DCT
2:25-cv-00622
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Carhartt Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Carhartt, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00622, E.D. Tex., 06/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Carhartt, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and application, specifically its user-submitted product review system, infringes patents related to an electronic exchange for creating and distributing media content from user submissions.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to early Internet-era systems for "crowdsourcing" or managing user-generated content, conceptualized as an exchange platform for media industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that arguments made during the prosecution of both the '480 and '665 patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. The two patents-in-suit share an identical specification originating from a 1999 provisional application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | 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 |
| 2020-01-22 | Date of User Product Review Cited in Complaint |
| 2025-06-12 | 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" (Issued Nov. 22, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a logistical challenge for media industries (e.g., television, film) in finding fresh, creative ideas and, conversely, the difficulty for individual creators to have their ideas seen by the right industry contacts ('665 Patent, col. 2:20-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked computer system, or "electronic multi-media exchange," that serves as a structured marketplace for artistic works ('665 Patent, col. 2:62-65). This system is composed of specific, interacting "subsystems" designed to receive submissions from users, allow creators to filter and select content, release the developed media to an audience, and enable users to vote on or rate the content, with a mechanism to reward contributors ('665 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:1-46). The complaint alleges the patents predate modern "crowdsourcing solutions" (Compl. ¶11).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides an architectural blueprint for a centralized, web-based platform to manage the entire lifecycle of user-generated content, from submission to distribution and feedback (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 (Asserted): A computer-based system claim.
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a submissions electronic interface to receive and store submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network.
- A user database storing user attributes.
- 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 configured to make the multimedia content electronically 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 electronic media submission.
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665: "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same" (Issued Oct. 25, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '480 Patent, the invention addresses the need for a more efficient process for media companies to source creative material from the public ('665 Patent, col. 2:20-56).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims an electronic method, rather than a system, for generating and distributing multimedia content. The claimed process involves electronically retrieving user submissions from a database using a filter, generating a new multimedia file from those submissions while retaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for public viewing, and providing a graphical interface for users to vote or rate the content ('665 Patent, col. 39:20-col. 40:57). The complaint notes the invention is a "highly technical electronic process that cannot be achieved with the human mind" (Compl. ¶41).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method outlines a specific, computer-implemented workflow for transforming raw user submissions into distributable media and gathering audience feedback, a foundational process for user-generated content platforms (Compl. ¶40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 (Asserted): An electronic method claim performed by one or more data processing apparatus.
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- 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 a selected digital format, while maintaining the identification of the submitter.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices over a public network.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 (Compl. ¶48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the Carhartt website (carhartt.com), application, software, and associated platform, specifically the features enabling users to submit and interact with product reviews (Compl. ¶22, ¶48).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused system allows users, identified as "Submitters" or "Host Reviewers," to create and upload product reviews that include multimedia content such as text and images (Compl. ¶23). Other users can then view these reviews. The system provides an electronic content filter that allows reviews to be sorted and displayed based on user attributes such as "Most Recent," "Star Ratings," and "Reviewer" (Compl. ¶27). A screenshot in the complaint shows a set of dropdown menus for filtering product reviews (Compl. p. 12). The system also includes a feature, identified as a "Was this helpful?" icon, that enables users to rate the reviews (Compl. ¶30, ¶55). The complaint alleges Carhartt uses multiple cloud server providers and separate server subsystems for different functions like content management and web hosting (Compl. ¶23, ¶49).
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 in the electronic media submission database... | The accused system includes a server subsystem that receives and stores product reviews, including text and photos, from users ("Host Reviewers") over the Internet via a content portal. | ¶24 | col. 6:2-9 |
| a user database comprising one or more user attributes stored therein; | The accused system stores user attributes such as "Most Recent, Star Ratings, Reviewer, and Media" in a user database. | ¶26 | col. 40:39-41 |
| 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 at least one of the one or more user attributes to develop multimedia content... | The accused system has a creator subsystem with a filter that selects and retrieves product reviews based on user-selected attributes (e.g., star ratings), which are then displayed as multimedia content. | ¶27 | col. 6:10-25 |
| an electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the electronic multimedia creator server subsystem ... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices. | The accused system has a release subsystem that serves the multimedia product review content to be viewed on user devices like computers and smartphones via browsers or apps. | ¶29 | col. 6:26-32 |
| an electronic voting subsystem ... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | The accused system provides a "Was this helpful?" feature with up/down heart icons, allowing users to vote for or rate product reviews. A screenshot highlights this voting interface next to a user review (Compl. p. 15). | ¶30 | col. 6:33-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the distinct, formally-named "subsystems" in the claim (e.g., "submissions server subsystem," "multimedia creator server subsystem") read on the allegedly integrated software functions of a modern e-commerce website. The complaint alleges that the use of different cloud services for different functions constitutes separate subsystems (Compl. ¶23), a point that may be contested.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused product review system, designed for e-commerce feedback, performs the function of developing "multimedia content" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes an "exchange" for creative works like scripts and music ('665 Patent, col. 2:42-45).
'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 ... said filter being based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes... | The accused system retrieves product reviews from its database using a filter based on user attributes like "Most Recent" and "Star Ratings" to determine which reviews to display. | ¶50 | col. 39:23-30 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained with each retrieved submission within the multimedia file; | The system generates multimedia files (product reviews with text and photos) in a format compatible with user devices, and maintains the submitter's name ("Jordan L.") with the review content. A screenshot highlights the submitter's name displayed with their review (Compl. p. 27). | ¶53 | col. 39:42-47 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices over a public network... | The system transmits the generated product review files to webservers, making them available for viewing by users across a distributed user base on the Internet. | ¶54 | col. 39:48-53 |
| 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 system provides a web-based GUI that includes "helpful" icons, allowing users to vote on or rate the product reviews provided by submitters. | ¶55 | col. 39:54-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether "generating a multimedia file" as claimed requires the creation of a new, distinct file from multiple submissions, or if it can be read to cover the dynamic assembly and display of individual reviews on a webpage as performed by the accused system.
- Technical Questions: It may be disputed whether displaying existing user reviews according to a filter constitutes "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" as required by the claim, or if it is merely a data retrieval and presentation process that falls short of the claimed "generation" step.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electronic...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 the foundational structural element of the '480 Patent's system claim. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the various software functions of Carhartt's integrated website can be mapped to the patent's requirement for distinct, operatively coupled subsystems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the subsystems functionally (e.g., a subsystem "configured to receive electronic media submissions"). This may support an interpretation where any server or group of servers performing that function meets the limitation, regardless of its integration with other components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification's figures, particularly Figure 2, depict these functions as discrete, labeled boxes (e.g., Submitter/Member Database 255, Creator Database 260, Points/Voting Database 295, 300), which may support an argument that the claims require physically or logically separate components beyond mere functional differentiation in software ('665 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "multimedia content" (as used in both patents)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that user-submitted product reviews constitute "multimedia content." The definition of this term will determine whether the patents, which heavily describe an exchange for entertainment media, apply to the e-commerce context.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is technologically broad. The '665 patent claims define a "multimedia file" as being generated from submissions, and the complaint alleges product reviews with text and images fit this definition (Compl. ¶23, ¶53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section of the shared specification focuses extensively on the problems of the "television industry," "movies," "music," "screenplays," and "scripts" ('665 Patent, col. 1:20-24, col. 2:4-45). This context could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to entertainment or artistic works, rather than commercial product feedback.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement and does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement or facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the modular "subsystem" architecture claimed in the '480 patent, which is depicted in the specification as a series of discrete databases and processors, be construed to cover the integrated software functions of a modern, cloud-hosted e-commerce platform?
- A second key question will be one of definitional context: does the term "multimedia content," rooted in a specification focused on solving problems for the television and film industries, encompass user-generated product reviews consisting of text and photos in an e-commerce setting?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the accused system's process of filtering and displaying individual user reviews constitute "electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" as required by the '665 patent, or is it a fundamentally different technical operation?