Ask Sydney LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ask Sydney, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00112, W.D. Tex., 02/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Instagram social networking service infringes two patents related to iterative, tag-based methods for visually guiding a user to content reflecting a current interest.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for refining search or recommendation results in real-time by processing user feedback on a sequence of presented images, a process central to user engagement on content-driven platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The '705 Patent is a continuation of an application that is itself a continuation of the application that issued as the '786 Patent, indicating a shared specification and prosecution history. The '705 Patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the '786 Patent.

Case Timeline

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

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's background section describes the inadequacy of recommendation systems that rely on a user's broad, long-term history to predict a specific, momentary "current interest" or "craving," noting that a user may not know what they want until they see it ('786 Patent, col. 1:22-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method for guiding a user through an iterative, visual search. The system presents a sequence of images, each associated with descriptive "tags." After a user provides input indicating a "preference" for a displayed image, the system processes that image's tags to determine a "next set of tags" and, consequently, a "next electronic image" to display, thereby progressively refining the search toward the user's immediate interest ('786 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-22).
• Technical Importance: This interactive, feedback-driven approach was designed to solve the "information overload" problem by creating a dynamic discovery process better suited to satisfying granular, in-the-moment user needs than static, history-based recommendations ('786 Patent, col. 5:29-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 of the '786 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • Determining a "plurality of tags specific to the user" from a larger pool of tags.
  • Transmitting a single electronic image associated with a "set of tags" from this user-specific plurality.
  • Receiving a user input indicating a "preference" for the physical object represented by the image.
  • Processing the user-specific tags based on the preference and the image's tag set to determine a "next set of tags."
  • Determining a "next electronic image" associated with the "next set of tags."
  • Generating a "sequence of electronic images" by repeating this process.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '705 Patent addresses the same problem as its parent '786 Patent: the failure of conventional recommendation systems to capture a user's specific, contemporaneous preferences ('705 Patent, col. 1:28-57).
• The Patented Solution: This patent elaborates on the iterative search method by introducing the explicit step of "adjusting weights of at least some of the tags" in response to user feedback ('705 Patent, claim 1). The process distinguishes between favorable and unfavorable user inputs, using the feedback to modify the influence of certain tags and guide the selection of the next image, as illustrated in the tag flow diagram of Figure 3 ('705 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 21:20-41).
• Technical Importance: By formalizing the mechanism of "adjusting weights," the invention describes a more sophisticated and computationally defined method for a system to learn and adapt to user preferences in real-time within a single interactive session ('705 Patent, col. 6:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 of the '705 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • Determining a plurality of digital images to present, each associated with a plurality of tags.
  • Receiving an "unfavorable indication" from a user for an image.
  • Analyzing tags to determine a "next set of tags."
  • "Adjusting weights" of some tags based on an association relative to other tags in the same category.
  • Transitioning the display to a subsequent digital image.
  • Receiving a "further input" that can be favorable or unfavorable for the subsequent image.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Meta's Instagram, photo and video sharing social networking service" as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific factual allegations regarding the technical functionality of the accused Instagram service, how its recommendation or content discovery features operate, or its specific market context. It alleges in general terms that Meta develops, markets, and sells infringing products and services in the United States (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits C and D that allegedly detail the infringement of claim 1 of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶23, ¶30). As these exhibits were not publicly filed with the complaint, the infringement theory must be inferred from the patents and the conclusory allegations. The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, testing, and selling the Accused Products (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's lack of factual detail raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will produce to demonstrate that Instagram's algorithms perform the specific steps recited in the claims. The core of the dispute will likely involve a technical comparison between Instagram's actual implementation and the patented methods.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the scope of the patent claims. For the '786 Patent, a question is whether Instagram's general content feed constitutes "generating a sequence of electronic images" for the purpose of guiding a user to a specific "current interest." For the '705 Patent, a key question is whether Instagram's learning model performs the specific step of "adjusting weights" of discrete "tags," or if it uses a different architecture (e.g., a neural network) that does not map onto this claimed process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a plurality of tags specific to the user" ('786 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining when infringement begins. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused system must draw from a pre-existing, user-specific set of tags (e.g., from a user profile) at the outset of a session, or if this limitation can be met by tags generated later in the process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses user profiles that include information about preferred food dishes, which could be interpreted as a persistent set of "tags specific to the user" ('786 Patent, col. 11:42-54). This may support a construction where the tags are derived from a user's general profile.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a process that "begins with determining a plurality of tags that are associated with the user" for a given session ('786 Patent, col. 13:11-15). This could support a narrower reading requiring a discrete, session-specific selection of tags for that user before the first image is presented.

"adjusting weights of at least some of the tags" ('705 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's purported inventive concept. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this phrase is construed to require an algorithm that manipulates explicit, numerical weights tied to discrete tags, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any algorithmic process that makes certain content attributes more or less likely to appear based on user feedback.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires adjusting weights "based on an association relative to tags within the same category," which could be argued to encompass any relative change in influence between related concepts in a recommendation engine ('705 Patent, claim 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims a method where receiving a favorable indication "increas[es] weights" of certain tags ('705 Patent, claim 4). This, combined with the detailed flowcharts, may support a narrower construction requiring a system that operates on identifiable tags and directly modifies a quantifiable "weight" associated with them.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it does allege that "Defendant has 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). It also requests a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is the standard for an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). These allegations may form the basis for a future claim of willfulness based on post-suit conduct.

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

• A central issue will be one of factual sufficiency: can the Plaintiff, in its infringement contentions, articulate a plausible, fact-based theory connecting the specific, complex operations of Instagram’s content recommendation algorithms to the discrete, step-by-step processes recited in the asserted claims?
• The case will likely turn on a question of technological congruence: do Instagram’s modern machine learning systems, which may rely on vector embeddings and neural networks, perform the function of "processing...tags" and "adjusting weights" in a manner consistent with the methods described in the 2014-era patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technical architecture?
• A dispositive battle will likely be fought over claim construction: the court's interpretation of key phrases such as "tags specific to the user" and "adjusting weights" will define the patents' boundaries and will likely determine whether their scope is broad enough to read on the accused technology or is confined to the specific embodiments disclosed.