Accessify LLC v. Canva Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Accessify, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Canva, Inc. and Canva Pty Ltd. (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: Accessify, LLC v. Canva, Inc., 1:23-cv-01289, W.D. Tex., 10/23/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Canva maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing a corporate office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Canva online design platform, including its paywall functionality and features such as "Magic Expand" and "Magic Grab," infringes eight U.S. patents related to digital content security, preview methods, and graphical user interfaces for image manipulation.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for distributing digital content securely by providing limited or "masked" previews to encourage purchase, and user interface techniques for accurately manipulating objects within a larger digital image.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, inter partes review proceedings, or pre-suit licensing negotiations between the parties.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,316,032 - "Method for Allowing a Customer to Preview, Acquire and/or Pay for Information and a System Therefor"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "seller's dilemma" in digital commerce, where providing access to content for evaluation purposes makes it vulnerable to unauthorized copying and distribution, while restricting access entirely hinders the sales process because a customer cannot examine the product before purchase (’032 Patent, col. 2:27-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes providing a "masked" or "reduced-utility" preview of an information product. This is achieved by "superposing a utility-reducing masking effect" on the original content, which interferes with its full use but still allows a customer to evaluate it. The masking effect is removed upon completion of a purchase or other authorization, granting the user access to the product in its original, unmasked form (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:26-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical framework to balance content protection with the commercial necessity of a "try-before-you-buy" model, moving beyond the simple all-or-nothing dichotomy of prior art encryption methods.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Providing a preview version of an information product created by superposing a masking effect on an original form.
  • The masking effect is adapted to interfere with the user's reception of the information product in its original form.
  • Allowing a user to access the preview version.
  • Controlling the presence, absence, or duration of the masking effect based on a criterion, thereby controlling the user's reception of the original product.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,472,354 - "Graphical User Interface Having an Attached Toolbar for Drag and Drop Editing in Detail-in-Context Lens Presentations"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "screen real estate problem," where users struggle to perform accurate drag-and-drop operations on large digital images. Zooming in to see detail for precise placement causes the user to lose the broader context of the destination, while zooming out to see the context obscures the detail needed for accuracy (’354 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method using a "detail-in-context lens" that magnifies a selected object and its immediate surroundings (the focal region) while compressing the surrounding contextual area (the shoulder region). This lens, containing the selected object, can be dragged and dropped, allowing the user to see both the fine detail for precise alignment and the broader context of the destination simultaneously (’354 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65).
• Technical Importance: This invention offered a graphical user interface solution to a persistent usability challenge in digital mapping, graphic design, and other applications requiring precise manipulation of elements within a large visual field.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Distorting an original image to produce a distorted region for a selected object, where the distorted region includes magnification of at least a portion of the object.
  • Receiving a signal for dragging the object with the distorted region from an initial to a desired position.
  • Receiving a signal for dropping the object at the desired position.
  • Removing the distorted region from the original image after the object is dropped.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,562,397

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,562,397, "Method and System for Facilitating Search, Selection, Preview, Purchase Evaluation, Offering for Sale, Distribution, and/or Sale of Digital Content and Enhancing the Security Thereof," issued July 14, 2009.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for controlling the distribution of a digital work by arranging it into a plurality of layers, including a first layer with a "masking effect" and a second layer with the digital content. Superposing the first layer onto the second creates a masked preview version, with control over the masking effect governing access to the original content (’397 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Canva paywall and associated functionalities infringe this patent (Compl. ¶65).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,752,656

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,752,656, "Controlling Access to Name Service for a Domain Name System," issued July 6, 2010.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for controlling access to online content by using a name server that checks user access privileges for requested domain names. Based on these privileges, the server either provides the IP address for the requested content or redirects the user to an authorization server (’656 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶81).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Canva's use of its domain and subdomains to control access to content infringes this patent (Compl. ¶82-83).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,069,489

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,069,489, "Method and System for Facilitating Search, Selection, Preview, Purchase Evaluation, Offering for Sale, Distribution, and/or Sale of Digital Content and Enhancing the Security Thereof," issued November 29, 2011.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for controlling access to a digital work by providing a "masked configuration" of that work. The masked version is created by applying a masking effect that interferes with viewing or rendering, enabling a user to examine the work without having full utility before purchase (’489 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶92).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Canva paywall and its associated hardware and software of infringement (Compl. ¶93).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,416,266

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,416,266, "Interacting with Detail-in-Context Presentations," issued April 9, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for generating a presentation of a region-of-interest in an image using a "lens" with a magnified focal region and a surrounding shoulder region. The invention includes receiving signals to select these regions and adjust the position of the focal region relative to the shoulder region to create a "folding" effect (’266 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶102).
• Accused Features: The complaint generally accuses the "Accused Products" of performing the claimed method (Compl. ¶103).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,400,586

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,400,586, "Graphical User Interface Having an Attached Toolbar for Drag and Drop Editing in Detail-in-Context Lens Presentations," issued July 26, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for detail-in-context data viewing where a selection signal attaches a lens to a movable object in an image. The user can then drag the object and the lens together to a new position, with the lens magnifying a portion of the object and the surrounding image to facilitate accurate placement (’586 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶119).
• Accused Features: The complaint generally accuses the "Accused Products" of performing the claimed method (Compl. ¶120).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,554,424

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,554,424, "Enhanced Security Preview of Digital Content," issued February 4, 2020.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for generating a preview of an information product based on customer-specified relevance criteria. A masking effect is selected from a plurality of effects and superposed on the preview version to create a masked version, which is then provided to the user prior to purchase (’424 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶129).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Canva paywall and associated functionalities infringe this patent (Compl. ¶130).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' products and services distributed through the website https://www.canva.com/, including its paywall functionality and specific features named "Magic Expand" and "Magic Grab" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶21-22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Canva website allows users to access, view, and purchase digital content (Compl. ¶22). The "paywall" function is alleged to restrict access to certain features or content until a user subscribes (Compl. ¶31). Figure 1 in the complaint shows a pop-up prompting a user to "Try Canva Pro for free" to use an advanced animation feature, thereby blocking access to the feature's full functionality (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 1). The "Magic Expand" feature is described as allowing a user to extend an image in any direction (Compl. ¶21). Figure 5 depicts a user interface for the Magic Expand feature, showing options to expand a photo to a selected size (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 5). The "Magic Grab" feature is alleged to allow users to edit and reposition elements within an image (Compl. ¶21). Figure 6 shows a user interface for Magic Grab, which is described as making "any image editable" (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a paywall that gates access to functionality, as depicted in Figure 1 of the complaint (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 1), qualifies as a "masking effect" that is "superposed on an original form" to create a "preview version." The defense may argue that a paywall is an access barrier, not a "mask," and that no "preview" is provided if the feature is entirely blocked. The plaintiff's position appears to be that the locked feature itself, visible but unusable, constitutes the masked preview.

---

'354 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the operation of the "Magic Grab" feature, as shown in Figure 6 (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 6), constitutes "distorting said original image." The defense may argue that its feature performs object segmentation or isolation, which is technically different from applying a distorting lens to the entire "original image" as described in the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "masking effect" (from '032 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical for the infringement allegations against Canva's paywall. The dispute will likely center on whether a functional block (a paywall) is equivalent to a visual or utility-reducing overlay as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether a broad category of modern freemium/subscription models are covered by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A related patent in the same family, U.S. Patent No. 10,554,424, defines "masking effect" broadly as an "'interruption', 'discontinuity', 'disorientation', 'veil', or 'masquerade' for the purposes of providing either a preview of the original content albeit in a reduced utility format" (’424 Patent, col. 17:54-62). This language could support arguing that a paywall is an "interruption" that provides a preview in a "reduced utility format" (i.e., zero utility).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent family consistently depict visual masks, such as graphic overlays, distorted text, or semi-transparent layers that obscure content rather than block it entirely (’424 Patent, Figs. 5a-5f). The specification also describes the purpose as allowing a user to "substantially examine said digital work" (’489 Patent, claim 1), which may suggest the preview must be more functional than what a complete paywall allows.

---

• The Term: "distorting said original image to produce a distorted region" (from '354 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory against "Magic Grab" depends on this term covering the act of selecting and isolating an object for repositioning. If "distorting" is construed narrowly to require the specific lens-based magnification/compression model described in the specification, the infringement case may be weakened.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires distorting the original image "to produce a distorted region for said object," which could be read to mean the distortion's purpose is to facilitate object manipulation, allowing for various technical implementations beyond the exact embodiments shown.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and detailed description are heavily rooted in the "detail-in-context lens" metaphor, which involves transforming the entire image view by creating a magnified "focal region" and a compressed "shoulder region" (’354 Patent, col. 2:56-65). This suggests the claimed "distortion" is not merely object selection but a specific transformation of the whole image presentation space.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by advertising, promoting, and distributing instructions that guide end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32, ¶49). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products have special features designed to be used in an infringing way with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶33, ¶50).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶34, ¶51). The complaint also makes a general allegation that Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶35, ¶52).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "masking effect," which is described in the patents with examples of visual overlays and utility degradation, be construed to cover a modern software paywall that functions as a binary access gate, completely blocking functionality until payment?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does Canva's "Magic Grab" feature, which appears to perform intelligent object segmentation, meet the claim limitation of "distorting said original image," a term rooted in the patents' disclosure of a "detail-in-context lens" that transforms the entire visual presentation of the image?
• A third question concerns patent portfolio strategy: given the assertion of eight patents across overlapping technical concepts (content masking and UI lenses), the case may focus on how the plaintiff will establish distinct infringement for each patent and whether the defendant can identify dispositive invalidity or non-infringement arguments that apply broadly across the asserted portfolio.