Content Aware LLC v. Target Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Content Aware, LLC (VA)
  • Defendant: Target Corporation (MN)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00527, E.D. Tex., 05/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff suffering harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services of the Defendant infringe a patent related to systems for recognizing content in media, categorizing it, and analyzing it for brand correlation and marketing insights.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated analysis of digital content (e.g., photos, videos) to identify and catalog objects, brands, and other data points for use in marketing strategy and business intelligence.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 conventional content sharing platforms only leverage data at "face value," failing to capture and structure valuable information about objects, brands, and locations present in the background of user-generated content like photos and videos. This leaves a "massive need for real-time, active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes that not only discern, catalog, and categorize the user capturing content; but allows for a new demand for content, demographics, goods, location, brands, etc. in the background and on the subject" (’098 Patent, col. 2:9-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that ingests content from various sources, uses processing modules to automatically identify objects within that content, and stores the identified object data in a structured, relational database (’098 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). This cataloged data, which includes details from both the foreground and background, is then analyzed to determine relationships and correlations, such as consumer overlap between different brands, which can be provided to businesses or other "members" for marketing and strategic analysis (’098 Patent, col. 5:45-59).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to move beyond simple content sharing to create a structured, searchable data warehouse from unstructured media, enabling deeper marketing insights and brand performance analysis.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '098 Patent Claims" detailed in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
  • A computing system with a database in communication with third-party content provider systems and user computing systems.
  • Storing user profiles, including a "brand identifier" for a user.
  • Collecting captured content in different formats from third-party systems.
  • Identifying objects in the content using "Optical Character Recognition technology."
  • Transforming the data of identified objects into a standardized format by "stripping" details and cataloging items in foregrounds and backgrounds using "active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes."
  • Searching the database to identify "potential associated brand identifiers" for the user based on the collected object data.
  • Determining a "brand correlation" between the user's brand identifier and the potential associated brand identifiers to find "consumer overlap."
  • Presenting the identified potential brands at a display.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are purportedly identified in charts in an external Exhibit 2 that was not filed with the complaint document (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '098 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶17). The body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping any accused product feature to the limitations of the asserted patent claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative theory is limited to the conclusory statement 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 probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint, which lacks factual detail on the accused products and their operation, meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement established by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
  • Technical Questions: Once accused products are identified, a key question will be what evidence demonstrates that they perform the specific functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence shows the use of "Optical Character Recognition technology" specifically, as opposed to other forms of object detection, and what evidence shows the use of "active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes" to catalog foreground and background items as claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "brand correlation"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the final, outcome-oriented steps of claim 1 and is central to the purpose of the invention—to find "consumer overlap" between brands. The definition of what constitutes a "correlation" will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the analytical output the accused system must produce.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself describes the purpose as being "to assist the first unique user in determining additional brands that have a consumer overlap," which could suggest any statistical or analytical link showing a shared customer base would suffice (’098 Patent, col. 23:3-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes more specific analytical acts, such as determining a brand is "related" when a certain percentage of objects match (e.g., >10%) or when content deviates from a peer group, which could be used to argue for a more structured, rule-based definition of correlation (’098 Patent, col. 20:31-40).

Key Term: "active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes"

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core technology used for transforming raw content into structured data. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth could be challenged as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and its scope will determine what kind of data processing systems fall within the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the need for "real-time, active machine learning and artificial intelligence processes" in a general sense, suggesting the patentee intended the term to cover a wide range of modern data analysis techniques (’098 Patent, col. 2:10-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue the term should be limited to the specific functions described in the specification, such as discerning "background, text, audio, video, geo-tracking location, time stamping, and facial recognition details" and using APIs to detect specific attributes like "Flesh, color, texture, Grayscale patterns, Face(s), Objects, RBG/HSI, Pixel Clustering" (’098 Patent, col. 6:31-35; col. 15:20-22).

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 specific materials are allegedly detailed in the unattached Exhibit 2.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself. It asserts that despite this "actual knowledge," Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products (Compl. ¶13-14). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unfiled external exhibit and its lack of specific factual allegations identifying an accused product or detailing the mechanism of infringement, a central initial issue will be whether the pleading satisfies the plausibility requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Twombly/Iqbal.
• A fundamental question will be one of patent eligibility: The court may need to determine whether the claims, which are directed to collecting, analyzing, and presenting marketing data on a computer, are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or if they recite a sufficient inventive concept that transforms the idea into a specific, patent-eligible application.
• A key issue for claim construction and infringement will be one of definitional scope: The case may turn on how broadly terms like "brand correlation" and "active machine learning... processes" are construed. Whether these terms are given a wide, functional scope or are limited to the specific algorithms and rules described in the patent's embodiments will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.