DCT
2:25-cv-00385
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Hyatt Hotels Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Hyatt Hotels Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00385, E.D. Tex., 04/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a place of business in Allen, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hyatt.com website and associated mobile application infringe two patents related to systems and methods for creating and distributing multimedia content based on user submissions and attributes.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses early architectural concepts for crowdsourcing platforms, which manage the submission, filtering, assembly, and distribution of user-generated content over a public network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted claims in both patents-in-suit overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during their respective prosecutions. The patents share an identical specification, originating from a 1999 priority application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2012-11-16 | Application Date for ’665 Patent |
| 2016-10-25 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 |
| 2016-11-22 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 |
| 2020-01-20 | Earliest Date of Accused Instrumentality Example |
| 2025-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the logistical challenge for media companies in managing and sorting a high volume of artistic submissions (e.g., scripts, songs) while noting a lack of a structured, open exchange for such creative works ('665 Patent, col. 2:48-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-based system comprised of four distinct, operatively coupled subsystems to manage the lifecycle of user-submitted media (Compl. ¶¶11-12). These subsystems handle: (1) receiving electronic media submissions from users over a network, (2) creating new multimedia content by selecting and retrieving submissions based on user attributes, (3) releasing the created content for viewing, and (4) allowing users to vote on or rate the submissions and resulting content ('665 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶12). This architecture is designed to create a structured "electronic multi-media exchange" ('665 Patent, col. 3:20-22).
- Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a technical framework for what would later be known as crowdsourcing, offering a solution to the problem of sourcing, curating, and monetizing user-generated content in the early Internet era (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 of the ’480 Patent recites a system comprising four main components:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and store submissions.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using a filter based on user attributes to "develop multimedia content."
- An electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content or an original submission.
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 (Compl. ¶37).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same technical problems, as described in Section II above (Compl. ¶40; '665 Patent, col. 2:48-58).
- The Patented Solution: While the ’480 Patent claims the system architecture, the ’665 Patent claims the process performed by such a system ('665 Patent, col. 39:20-56). The claimed method involves a series of electronic steps: retrieving media submissions from a database using a filter, generating a multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to publicly accessible webservers, and providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for users to vote or rate the content (Compl. ¶41).
- Technical Importance: This patented process provides a defined workflow for transforming raw user submissions into distributable, interactive media content, a foundational concept for modern user-generated content platforms (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5 and 16 (Compl. ¶48).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’665 Patent recites a method comprising four main steps:
- 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 in accordance with a selected digital format, maintaining submitter identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing over a public network.
- Providing a web-based GUI that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Instrumentality is the computer-based system that operates the Hyatt.com website and the associated "World of Hyatt" mobile application (Compl. ¶¶22, 48).
Functionality and Market Context
The system enables individual hotels ("Host Brands" or "Submitters") to upload and share multimedia content, including images and descriptions, which are presented as "Hotel Listings" on the platform (Compl. ¶¶23, 49). The platform allows end-users to search for and view these listings, with results being filtered based on various "user attributes" such as hotel amenities, brand, and location (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides a screenshot of the platform's filtering interface, which includes selectable criteria like "Gym," "Free parking," and "Pool" (Compl. p. 13; ¶27). The system also incorporates a user rating feature, allowing users to provide star ratings and written reviews for hotels (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges the system is built on a scalable cloud infrastructure with separate server subsystems for 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... configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network, and store the electronic media submissions... | Hyatt’s system includes a server subsystem that receives and stores "Hotel Listings" (containing photos and text) uploaded by multiple hotel operators ("Hosts/submitters") through a content portal over the Internet (Compl. p. 11). | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 8:31-43 |
| 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... | Hyatt’s server subsystem retrieves Hotel Listings using a filter based on user-selected attributes (e.g., amenities, brands) to generate and display a curated set of results to the user (Compl. p. 13). | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 24:1-20 |
| an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices. | Hyatt's system includes a subsystem that serves the generated Hotel Listings and profiles as multimedia content to be viewed on user devices such as computers with web browsers or smartphones with the Hyatt app (Compl. p. 17). | ¶29 | col. 4:41-46 |
| 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... | Hyatt's platform provides a user interface for rating hotels via a star-based system and submitting textual reviews, as shown in screenshots of both the website and mobile app (Compl. pp. 18-19). | ¶30 | col. 27:52-col. 28:15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Hyatt’s architecture, described as having "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶23), maps onto the four distinct subsystems recited in the claim. The analysis may explore whether these are merely logical software functions on a shared infrastructure or sufficiently distinct systems as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The case may turn on whether filtering existing Hotel Listings and displaying them as search results constitutes "develop[ing] multimedia content," as required by the creator subsystem limitation. This raises the question of whether the accused functionality is merely a search-and-display operation rather than the claimed content creation process.
’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... based... on... user attributes. | The Hyatt system retrieves stored Hotel Listings from its databases using a filter based on user-selected attributes like "Hotel Amenities, Hotel Categories, Hotel Brands" (Compl. p. 30). | ¶50 | col. 24:1-20 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions... wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained... within the multimedia file. | The system generates a webpage or app view (a "multimedia file") displaying the retrieved Hotel Listings, which maintains the identification of the submitter (e.g., "Hyatt Centric Chicago") (Compl. p. 34). | ¶53 | col. 4:47-51 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... | The system transmits the generated hotel profile content to geographically distributed webservers, making it available for viewing by users over the Internet via web browsers or the mobile app (Compl. p. 35). | ¶54 | col. 6:18-24 |
| 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 Hyatt website and app provide a GUI where users can select stars and write reviews to rate hotels, as shown in a screenshot highlighting the "483 REVIEWS" link next to the hotel name (Compl. p. 37). | ¶55 | col. 42:61-66 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "generating a multimedia file" will be a focus. The dispute may center on whether dynamically assembling a webpage from database entries for display constitutes "generating a file" in a specific "digital format," or if the patent requires the creation of a discrete, self-contained file (e.g., an MPEG or Flash file).
- Technical Questions: It may be contested whether the accused system's display of search results is functionally equivalent to the claimed method, which the patent specification links to a more transformative process of adapting submissions into new media content ('665 Patent, col. 12:47).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" (’480 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent requires four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this term can be construed to cover logically distinct software functions within a modern, integrated cloud architecture, which the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶23). Practitioners may focus on this term because a narrow construction requiring physically separate hardware could be difficult to map onto the accused instrumentality.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the subsystems to be "operatively coupled," which does not explicitly mandate physical separation and could encompass software modules communicating through APIs on the same or virtualized hardware. The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's block diagrams, such as Figure 2, depict components like "Billing Processor," "Payment Processor," and various databases as distinct boxes ('665 Patent, FIG. 2). This graphical separation could be argued to support a construction requiring more than just logical differentiation.
The Term: "develop multimedia content" (’480 Patent, Claim 1) / "generating a multimedia file" (’665 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These terms are central to whether the accused system’s core function—filtering and displaying hotel listings—infringes. The infringement theory equates displaying curated search results with the act of creating content. The defense may argue this conflates searching with authoring.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that after material is selected, "the content is developed based, in whole or part, upon the selected one or more submissions" ('665 Patent, col. 4:37-39). This could be interpreted broadly to include the selection and arrangement of existing submissions into a new presentation format.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "content development" as a process where submitters "contribute to the development, story line and/or outcome" ('665 Patent, col. 12:56-59). This language suggests a more transformative, creative act than arranging search results, potentially limiting the scope of "develop" or "generate" to the creation of new derivative works.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While there is no separate count for indirect infringement, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s system, when executed, "caused the one or more data processing apparatus to perform an electronic method" comprising the functions of the asserted method claims of the ’665 Patent (Compl. ¶49). This language suggests a theory of induced infringement, wherein Hyatt's system necessarily causes the claimed method to be performed.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the claimed 1990s-era architecture of four distinct "subsystems" be mapped onto Hyatt’s modern, potentially integrated cloud-based infrastructure, or does the claim language require a degree of physical or structural separation that the accused system lacks?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Does filtering pre-existing "Hotel Listings" and displaying them to a user constitute "developing multimedia content" or "generating a multimedia file" as those terms are used in the patents? The case may turn on whether these claim terms require a transformative, creative act or can be read to cover the mere selection and arrangement of existing data.