DCT

2:25-cv-00808

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Canva Pty Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00808, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation. The complaint further alleges Defendant has purposefully targeted the Texas market by establishing and expanding an Austin office, marketing to Texas-based customers, and employing a U.S.-based sales team.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Canva online design platform infringes four patents related to methods for reducing bandwidth and storage requirements when transmitting images from a portable device to a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in transmitting digital image files over low-bandwidth networks, a significant challenge in the early 2000s, by uploading an image only once and subsequently using a smaller unique identifier for server-side actions.
  • Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit belong to a single family sharing a common specification. The complaint notes that during prosecution of the parent patent, the applicant distinguished prior art by emphasizing the bandwidth-saving technique of transmitting only an identifier and an action request for subsequent operations. The complaint also highlights that the latest patent in the family issued after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which Plaintiff suggests supports the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-06 Priority Date for '088, '514, '965, and '778 Patents
2005-03-24 Applicant amendment during '088 patent prosecution
2005-09-13 Applicant amendment during '088 patent prosecution
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
2014-06-25 USPTO issues Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of Alice
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,778 issues
2025-10-01 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"

  • Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem of high bandwidth consumption and cost associated with transmitting digital images from portable devices over the internet, particularly when the same image is transmitted multiple times to different destinations (’088 Patent, col. 1:65-2:8; Compl. ¶36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable device uploads a captured image to a server only once. The server assigns a unique "image identifier" to the image. For any subsequent operations (e.g., sharing, printing), the device transmits only this small identifier and a requested action, not the entire, large image file. This "eliminat[es] redundancy in image transmission" and significantly reduces bandwidth requirements (’088 Patent, col. 3:21-30; Compl. ¶39).
  • Technical Importance: At the time of invention, this method offered a solution to make image sharing from nascent internet-connected portable devices more practical and cost-effective over slow and expensive wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶ 30-33, 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 22 ('088 Patent, col. 14:23-15:46; Compl. ¶66).
  • Claim 14 outlines a method comprising:
    • Uploading captured images to a server for the first time.
    • The server assigning a respective image identifier to each image.
    • The device receiving the image identifiers and "action information" from the server.
    • Presenting an "action control" to the user based on the action information.
    • In response to a user selection, transmitting the action and the image identifier, rather than the image itself, to the server.
  • Claim 22 outlines a related method comprising:
    • A server receiving captured images uploaded from a device.
    • The server assigning an image identifier to the uploaded images.
    • The device downloading the image identifiers and "action information."
    • The server receiving a request from the device that "only includes the image identifier" and the requested action, thereby eliminating the need to retransmit the image.

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

  • Patent Identification: 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 (’514 Patent; Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Sharing a common specification with the ’088 Patent, the ’514 Patent addresses the same issue of inefficient and costly re-transmission of large image files from portable devices over bandwidth-constrained networks (’514 Patent, col. 2:3-9; Compl. ¶36).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the ’088 Patent. An image is uploaded once to a "hardware server," which assigns an image identifier. The device then receives this identifier along with "action information." To perform a subsequent action on the image, the device sends a request containing only the identifier and the action, "thereby eliminating the need to retransmit the image and reducing transmission bandwidth" (’514 Patent, col. 13:58-14:6; Compl. ¶50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was aimed at improving the usability of early internet-enabled portable devices by conserving network resources and reducing costs for the consumer (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’514 Patent, col. 13:58-14:6; Compl. ¶73).
  • Claim 1 outlines a method comprising:
    • Receiving images uploaded from a device to a hardware server.
    • The hardware server assigning an image identifier to the images.
    • The device downloading the image identifiers.
    • The device downloading "action information" including at least one action.
    • Receiving a request from the device to apply the action, where the request includes the identifier and action "rather than 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"

  • Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of high bandwidth consumption when uploading images. The patented solution involves a "photo-sharing service" receiving an image, providing an identifier back to the device, and then receiving subsequent action requests that use the identifier instead of the full image file, thus reducing redundant data transmission ('965 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's processes for uploading and managing images within the Canva platform are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶80).

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

  • Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 24).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also aims to solve the problem of inefficient image transmission. It describes a method where an "online service" provides action information to a device, receives an uploaded image, stores it, and transmits back a unique identifier, allowing subsequent requests from the device to reference the image via the identifier rather than retransmitting the image data ('778 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶52).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's processes for uploading and managing images within its online service are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies Defendant's "processes for uploading and managing images" as the accused instrumentalities, as implemented in its software applications and online Canva platform (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 66, 73).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused Canva functionality operates. It generally alleges that Canva's processes for handling user-uploaded images practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 73). The complaint positions the Defendant as a major competitor in the U.S., which it describes as Defendant's "biggest market" and a "critical market" for growth, supported by an expanding operational presence in Texas (Compl. ¶¶ 5-7).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference preliminary claim charts (Exhibits H, I, J, K) that were not included in the provided filing; therefore, a tabular analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

'088 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Canva's platform infringes at least claims 14 and 22 of the ’088 Patent (Compl. ¶66). The core of the infringement theory is that Canva’s "processes for uploading and managing images" meet the elements of the claimed methods. The allegation suggests that when a user uploads an image to the Canva service (the "server"), the service assigns an identifier to that image. When the user subsequently directs an action to be performed on that image (e.g., adding it to a design), Canva’s system is alleged to transmit a request from the client to the server containing the image's identifier and the requested action, rather than re-transmitting the full image file (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 67).

'514 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’514 Patent, again based on Canva's image management processes (Compl. ¶73). The theory parallels the allegations for the ’088 Patent. It posits that the Canva platform functions as the claimed "hardware server" that receives images, assigns identifiers, and provides "action information" to the user's device (e.g., a web browser or application). Subsequent user requests to manipulate an uploaded image are alleged to cause the transmission of only the identifier and the action, thereby infringing the claimed method of reducing bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 74).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether a modern web-based application running on a general-purpose computer or smartphone falls within the scope of the claimed "portable image capture device." The patent specification is rooted in the technological context of early digital cameras with integrated or tethered wireless connectivity (’088 Patent, col. 4:37-44), raising the question of whether the claims can be construed to cover systems where image capture and image management are often performed on different, more powerful devices.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides a high-level theory but does not include specific evidence of how Canva's client-server architecture actually functions. A key technical question for the court will be whether Canva’s system, when a user acts upon an already-uploaded image, in fact transmits only an identifier and an action command in a manner that "eliminat[es] the need to retransmit the image" as required by the claims. The actual data packets and protocols used by the accused service will be central to resolving this question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "portable image capture device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the client-side entity in the claimed methods. Its construction is critical because the accused system involves users interacting with a web service via devices (laptops, smartphones) that are functionally distinct from the dedicated digital cameras described as embodiments in the patent. The outcome of its construction could determine whether the patents apply to modern computing environments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the generic term "portable image capture device" without explicitly limiting it to a camera (’088 Patent, col. 14:24). Plaintiff may argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any modern portable device with a camera, such as a smartphone or tablet.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently and repeatedly refers to a "digital camera" as the exemplary and preferred embodiment (’088 Patent, col. 3:23-24; col. 4:15-16). The patent's figures and detailed descriptions focus on the architecture of a digital camera, which a court may find limits the scope of the claims to that specific technological context (’088 Patent, Fig. 2).

The Term: "action information"

  • Context and Importance: The claims require the server to download "action information" to the device, which is then used to present an "action control." The definition of this term will be important for determining whether the user interface elements within the Canva application meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad list of potential actions, including printing, saving in a personal space, sending, or deleting an image (’088 Patent, col. 6:36-56). This could support an argument that any UI element in the Canva service that enables a user to manipulate an uploaded image is an "action control" derived from server-provided "action information."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the "action information" as a discrete "ACTION LIST" that is downloaded from the server and displayed to the user (’088 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 3:62-4:13). This specific embodiment could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct list of available actions to be transmitted from the server, rather than the integrated functionality of a modern web application's UI.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that to the extent a user performs any of the claimed method steps, Defendant is liable because it "conditioned the third party's use of the functionality... on the performance of that step" and "controlled the manner and/or timing of the functionality" (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 74, 81, 88). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support active inducement, such as knowledge or intent.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of pre-suit knowledge or other facts specifically directed to willful infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a determination that the case is "exceptional," but this is not supported by a standalone count or specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶91.F).

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," rooted in the patent's descriptions of early 2000s digital cameras, be construed to cover modern general-purpose computing devices like laptops and smartphones running a web-based software application?
  • A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what technical evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Canva's client-server communication protocol for manipulating already-uploaded images actually performs the specific bandwidth-saving method of transmitting only an identifier and an action, as required by the claims, rather than a different data-handling process?
  • The case will likely also involve a question of divided infringement: given that users perform essential steps such as selecting images and choosing actions, can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's control over its platform and user interactions is sufficient to attribute all steps of the claimed methods to Defendant for the purpose of establishing direct infringement?