DCT
2:25-cv-00384
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Marriott Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Marriott International, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00384, E.D. Tex., 04/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hotel booking website and mobile application infringe patents related to systems and processes for receiving, filtering, assembling, and distributing user-submitted multimedia content.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of online platforms for managing user-generated content, a foundational component of modern e-commerce and social media systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, arguments were made that successfully overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the claims at issue.
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 |
| 2019-04-16 | Accused Instrumentality Operational On or Before This Date |
| 2019-07-06 | Accused Instrumentality Operational On or Before This Date |
| 2020-03-09 | Accused Instrumentality Operational On or Before This Date |
| 2020-03-25 | Accused Instrumentality Operational On or Before This Date |
| 2025-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued on November 22, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background, shared with its family members, identifies the challenge faced by media industries, such as television, in finding new, high-quality, and innovative creative content to attract and retain audiences in an increasingly fragmented entertainment landscape (’665 Patent, col. 2:4-12, col. 2:31-41). The complaint frames this as the technical problem of how to develop a computer system for remote contributors to share and collaborate on content (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive computer-based system, or "exchange," comprised of four distinct but interconnected subsystems: a submissions subsystem to receive content from users, a creator subsystem to filter and select that content, a release subsystem to distribute the resulting multimedia work, and a voting subsystem to gather audience feedback (’480 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶12). This architecture provides a structured process for receiving, curating, assembling, and distributing user-generated content (’665 Patent, col. 4:4-16).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a technical framework for crowdsourcing, managing, and monetizing user-submitted media on a large scale, predating many modern crowdsourcing platforms (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 15 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-based system comprising four primary elements:
- An "electronic media submissions server subsystem" for receiving and storing electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters.
- 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 multimedia content or submissions.
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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued on October 25, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of sourcing and managing creative content for media distribution (Compl. ¶40; ’665 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims an electronic method rooted in computer technology that involves several key steps: electronically retrieving media submissions using a filter, electronically generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, electronically transmitting that file to webservers for public viewing, and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (’665 Patent, col. 39:20-56; Compl. ¶41).
- Technical Importance: The patented method provides a specific, unconventional, and non-routine process for generating and distributing multimedia content, which the complaint alleges is a technical solution that is not abstract (Compl. ¶40, ¶41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claim 5 (Compl. ¶48).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an electronic method comprising the steps of:
- Electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
- Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions, maintaining the identification of the submitter with each submission.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Instrumentality is Defendant’s computer-based system, which includes the Marriott.com website and the associated Marriott Bonvoy mobile application (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The system enables property hosts and managers ("Submitters") to create and share multimedia content, such as property descriptions, images, and amenities, which are presented as "Product Listings" (Compl. ¶23). This content is stored in databases and displayed to end-users through the website and app (Compl. ¶24, ¶26). The system uses an "electronic content filter" that allows users to search for and view listings based on various attributes, such as dates of availability, location, and specific amenities like "pet friendly" or "free breakfast" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Marriott Bonvoy app that explicitly shows a "Filter by amenity" feature (Compl. p. 15). End-users can also rate properties and submit reviews, which are displayed publicly (Compl. ¶30). The system is alleged to operate on a large scale using multiple cloud server providers and "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶23).
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...having...a submissions electronic interface configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters... | Defendant’s system uses a web-based portal to receive content submissions, such as property listings and photos, from hosts and property managers. A screenshot shows a "Property Management Company Interest Form" for this purpose (p. 10). | ¶24 | col. 6:7-13 |
| an electronic media submissions database stored on a non-transitory medium...configured to store...data identifying the submitter and...data indicating content... | Defendant’s database stores the submitted product listings, including data that identifies the submitter (e.g., the hotel name) and content data (e.g., photos and text). A screenshot of a hotel listing illustrates this (p. 11). | ¶25 | col. 6:14-22 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem...configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions...using an electronic content filter... | Defendant's system selects and retrieves hotel listings from its database using a filter based on user inputs. | ¶27 | col. 6:26-36 |
| said filter being based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes to develop multimedia content...wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained... | The filter uses user attributes (e.g., location, dates, hotel brand type, amenities) to affect which listings are displayed. The hotel's identity is maintained with the displayed content. | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 6:37-44 |
| an electronic release subsystem...configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one of more user devices... | Defendant’s system serves the selected multimedia content (hotel listings) to users on devices such as computers and smartphones via web browsers or the mobile app. | ¶29 | col. 6:45-49 |
| an electronic voting subsystem...configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | Defendant's system allows users to rate hotels and leave reviews, as shown in a screenshot highlighting the "Guest Reviews" feature with a star rating (p. 20). | ¶30 | col. 6:50-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Marriott’s distributed cloud infrastructure, which handles functions like web hosting, data storage, and content delivery, maps onto the patent’s claimed architecture of four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The complaint alleges the existence of "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶23), but the defense may argue this is a conclusory label applied to a conventional web architecture.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system's function of filtering and displaying search results constitutes "develop[ing] multimedia content" as required by the "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem" limitation. The complaint alleges that user attributes "affected which electronic media submissions...appeared to the user" (Compl. ¶27), but it is a question for the court whether this filtering and displaying function is equivalent to the claimed "development" of new content.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" (as used in "electronic media submissions server subsystem", "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem", etc. in the ’480 Patent)
Context and Importance
This term is foundational to the asserted system claim. The infringement theory depends on mapping Marriott's technical infrastructure to these four distinct subsystems. Practitioners may focus on whether "subsystem" requires structural separation (e.g., separate servers or virtual machines) or if it can be met by logically distinct software modules running on a shared, distributed platform.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the subsystems to be "operatively coupled," which may suggest that functional interaction, rather than physical separation, is the key requirement. The specification does not appear to provide an explicit, limiting definition of "subsystem."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Patent Figure 2 depicts distinct blocks for different databases (e.g., "Submitter/Member Database," "Creator Database") and processors ("Billing Processor," "Payment Processor"), which may support an interpretation requiring some degree of architectural separation beyond mere logical distinction within a single application. The complaint itself emphasizes "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶23), language that a defendant may use to argue for a narrower construction.
The Term: "to develop multimedia content" (as used in Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent)
Context and Importance
The function of the "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem" is "to develop multimedia content" by using the filter. The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on whether displaying filtered search results from a database constitutes "developing" content.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes a "process for creating media content," which could be broadly interpreted to include the selection and arrangement of existing submissions for presentation to a user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a more involved process where selected material is "adapted into content" and may involve developing a "story line and/or outcome" (’665 Patent, col. 11:47-48, col. 11:57-59). This language could support a narrower construction requiring more than merely filtering and displaying search results.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of "architectural mapping": can Plaintiff demonstrate that Marriott’s modern, cloud-based web and application infrastructure embodies the distinct, operatively coupled "submissions", "creator", "release", and "voting" "subsystems" as claimed in the patents, or will the court find a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused system's implementation?
- A key question of claim construction will be one of "functional scope": does the act of filtering and displaying user-submitted hotel listings based on user search criteria (e.g., dates, amenities) constitute "develop[ing] multimedia content" as required by the ’480 Patent, or does the patent’s specification compel a narrower definition requiring a more transformative or creative compilation of submissions into a new work?
- A central legal question will likely be "patent eligibility" under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the complaint argues that the claims overcame a § 101 rejection during prosecution (Compl. ¶21, ¶47), the court will have to conduct its own analysis to determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (such as organizing user-submitted information) or to a specific, patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality.