DCT
6:22-cv-00265
Virtual Creative Artist LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00265, W.D. Tex., 03/11/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook social media platform infringes two patents related to systems for receiving, filtering, and distributing user-submitted media content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns networked computer systems for crowdsourcing multimedia content, where a central platform ingests submissions from numerous users, processes them, and generates curated content for an audience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant has been aware of the asserted patent family since at least May 2012. The infringement allegations rely heavily on diagrams and expert testimony from a prior litigation involving Defendant, Mirror Worlds v. Facebook.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’480 and ’576 Patents |
| 2022-05-01 | Alleged earliest date of Defendant’s awareness of patent family |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576 Issues |
| 2022-03-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, titled “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same,” issued November 22, 2016 (the “’480 Patent”). (Compl. ¶9).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a logistical challenge for both artists and media companies: individuals with creative ideas (e.g., scripts, songs) struggle to connect with the right industry contacts, while media companies are "bombarded" with submissions that are difficult to sort and evaluate. (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). The complaint characterizes this as the technical problem of how to allow remote contributors to collaborate and develop new media content over the internet. (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a networked system that acts as a structured exchange for creative content. The system uses a central controller and a series of specialized databases to request, receive, store, search, and select media submissions from end users. (’480 Patent, Abstract). The selected content can then be developed, released to an audience, and the original submitters can be rewarded, creating a complete lifecycle for crowdsourced media. (’480 Patent, col. 4:1-13). The complaint alleges this solution is implemented through a combination of distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." (Compl. ¶11-12).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a structured, computer-implemented framework for managing the submission and development of artistic works, addressing the convergence of traditional media and the Internet. (’480 Patent, col. 1:5-12).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem configured to receive and store submissions from a plurality of submitters.
- A user database comprising one or more user attributes.
- An electronic multimedia creator server 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.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content or a submission within it.
- The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" of the patent. (Compl. p. 26).
U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,339,576, titled “Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same,” issued July 2, 2019 (the “’576 Patent”). (Compl. ¶31).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that the ’576 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent; therefore, it addresses the same problem of bridging the gap between individual creators and the media industry. (Compl. ¶34; ’576 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The ’576 Patent claims a system for generating multimedia content by applying an "electronic content filter" to a database of electronic media submissions. (Compl. ¶35). The filter uses "criteria associated with one or more users" to automatically generate content for viewing on user devices, focusing on automated curation based on user data. (’576 Patent, cl. 1). This solution is part of the same overall networked system described in the ’480 Patent. (’576 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific system for the automated generation of curated media content from a large pool of user submissions, based on user-specific criteria. (Compl. ¶35).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem configured to receive and store submissions from a first user and a second user.
- One or more databases comprising criteria associated with one or more users.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem, including an electronic content filter, configured to apply the user criteria to obtain submissions and develop multimedia content.
- An electronic release subsystem configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing.
- The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" of the patent. (Compl. p. 26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The computer-based system underlying the Facebook social media platform ("Accused Instrumentality"). (Compl. ¶21, ¶36).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a system that allows its users to submit various forms of electronic media, such as text, images, and videos in the form of posts, comments, and check-ins. (Compl. ¶22, ¶37). These submissions are stored in a large-scale graph database system, referred to as TAO or the "social graph," which maintains data identifying the submitter and the content of each submission. (Compl. ¶22, ¶38). The complaint provides a diagram, sourced from prior litigation, illustrating how user actions like a check-in, comment, or "like" are stored as distinct but associated objects in this database. (Compl. p. 8).
- The system is alleged to use this stored data to generate curated content feeds for its users by aggregating and filtering items from the social graph. (Compl. ¶24, ¶40). The complaint alleges this functionality is driven by "criteria associated with" users, such as their relationships and interests. (Compl. ¶39). The complaint alleges that Facebook has over a billion active users and that its platform's functionality relies on this user-generated content model. (Compl. p. 10, p. 22).
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 ... and store said electronic media submissions | The Accused Instrumentality’s servers and TAO database system receive and store user submissions (e.g., posts, check-ins, comments), which include data identifying the submitter and the content. | ¶22 | col. 8:31-44 |
| 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 ... user attributes to develop multimedia content | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly aggregates and filters content from its "social graph" database to create tailored content for users (e.g., News Feed), with the filter maintaining submitter identification. | ¶24 | col. 11:43-51 |
| 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 of more user devices | The Accused Instrumentality’s infrastructure makes the generated multimedia content (e.g., News Feed) available for viewing on users' devices. | ¶25 | col. 4:41-46 |
| an electronic voting subsystem ... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content or an electronic media submission | The Accused Instrumentality's "Like" and reaction features allegedly enable users to electronically vote for or rate content submissions. | ¶26 | col. 12:3-10 |
’576 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) an electronic media submissions server subsystem including: ... a submissions electronic interface configured to receive a first electronic media submission from a first user ... and ... a second electronic media submission received from a second user | The Accused Instrumentality’s servers and interface are configured to receive and store media submissions from its plurality of users, including different first and second users. | ¶37 | col. 8:31-44 |
| (b) the one or more databases comprising criteria associated with one or more users of the plurality of users stored therein | The Accused Instrumentality’s "social graph" allegedly serves as a database containing criteria associated with its users, such as their relationships, interests, and other curated information. | ¶39 | col. 7:17-24 |
| (c) an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem ... including ... an electronic content filter configured to apply criteria associated with at least one user ... to obtain a plurality of electronic media submissions ... and to develop multimedia content | The Accused Instrumentality presents users with tailored content by allegedly applying a filter based on user criteria to its database of submissions. A screenshot shows Facebook's UI for filtering search results. (Compl. p. 24). | ¶40 | col. 25:1-20 |
| (d) an electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the electronic multimedia creator server subsystem ... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on a plurality of user devices | The Accused Instrumentality’s system makes the developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices. | ¶42 | col. 11:58-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: A primary point of contention may be whether the Accused Instrumentality's integrated "social graph" architecture maps onto the patents' recitation of distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The analysis may question whether the claims require structural separation or if functional differentiation within a monolithic system is sufficient.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether general social media functions perform the specific roles claimed in the patents. For instance, does the Facebook "Like" feature function as the "electronic voting subsystem" described in the ’480 Patent, which the specification links to a system for ranking content to determine awards? Further, does a dynamic, algorithmic content feed constitute an "electronic content filter" used to "develop multimedia content" as required by the ’576 Patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem" (as in "electronic media submissions server subsystem," "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem," etc.)
- Context and Importance: The asserted claims in both patents require a combination of distinct "subsystems." The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether Meta's integrated platform architecture meets these structural limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff’s theory maps these claimed subsystems onto different functional aspects of a single platform, whereas the defendant may argue the claims require greater structural or architectural separation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification depicts the central controller 200 as a single logical unit containing numerous databases (e.g., Submitter/Member Database 255, Creator Database 260) that perform the functions of the various subsystems. (’480 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an interpretation where "subsystem" refers to a functional module rather than a physically separate hardware component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of distinct terms for each "subsystem" in the claims, combined with the requirement that they be "operatively coupled," could imply separate and distinct components. Furthermore, Figure 3 of the patent depicts a distributed architecture with multiple "Controller" units (320, 330, 340), which may support an argument that the subsystems are intended to be architecturally discrete. (’480 Patent, Fig. 3).
The Term: "electronic content filter"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the "creator subsystem" limitations of both asserted claims and is central to the allegation that Facebook's News Feed and search functions infringe. The dispute will likely concern whether a general-purpose ranking algorithm or user-facing search tool qualifies as the claimed "filter."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as stimulating user interest and allowing third parties to "request and/or purchase submissions." (’480 Patent, col. 4:49-51). This broad purpose could support viewing any mechanism that selects content for users, including a News Feed, as a "filter."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process of a creator or third party performing a "pre-selected search process" or an "open search process" to find "desired content material." (’480 Patent, col. 6:46-51). This may support a narrower construction where the "filter" is a tool actively used by a "creator" to search for and select specific content to incorporate into a new work, rather than a passive, automated content-ranking system for end-user consumption.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant "has been aware of the patent family" of both the ’480 Patent and the ’576 Patent "since at least May 2012." (Compl. ¶28, ¶44). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge could form the basis for a future claim of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does Meta's integrated "social graph" platform embody the collection of discrete, operatively coupled "subsystems" recited in the patent claims, or does the complaint attempt to map claim elements onto a monolithic architecture that operates in a fundamentally different way?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional scope: Do general-purpose social media features like the "Like" button and the algorithmic News Feed perform the specific functions of an "electronic voting subsystem" for awarding content and an "electronic content filter" for developing new media, as those functions are described and contemplated within the patent specification?
- A central procedural question will concern the probative value of prior litigation evidence: To what extent can the plaintiff rely on expert declarations and technical diagrams from the separate Mirror Worlds v. Facebook case to satisfy the pleading standards for infringement in this action, and how will the court view this second-hand evidence as the case proceeds?