Content Aware LLC v. Clerkio ApS

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Content Aware, LLC (VA)
  • Defendant: Clerk.io ApS (Denmark)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00526, E.D. Tex., 05/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for data analysis infringe a patent related to recognizing, categorizing, and analyzing objects within digital content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that automatically analyze digital media, such as images and videos, to identify and catalog items, brands, and other data points to generate market intelligence and consumer insights.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff states it is the assignee of all rights to the asserted patent.

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"

• Issued: August 31, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that while massive amounts of digital content are created daily, data collection from this content is often superficial, capturing only minimal, explicitly tagged information. This leaves a significant opportunity to analyze untagged content, such as objects and brands in the background of photos, to gain deeper insights. ('098 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system designed to solve this problem by capturing digital content, using processors to perform analysis to identify objects, and then creating a structured database that associates these objects with analytical information. This process involves stripping details from the content and cataloging them with new fields, enabling users to search the data, discover relationships between brands and consumer demographics, and implement targeted marketing strategies. ('098 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:30-44). The system architecture is depicted as comprising a server (400) with various modules, including a content processing module (410) and a data collection module (420), connected over a network to content provider and member devices (Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to transform unstructured media into structured, searchable data, allowing businesses to "gather a deeper understanding" of consumer behavior, brand correlations, and market trends that are not apparent from face-value analysis of the content. ('098 Patent, col. 6:52-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '098 Patent, referencing an exemplary claim set in an exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A system with databases and a computing system configured to perform a series of steps.
  • Maintaining a database on a server accessible by user and third-party content provider computing devices.
  • Storing user profiles associated with brand identifiers.
  • Collecting captured content in different formats.
  • Identifying objects within the content "using Optical Character Recognition technology."
  • Transforming extracted data to a standardized format by "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."
  • Searching the database to identify potential associated brand identifiers.
  • Determining potential brand identifiers for the user based on the processed data.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" and "numerous other devices." (Compl. ¶11). The referenced charts in Exhibit 2 were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '098 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '098 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). No specific details about the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused products are provided in the pleading itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include its claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 2), which it states compares the "Exemplary '098 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). The pleading's narrative theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and importing products that practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶11). The infringement allegations are supported entirely by incorporation of the un-filed Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 explicitly requires the use of "Optical Character Recognition technology" to identify objects. A central question may be whether the accused products use OCR as claimed, or if they employ other image analysis methods (e.g., logo recognition, object detection based on shape and color) that do not read textual characters. The interpretation of this term could be dispositive for infringement.
• Technical Questions: The claim recites a specific data transformation process: "stripping" content for details and "uploading" those details with "additional fields cataloging" items in the "foregrounds and backgrounds." A key technical question will be what evidence shows the accused system performs this specific architectural process, as opposed to a more generalized tagging or metadata-appending function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"identifying one or more objects... using Optical Character Recognition technology" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the specific mechanism for object identification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system actually performs OCR, or if it uses non-text-based image recognition. A narrow definition could allow Defendant to design around the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "facial/text recognition tools" more generally and describes the system's ability to "discern background, text, audio, video" and other details, which could suggest OCR is one example of a broader identification capability. ('098 Patent, col. 1:66-2:2; col. 5:31-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is specific and unambiguous. The specification also notes that the system "may natively have Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology that may detect and recognize" objects, treating it as a distinct and present technology within the system. ('098 Patent, col. 15:7-10). This may support a construction limited to technologies that interpret written characters.

"transforming extracted data... by 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..." (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core data enrichment process at the heart of the invention. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused system's data processing methods meet this specific two-step "stripping" and "uploading" definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the system's function more broadly as determining "complimentary entities" and providing a "deeper understanding" of results, which might argue for a functional interpretation of the transformation step. ('098 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language describes a specific sequence of operations. This is reinforced by the detailed description, which explains 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." ('098 Patent, col. 5:35-38). This suggests a specific architecture where data is extracted from its original context and re-filed in a new, structured format.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '098 Patent." (Compl. ¶14). The complaint relies on the un-filed Exhibit 2 to substantiate this allegation. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the filing of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A central issue will be one of technological specificity: does the accused system's method for identifying objects in content rely on "Optical Character Recognition technology" as strictly required by Claim 1, or does it use alternative image analysis techniques (e.g., logo or feature recognition) that may fall outside a reasonable construction of the claim's scope?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused system perform the specific data transformation of "stripping" details from source content and "uploading" them with "additional fields" that catalog both foreground and background items, or does its method for data enrichment differ fundamentally from this claimed process?
3. An initial procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's complete reliance on an un-filed exhibit for all substantive factual allegations of infringement, the court may need to address whether the complaint, on its face, provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under prevailing federal standards.