DCT

2:25-cv-00642

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Shutterfly LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00642, E.D. Tex., 06/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, referencing a Shutterfly press center webpage that identifies an office in Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s processes for managing digital photos infringe four patents related to reducing bandwidth and storage requirements by eliminating the redundant transmission of image files between a device and a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of efficiently sharing large digital image files from devices with limited storage and network bandwidth, a foundational issue for online photo-sharing services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and its parent entity, Brainbox Innovations, LLC, made multiple attempts to contact Defendant to discuss licensing the patent portfolio between January 2021 and July 2024. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with a draft of the complaint on April 30, 2025, but received no response to any of its communications. The complaint also references the prosecution history of the asserted patent family, noting that the applicant distinguished prior art by focusing on the invention's reduction of transmission bandwidth and that the latest-issuing patent was examined and allowed under the post-Alice patent eligibility standards.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-06 Priority Date for '088, '514, '965, and '778 Patents
2007-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088 Issues
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 Issues
2011-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 Issues
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 Issues
2021-01-27 Plaintiff allegedly sends first licensing communication to Defendant
2025-04-30 Plaintiff allegedly sends draft complaint to Defendant
2025-06-17 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,287,088 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in a Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," Issued October 23, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of high bandwidth consumption when transmitting digital images over the Internet, particularly when the same large image file is sent multiple times to different destinations. It notes that while image compression can reduce file size, it often degrades image quality. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35; ’088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a portable device uploads a captured image to a server only once. The server stores the image and assigns it a unique "image identifier." For any subsequent actions (e.g., printing, sharing), the device transmits only the small image identifier and the requested action to the server. The server then performs the action using the full-resolution image it already has in storage, thus "eliminating redundancy in image transmission." (Compl. ¶37; ’088 Patent, col. 3:21-30). The system also contemplates the device reducing the local copy of the image to save storage space after the initial upload. (’088 Patent, col. 5:31-50).
  • Technical Importance: At a time when internet-connected digital cameras and other portable devices were emerging but had limited on-board storage and relied on slow network connections, this approach offered a more efficient method for managing and sharing high-quality digital photos. (Compl. ¶33; ’088 Patent, col. 1:36-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22. (Compl. ¶64).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 14: The method involves (1) uploading images to a server which assigns image identifiers; (2) receiving the identifiers and "action information" back at the device; (3) presenting an action control on the device; and (4) in response to a selection, transmitting the action and identifier—rather than the image itself—to the server.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 22: The method involves (1) a server receiving images from a device; (2) the server assigning and downloading image identifiers to the device; (3) the server downloading "action information" to the device; and (4) the server receiving a request from the device that includes only the identifier and the requested action.

U.S. Patent No. 7,587,514 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in a Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," Issued September 8, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family as the ’088 patent and sharing its specification, the ’514 Patent addresses the same technical problem of inefficient, high-bandwidth use from repeatedly transmitting large digital image files from a portable device. (’514 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is a method centered on a "hardware server" that receives captured images from a device. The server assigns an image identifier to each uploaded image and downloads these identifiers, along with "action information," to the image capture device. To perform an action on a previously uploaded image, the device sends a request containing the image identifier and the desired action, thereby "eliminating the need to retransmit the image." (’514 Patent, col. 8:50-11).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a specific client-server architecture to solve the bandwidth consumption problem inherent in the early days of online photo sharing from portable devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶71).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1: The method comprises (1) receiving captured images at a hardware server; (2) the server assigning image identifiers to the images; (3) downloading the identifiers to the device; (4) downloading "action information" to the device; and (5) receiving a request from the device containing the identifier and action, but not the image itself.

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,965 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in a Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," Issued December 6, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the '088 family, discloses methods for a "photo-sharing service" to reduce bandwidth. A device transmits an image to the service, which provides an image identifier back to the device; for subsequent user-selected actions, the device transmits a request with the identifier instead of the full image, eliminating re-transmission. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-37, 49).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13. (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's processes for managing photos are accused of infringing this patent. (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 - "Transmission Bandwidth and Memory Requirements Reduction in a Portable Image Capture Device by Eliminating Duplicate Image Transmissions," Issued October 21, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, the latest-issuing in the family, describes a method where an "online service" provides action information to an image capture device. The service then receives and stores an uploaded image, associates it with an image set for that device, and sends back a unique identifier which is subsequently used in action requests to avoid re-uploading the image. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-37, 50).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's processes for managing photos are accused of infringing this patent. (Compl. ¶85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant Shutterfly’s "processes for managing photos," which encompass its online photo storage, sharing, and product creation services. (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 71).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's accused functionality involves "uploading and managing images in such a way as to reduce bandwidth requirements." (Compl. ¶65). The infringement theory alleges that when a user uploads a photo to Shutterfly's service, the system performs the patented method of storing the image and using an identifier for subsequent actions (e.g., ordering prints, creating photo books) without requiring the user to re-upload the original image file for each action. (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 72). The complaint includes a screenshot from Shutterfly's website identifying a location in Plano, Texas, which is used to support its venue allegation. (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts (Exhibits H-K) that are incorporated by reference but not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 71, 78, 85). The narrative infringement theory, however, is consistent across all asserted patents. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s photo management system performs the core claimed method: a user’s device sends an image to Defendant’s server once; the server stores it and associates it with an identifier; and for subsequent operations, the user's device communicates a request for an action along with a reference to the stored image (the identifier), thereby eliminating the need to re-transmit the large image file. (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 72).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The asserted claims consistently recite a "portable image capture device." A likely point of dispute will be whether this term, defined in a patent with a 2000 priority date that heavily features "digital cameras" in its description, can be construed to cover the diverse range of devices (e.g., modern smartphones, desktop computers) that interact with Defendant's current web-based services.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require a specific client-server interaction, including the server assigning an "image identifier" and providing "action information" to the device for later use. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that Defendant's system architecture operates this way. The dispute may center on whether the system uses a downloadable identifier as claimed, or if it manages image references through other means (e.g., server-side account pointers, temporary session data, or URLs) that do not map directly onto the claim elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"portable image capture device" (e.g., ’088 Patent, Claim 14)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of many asserted claims and defines the environment of the invention. Its construction is critical to determining whether the accused system, which interacts with modern smartphones and PCs, falls within the scope of patents drafted in the era of dedicated digital cameras. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could be case-dispositive for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "hand-held electronic devices are emerging, including digital cameras that have the capability to connect directly to the Internet" and explicitly contemplates that a "cellphone may be used to provide the digital camera 14 with wireless capability." (’088 Patent, col. 1:36-38; col. 4:37-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, abstract, and summary of the invention consistently refer to a "digital camera." (’088 Patent, Title; Abstract). The background section frames the technical problem specifically in the context of "digital cameras." (’088 Patent, col. 1:29-31).

"downloading action information to the image capture device" (e.g., ’514 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step is recited in the independent claims of both the ’088 and ’514 patents and requires a specific data flow from the server to the device. The definition will determine what type of communication from the server satisfies this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the functionality of Defendant's website constitutes "downloading action information" in the manner required by the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "action list" as including items representing actions the server can take, such as "where to store and/or send the images," which could be interpreted broadly to mean any set of user-selectable options presented by the service. (’088 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where an "action list 48 stored on the database 20... can be downloaded to the user's camera 14... and stored on the camera 14." (’088 Patent, col. 4:4-7). Figure 6 depicts a specific "ACTION LIST" menu on the device screen, suggesting a discrete data object is sent and stored, rather than just transient web page elements.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that to the extent any claim steps are performed by a third party (i.e., the user), Defendant is liable for indirect infringement because it "conditioned the third party's use" of the accused functionality on the performance of those steps and "controlled the manner and/or timing of the functionality." (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 72, 79, 86).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it lays a factual predicate for such a claim by alleging extensive pre-suit knowledge on the part of Defendant, citing a series of communications offering a license that began in January 2021 and included the provision of a draft complaint in April 2025, all of which allegedly went unanswered. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-13). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional," which is the standard for awarding attorney's fees, often in connection with willful infringement. (Compl. ¶(F) at p. 21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "portable image capture device," which is rooted in the patent's 2000 priority date and its focus on dedicated digital cameras, be construed broadly enough to read on the modern ecosystem of smartphones and personal computers that interact with Defendant's web-based photo management service?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Defendant's system performs the specific client-server data exchange recited in the claims? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can show that Defendant's servers "download... image identifiers" and "action information" to the user's device for local use, or whether the system architecture achieves a similar result through different technical means not contemplated by the patent claims.
  • An underlying legal question, preemptively addressed by the Plaintiff, will be patent eligibility: are the claims directed to a specific technological improvement in reducing network traffic and managing device memory, or are they directed to the abstract idea of managing data by using an identifier, a long-standing practice in computer science?