Ask Sydney LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ask Sydney, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00111, W.D. Tex., 02/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas, specifically an office in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s YouTube and Google Ads platforms infringe two patents related to iterative, user-feedback-driven methods for refining search results and recommendations.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for dynamically guiding a user to a "current interest," such as a product or piece of content, by repeatedly processing user preferences within a single session to refine the underlying search criteria.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786. The file history for the '705 Patent includes a terminal disclaimer, which may prospectively link the enforceable term of the '705 Patent to that of the '786 Patent and could be relevant to obviousness-type double patenting analyses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-08-15	Priority Date for '786 and '705 Patents
2016-04-26	'786 Patent Issued
2019-11-12	'705 Patent Issued
2023-02-13	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786 - "System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in recommendation systems that rely on a user's general, long-term history, noting such systems are often unable to identify a user's specific, granular, and contemporaneous interest or "craving" at a particular moment in time (’971 Patent, col. 1:22-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented, iterative process to solve this problem. The system presents a user with an electronic image of a physical object, receives a preference input (e.g., positive or negative), and processes a set of "tags" associated with that image to determine a "next set of tags." Based on this new tag set, a new image is selected and presented, repeating the cycle to progressively narrow the search to the user's specific current interest (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-21).
• Technical Importance: This method enables real-time, session-based preference refinement that dynamically adjusts to immediate user feedback, moving beyond recommendations based on static, historical user profiles (’971 Patent, col. 5:20-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an indication of an application instance from a user's electronic device.
  • Determining a plurality of tags specific to the user.
  • Transmitting and causing the presentation of a single electronic image representing a physical object, which is associated with a set of tags.
  • Receiving a user preference input for the physical object.
  • Processing the tags based on the preference to determine a next set of tags, wherein a negative preference causes the removal of tags from the set and a positive preference causes the addition of at least one tag.
  • Determining a next electronic image associated with the next set of tags.
  • Generating a sequence of images by repeating the process.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 - "Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the '705 Patent addresses the problem that recommendation systems based on historical user data fail to capture a user's "current, specific preference" or craving (’705 Patent, col. 1:39-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims an iterative image search method where the system determines and presents digital images, receives user input indicating a "favorable" or "unfavorable" preference, and analyzes the associated tags. A key aspect of the solution is "adjusting weights" of tags based on the user's feedback and an "association relative to tags within the same category" to determine the subsequent image to display (’705 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:35-41).
• Technical Importance: The explicit claiming of "adjusting weights" of tags based on associations suggests a more sophisticated, algorithmic approach to refining search results, potentially enabling more nuanced machine-learning models for preference detection than simple tag removal or addition (’705 Patent, col. 27:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Determining a plurality of digital images to present, each associated with a plurality of tags.
  • Receiving an "unfavorable indication of a disinclination" for an image.
  • Analyzing tags to determine a next set of tags.
  • "Adjusting weights" of tags based on an association relative to tags in the same category.
  • Transitioning to a subsequent digital image.
  • Receiving a further input that can be favorable or unfavorable.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies Google’s "YouTube, a video sharing and social media platform" and "Google's advertising service Google Ads" as the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are infringing products but does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the allegedly infringing features within these platforms (Compl. ¶16, ¶18, ¶25). The functionality is broadly described by naming YouTube as a video platform and Google Ads as an advertising service (Compl. ¶16). The complaint contains no allegations regarding the specific commercial importance or market positioning of the accused features.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits C and D to detail its infringement allegations; however, these exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶23, ¶30). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the general allegations in the main body of the complaint.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Google's Accused Products directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the '786 Patent and claim 1 of the '705 Patent by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the accused systems into the United States (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations in its main body to map the features of YouTube or Google Ads to the specific elements of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused platforms fall within the scope of the patent claims. For example, a court may need to resolve whether a video thumbnail on YouTube or a banner in Google Ads constitutes an "image" representing a "physical object" as that term is used and described in the patent specifications, which heavily feature tangible goods like food dishes (’705 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the recommendation algorithms in YouTube and Google Ads operate in the manner required by the claims. For instance, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused platforms perform the specific step of "processing... a plurality of tags... to determine a next set of tags" by adding or removing tags based on a single preference input, as required by claim 1 of the ’786 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "physical object"

(asserted in '786 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the scope of the invention. The patent specifications are heavily focused on tangible goods, particularly food items. Defendant may argue that digital content like videos or services like advertisements are not "physical objects," potentially placing the accused platforms outside the claims' scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears central to a potential non-infringement defense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined or limited in the claims themselves, and a party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass digital representations of items or services.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both patents consistently use tangible examples, such as food dishes, consumer goods, clothing, and automobiles, when describing "physical objects." This repeated emphasis could be used to argue that the inventors intended to limit the invention to tangible items (’786 Patent, col. 1:33-51; '705 Patent, col. 9:4-15).

Term 2: "adjusting weights of at least some of the tags"

('705 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core algorithmic step of the '705 Patent's invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the general recommendation algorithms of YouTube and Google Ads perform this specific function, or if they operate on a different technical principle.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not recite a specific mathematical formula for weight adjustment, potentially covering a wide range of algorithmic implementations that modify the influence of certain criteria (’705 Patent, col. 27:38-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a process where the weighting is based on an "association relative to tags within the same category" (’705 Patent, col. 27:38-41). A party could argue that this language, combined with the patent's overall disclosure, requires a specific type of categorical and associative weighting scheme, rather than any generic adjustment of recommendation parameters.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While a background paragraph makes a passing reference to "indirectly" developing or distributing products (Compl. ¶3), the formal counts for infringement (Counts I and II) are explicitly limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). The complaint pleads no specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '786 and '705 Patents] were invalid" (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶26-27). These allegations, while not forming a formal count for willfulness, may lay the groundwork for such a claim or support the explicit request for a finding that this is an "exceptional case" warranting an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "physical object," which is rooted in the patents’ context of tangible consumer goods, be construed to cover the digital content (e.g., videos, advertisements) served by the accused YouTube and Google Ads platforms?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that the accused platforms’ complex recommendation algorithms perform the specific, step-by-step iterative tag-processing method recited in the claims, as opposed to employing a more generalized user modeling approach?
• An initial procedural question may concern the sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint's infringement theory appears to rely entirely on incorporating external claim charts that were not filed with the court, it raises the question of whether the pleading meets the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.