Joto Inc v. Vinted UAB

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Joto Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Vinted, UAB (Lithuania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00756, E.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services, which are not explicitly named, infringe a patent related to a system for generating user and event recommendations in a social networking context.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of online recommendation engines, aiming to provide users with more meaningful "real-world" or offline connection opportunities based on a complex analysis of user interests and social data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,639,608, “Comprehensive user/event matching or recommendations based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, location,” issued May 2, 2017.

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional social networking services overwhelm users with non-relevant information and advertisements, a problem termed "ad blindness." It notes that prior art methods for users to indicate interests are often not useful for generating recommendations for "real-world (offline) interactions" (’608 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a recommendation engine designed to foster "real-world" social connections by matching users with other users, events, and activities (’608 Patent, col. 1:61-65). The system collects and analyzes various data types—including explicit user interests, inferred behaviors, social connections, and location—to calculate a "relevancy score" for potential recommendations, which are then transmitted to the user (’608 Patent, col. 3:25-54). The system architecture includes modules for processing user data, event data, and social data to generate these recommendations (’608 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology purports to improve upon existing social networks by contextualizing data in a way that promotes tangible, offline interactions rather than just online engagement (’608 Patent, col. 1:52-57).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '608 Patent Claims" without identifying specific claims (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 (method) and 12 (system).
  • Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
    • Receiving user, event, or social data in a network environment.
    • Identifying portions of this data.
    • Determining recommendations by calculating a "relevancy score" based on a "significance analysis" that ranks the data's interest to users.
    • Ensuring the calculated "relevancy score" is greater than a threshold.
    • Categorizing the recommendations by applying a "relevancy popularity analysis".
    • Matching the identified data based on the "relevancy score".
    • Transmitting the resulting recommendations to the user.
  • Independent Claim 12 (system) recites a system comprising processors and memory with instructions to perform the steps outlined in method claim 1 (’608 Patent, col. 11:17-12:35).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name specific accused products, instead referring to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 16). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '608 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It states that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products in the United States and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on their infringing use (Compl. ¶11, 14). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the functionality or market context of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that purportedly compare the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16-17). In the absence of these charts, the infringement theory is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is the conclusory statement that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’608 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’608 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides no specific factual allegations detailing how the accused products meet any of the limitations of the asserted claims, such as the calculation of a "relevancy score" or the application of a "significance analysis" and "relevancy popularity analysis."

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused products perform the specific sequence of data analysis steps required by the claims. The complaint's allegations lack the factual specificity to assess, for example, how the Defendant's system allegedly performs a "significance analysis" to rank data or a "relevancy popularity analysis" to categorize recommendations (’608 Patent, col. 10:25-42).
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of the specific analytical processes named in the claims. A question for the court will be whether the general function of providing recommendations in the accused products is sufficient to meet the claims' requirements for distinct "relevancy score", "significance analysis", and "relevancy popularity analysis" steps, or if a more specific implementation is required.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "relevancy score"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claims 1 and 12 and is central to the method of determining recommendations. Its construction will be critical, as infringement will depend on whether the accused system calculates a value that meets the definition of a "relevancy score." Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a specific quantitative output or if a more general qualitative ranking suffices.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the score as being calculated for "user data, said social data, or said event data" and being "greater than a threshold," suggesting it could be any form of calculated value used for filtering (’608 Patent, col. 10:20-33).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification ties the score to a "significance analysis" and a "relevancy popularity analysis," which consider specific inputs like "attendance/engagement numbers," "distance," and "overlapping interests" (’608 Patent, col. 6:8-23). This may support a narrower construction requiring the score to be derived from these specific types of analyses.

• The Term: "significance analysis"

• Context and Importance: This term, also in claims 1 and 12, defines the basis for the "relevancy score." How this analysis is defined will determine what kind of algorithmic processes in the accused product could be infringing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim broadly defines it as a method which "ranks said user data, said event data, or said social data to be of interest to one or more users based on awareness of entities, activities, interests, desires, or location" (’608 Patent, col. 10:25-30). This could be interpreted to cover a wide range of recommendation algorithms.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that "significance analysis 206 may be performed to determine which people or friends are most relevant" and "may consider factors such as user location, significance to each of the users of the overlapping interests for the particular recommendation" (’608 Patent, col. 5:54-62). This could be used to argue the term requires an analysis specifically focused on social connections and overlapping user profiles, not just general event popularity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’608 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The specific content of these materials is not detailed.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of infringement" since at least the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant has "continued to induce infringement," which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14-15).

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

This case appears to present two primary areas of dispute that will be central to its resolution.

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations explaining how the accused products operate. Consequently, the case will likely turn on whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused products perform the precise multi-step data processing method recited in the claims, including the distinct calculation of a "relevancy score" derived from a "significance analysis" and the subsequent "categorizing" of recommendations via a "relevancy popularity analysis."
2. A core issue will be one of claim construction: The patent uses bespoke terms like "relevancy score" and "significance analysis." The outcome of the case will heavily depend on how the court construes these terms—specifically, whether they are interpreted broadly to cover general recommendation algorithms or narrowly to require the specific inputs and analytical models described in the patent's embodiments.