Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Manuel Tijerino (Louisiana) (Pro Se)
  • Defendant: Spotify USA Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-02290, E.D. La., 03/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana because Spotify conducts substantial business in the district and allegedly committed acts of infringement there, including enabling Louisiana-based artists to use the accused platform.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Spotify for Artists" platform infringes a patent related to a "User-Defined Internet Jukebox" system that allows artists to self-publish, distribute, and monetize their music.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on web-based platforms that enable independent artists to upload and distribute their music directly to listeners, bypassing traditional industry gatekeepers like record labels.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent letters to Spotify on July 11, 2024, and August 13, 2024, inviting it to license the patent-in-suit. The complaint states Spotify did not provide a substantive response, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-27	'925 Patent Priority Date
2013-12-01	Spotify for Artists program launched
2015-09-29	'925 Patent Issued
2018-09-20	Start of alleged direct infringement period (Spotify announces direct artist uploads)
2019-07-31	End of alleged direct infringement period for direct uploads
2024-07-11	Plaintiff sends first license invitation letter to Spotify
2024-08-13	Plaintiff sends second license invitation letter to Spotify
2025-03-19	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,146,925 - User Defined Internet Jukebox Kiosks Set Top Box

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,146,925, User Defined Internet Jukebox Kiosks Set Top Box, issued September 29, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty independent musicians face in getting their music played on internet jukeboxes, which typically feature only established artists and require artists to go through screening processes or have existing record deals (’925 Patent, col. 1:11-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "self-service IT Web 2.0 jukebox method and system" that allows any artist to create an account, upload media (music, video, images) to a central server, and have it become instantly available for playback on a network of internet-connected jukeboxes in public venues (’925 Patent, col. 1:47-54; col. 2:6-21). The system includes features for automated, real-time royalty calculation and payment processing, connecting artists directly with establishments and customers (’925 Patent, col. 1:55-60).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes an artist-centric, open-platform model for music distribution, contrasting with the gatekeeper-controlled systems that were prevalent at the time of filing (’925 Patent, col. 7:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 3 (a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim) (’925 Patent, col. 9:64 - col. 11:39; Compl. p. 5). The complaint notes that the two claims are substantively identical in their elements, with Claim 3 being the tangible embodiment of the method in Claim 1 (Compl. p. 42).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Providing a series of user interfaces for an artist to create an account and upload new media to a system.
  • Receiving the new media and automatically identifying and storing its associated metadata in a database.
  • Storing the new media in a central storage device, which "automatically enables the new media to be requested by the jukebox for playback over the Internet" via an API call.
  • Automatically analyzing audio signals to determine a root mean square (RMS) value, manipulating it to a positive value less than 1, and storing it as metadata.
  • Providing the metadata over the internet in response to an API call from the jukebox.
  • Receiving a playback request from the jukebox and, in response, streaming the new media to it.
  • Automatically calculating "amounts earned by an artist and a venue playing the new media."
  • Receiving an "indication of payment of the amount earned."
• The complaint notes that the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. p. 4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s "Spotify for Artists" program (Compl. p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on the functionality of the "Spotify for Artists" platform during a specific period from approximately September 2018 to July 2019, when Spotify allegedly "allowed artist to directly upload to their platform" (Compl. p. 54).
• This feature is alleged to have mirrored the patented invention by allowing artists to upload and distribute their music via a web service, bypassing traditional distributors (Compl. p. 51).
• The complaint also alleges that Spotify continues to infringe by offloading these activities to third-party partners while remaining the "central orchestrator" (Compl. p. 5, 52).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a detailed claims chart (Exhibit C) that was provided with an earlier version of the complaint but is not attached to the current amended complaint (Compl. p. 5). In lieu of a table, the infringement theory is summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 9,146,925 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Spotify’s “Spotify for Artists” platform practices each step of the method claimed in the ’925 Patent. The core of the infringement theory is that Spotify provides artists with a self-service platform to upload music, which is then stored on Spotify's servers and made available for streaming to end-user devices (which Plaintiff equates with the claimed "jukebox") (Compl. pp. 6-8).

The complaint breaks down the alleged infringement element-by-element. It contends that Spotify’s platform provides the claimed user interfaces for account creation and media upload (Compl. pp. 8-10). It alleges that upon upload, Spotify’s servers receive the media, extract and store metadata, and store the media file in a central location, making it available for streaming via API calls (Compl. pp. 11-12, 18-20). The complaint further alleges that Spotify performs the claimed audio analysis, including loudness normalization that corresponds to the claimed RMS value calculation, to ensure a consistent listening experience (Compl. pp. 22, 26-27). Finally, it alleges that Spotify’s system for tracking plays and calculating royalty payments based on geographic territories corresponds to the claimed step of calculating amounts earned by an "artist and a venue" (Compl. pp. 30-32).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "public venues." The complaint argues for a broad interpretation that includes the internet as a whole, while the patent specification contains examples of physical establishments like bars (’925 Patent, col. 8:31-32; Compl. p. 38). The case may turn on whether streaming music to a user's personal device (e.g., a phone or computer) constitutes playback in a "public venue."
• Technical Questions: The complaint equates the patent's term "venue" with the music industry's concept of a "territory" for royalty calculations (Compl. p. 30). A key question will be whether Spotify's system for calculating royalties based on the geographic location of a stream performs the same function as the claimed step of "calculating, by the processor, amounts earned by an artist and a venue playing the new media."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "jukebox"

Context and Importance

The applicability of the patent to Spotify's streaming service depends heavily on whether a software application on a general-purpose device like a cell phone or computer can be considered a "jukebox."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 14 explicitly defines "jukebox" as "at least one of computer device, an internet jukebox, kiosk, set-top box, or cell phone" (’925 Patent, col. 12:53-56). The complaint relies heavily on this definition (Compl. p. 43).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed description frequently refer to jukeboxes being "placed in establishments" for use by "paying customers," often in the context of a physical, pay-per-play machine in a commercial setting like a bar (’925 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-13; col. 7:6-9).

The Term: "public venues"

Context and Importance

This term is critical for determining whether the accused system, which streams music to individual users on personal devices, infringes claims requiring playback in "public venues."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states its purpose is to provide musicians with "exposure and income opportunities in public spaces" (’925 Patent, col. 3:51-53, as cited in Compl. p. 39). Plaintiff argues that limiting this term to physical locations like bars would undermine this stated purpose (Compl. p. 39).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of "establishments" where the jukeboxes are placed, which could suggest that "public venues" refers to physical, publicly accessible commercial locations rather than private spaces where an individual might listen to music (’925 Patent, col. 2:11-13).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that after discontinuing direct artist uploads, Spotify restructured its service to use "third-party partners" to handle the uploads, thereby continuing to infringe (Compl. p. 5). This is framed as "continued direct infringement" and infringement under the doctrine of equivalence (Compl. pp. 53-54).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Spotify’s failure to respond substantively to license invitation letters sent in July and August 2024, which allegedly provided pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringement (Compl. pp. 3, 60). A demand for treble damages is made (Compl. p. 62).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "jukebox" and "public venue," which are rooted in the patent's description of physical pay-per-play devices in commercial establishments, be construed broadly enough to cover a music streaming application on a user's personal cell phone or computer?
• A key question of claim construction and factual mapping will be whether Spotify's royalty system, which calculates payments to artists based on streaming "territories," is structurally and functionally equivalent to the patent's claim of "automatically calculating... amounts earned by an artist and a venue playing the new media."
• An evidentiary question will center on the specific architecture of the "Spotify for Artists" direct upload feature that was active in 2018-2019. The analysis will require a detailed comparison of that system's functionality against the patent's multi-step method claims, including its process for audio signal analysis and metadata management.