identify the accused products and map them to the patent claims creates a significant initial uncertainty. The viability of the infringement case will depend entirely on the specific facts and evidence presented in these charts and through discovery.
• A central conflict will be one of claim construction: The case is likely to turn on the court's interpretation of the scope of key process terms, particularly "stripping" the content and "transforming" the data. The question will be whether these terms, read in light of the specification, describe a specific, multi-step data processing architecture or can be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially different methods used by the accused AI platform.
• A key question will be one of technical alignment: Does the accused system, which may be a general-purpose AI recognition platform, perform the specific, end-to-end business intelligence method claimed in the patent—from collecting content to determining "brand identifiers" for a user—or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation and purpose of the respective technologies?