DCT

2:24-cv-00896

Content Aware LLC v. Home Depot Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00896, E.D. Tex., 11/03/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's unnamed products and services infringe a patent related to automated systems for recognizing, analyzing, and categorizing objects and brands within digital content for marketing intelligence purposes.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using artificial intelligence to analyze user-generated images and videos to identify products, brands, and demographic information, thereby creating structured data for market analysis from unstructured media.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint asserts that its filing provides Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement, forming the basis for a willfulness claim for any post-suit infringing activity. No other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-05-23 '098 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 62/852,010)
2020-04-01 '098 Patent Application Filing Date
2021-08-31 '098 Patent Issue Date
2024-11-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,107,098, “System and method for content recognition and data categorization,” issued August 31, 2021. (Compl. ¶¶8-9; ’098 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that commercial entities and consumers were only leveraging user-generated digital content (e.g., photos on social media) at "face value." It identifies a need for processes to systematically mine this content, including background elements, to extract valuable data on brands, products, and demographics that was otherwise being lost. (’098 Patent, col. 1:54-2:15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automatically collects digital content from various sources, uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to identify objects and brands within the content, and catalogs this information in a structured, relational database. This system is designed to transform unstructured visual data into searchable market intelligence, allowing businesses to analyze consumer behavior, discover brand correlations, and gain a deeper understanding of their market presence. (’098 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to create a new layer of business analytics by systematically deciphering the rich, contextual data embedded in the vast and growing corpus of publicly shared images and videos. (’098 Patent, col. 5:6-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’098 Patent, with specific claims to be identified in an incorporated exhibit not filed with the complaint. Independent Claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A system with databases and a server communicating with "third party content provider computing device systems" and "user computing device systems."
    • Storing user profiles that are associated with at least one "brand identifier" selected by a user.
    • Collecting "captured content in different formats from the one or more third-party content provider computing device systems."
    • Identifying objects within the content "using Optical Character Recognition technology."
    • Transforming data from the identified objects into a standardized format using "machine learning and artificial intelligence processes."
    • Searching the database to identify and determine "potential associated brand identifiers" for the user based on their profile and the collected data.
  • The complaint's reference to "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert additional independent and dependent claims is preserved. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '098 Patent" and that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and has its employees test these products. (Compl. ¶¶11-12, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed. (Compl. ¶17). As such, a claim-chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative theory asserts that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" meet all elements of the asserted claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several questions for the court.
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires collecting content from "third-party content provider computing device systems." A question may arise as to whether Defendant's own integrated platforms can be considered "third-party" systems in the context of the patent, which describes a framework involving distinct users and external content sources like social media. (’098 Patent, col. 22:37-40).
    • Technical Questions: Independent Claim 1 expressly requires "identifying one or more objects associated with the one or more captured content using Optical Character Recognition technology." (’098 Patent, col. 22:46-48). A significant factual question will be whether the accused systems use OCR, which is traditionally for reading text, for general object identification. If Defendant uses other AI-based image recognition techniques (e.g., neural networks not dependent on OCR), it may challenge a literal infringement reading of this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "object"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the central limitation related to identifying items within captured content and is foundational to the invention's purpose. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates the required capability of the accused system. (’098 Patent, col. 22:46).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a wide range of identifiable items, including not only physical goods and brands but also "celebrities, historical or religious figures, geographic locations, colors, patterns, occupations, hobbies or any other thing that can be associated with some demographic information." (’098 Patent, col. 6:15-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary and specific examples focus on discerning "product-level details" and comparing them to "known and developing product tables." A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly to mean tangible, commercial products of the type depicted in the patent's figures. (’098 Patent, col. 5:37-39).

  • The Term: "Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology"

    • Context and Importance: This term specifies the technology used for the "identifying" step in Claim 1. Its definition is critical, as a narrow construction could be dispositive of literal infringement if the accused systems use alternative image analysis methods. (’098 Patent, col. 22:47-48).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that, in the context of the patent, the term was used as a general descriptor for machine-based visual identification technology available at the time. The specification also mentions broader "facial/text recognition tools" and "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning," which could support an argument that OCR is merely one example of a broader claimed functionality. (’098 Patent, col. 1:66-2:2, col. 15:17-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: OCR has a well-established technical meaning related to the conversion of images of typed, handwritten, or printed text into machine-encoded text. The specification itself uses the term distinctly, suggesting it was intended to carry its ordinary meaning, separate from other forms of object detection. (’098 Patent, col. 15:7-9).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’098 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the filing of the complaint itself. The plaintiff contends that any continued infringing activity by the Defendant after receiving the complaint is deliberate and willful. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological specificity: The case will likely turn on whether the accused systems perform the highly specific functions recited in the claims. A key evidentiary question is whether Defendant's technology literally uses "Optical Character Recognition" for object identification, or if it relies on more general machine learning models, potentially forcing a dispute over the doctrine of equivalents.
  • A second central question will be one of architectural mapping: Does the patent’s framework, which describes a system interacting with "third party content provider computing device systems," read on an integrated, single-company platform? The court may need to decide if Defendant's ecosystem can simultaneously embody the distinct roles of "user" and "third-party provider" as envisioned by the patent.
  • Finally, the case presents a question of evidentiary development: With the core of the infringement allegations contained in a non-proffered exhibit, a primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to substantiate its claims through discovery by demonstrating that Defendant's systems, once revealed, actually perform the patented method.