DCT
6:23-cv-00114
Ask Sydney LLC v. Snap LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ask Sydney, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Snap LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00114, W.D. Tex., 02/13/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing an office in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat application infringes two patents related to iterative, feedback-based systems for presenting content to a user.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to recommendation algorithms that refine content suggestions in real-time based on a user’s continuous "like" or "dislike" feedback, a key feature in modern social media and e-commerce platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 is a continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786. The '705 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the earlier '786 patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-15 | Earliest Priority Date for '786 and '705 Patents |
| 2016-04-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,323,786 Issues |
| 2019-11-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 Issues |
| 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" (issued April 26, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that recommendation systems based on a user's long-term history are often too general to identify a user's specific, momentary interest or "craving" (e.g., for a particular type of food) ('786 Patent, col. 1:33-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an iterative, guided search process. A system presents the user with an image representing a "physical object" (like a food dish) that is associated with descriptive tags. The user provides feedback (e.g., like/dislike), and the system processes this preference against the image’s tags to determine a new set of tags, which is then used to select the next image to display. This sequence of feedback and presentation is designed to progressively narrow the search and converge on the user's specific "current interest" ('786 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2A).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to solve the "cold start" problem for momentary user intent, where historical data is insufficient, by creating a real-time, interactive discovery process ('786 Patent, col. 1:52-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Claim 1 essential elements include:
- A method that determines a plurality of tags specific to a user based on the user's profile.
- Transmitting a single electronic image representing a "physical object" and associated with a set of those tags.
- Receiving a user input indicating a preference for the physical object.
- Processing the plurality of tags based on the preference to determine a "next set of tags."
- Determining a "next electronic image" associated with that "next set of tags."
- Repeating the process to generate a sequence of images.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶18).
U.S. Patent No. 10,474,705 - "Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback" (issued November 12, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the '705 patent addresses the inability of existing applications to help a user define a current, granular interest that cannot be predicted from history alone ('705 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The '705 patent also describes an iterative image search method driven by user feedback. The claims focus on the concept of "adjusting weights" of tags in response to user input. For example, a "dislike" input for an image causes the system to adjust the weights of the associated tags, leading to the selection of a subsequent image with a different set of associated tags ('705 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This process is designed to "iteratively resolve toward at least one digital image... which satisfies a subjective need of the user" ('705 Patent, Claim 9).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a mechanism for a system to learn a user's immediate preferences within a single session by dynamically re-weighting attributes associated with content ('705 Patent, col. 14:10-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Claim 1 essential elements include:
- A method for determining and presenting a plurality of digital images, each associated with tags.
- Receiving an "unfavorable indication" (a dislike) from the user for one image.
- Analyzing the associated tags to determine a next set of tags.
- "Adjusting weights" of at least some tags based on their association with the subsequent image.
- Replacing the disliked image with a subsequent digital image.
- Receiving further user input on the subsequent image.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Snapchat, is multimedia instant messaging app and service" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint provides minimal technical detail about the accused product, identifying it broadly as a multimedia messaging application (Compl. ¶16). The infringement allegations imply that the accused functionality involves features that present sequences of content to users and allow them to interact with that content, thereby generating feedback that influences subsequent content presentation. The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the product's commercial importance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits C and D) which were not attached to the publicly filed document; they are intended to detail the infringement of claim 1 of each patent ('786 Patent, '705 Patent) (Compl. ¶¶23, 30). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The following tables summarize the apparent infringement theory based on the asserted claims and the general identification of the accused product.
'786 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...transmitting... one electronic image... representing a physical object... | The complaint alleges that the Snapchat application transmits images or videos to a user's device that represent objects, events, or scenes. | ¶18 | col. 27:32-38 |
| ...receiving, from the electronic device, an input from the user indicating a preference for the physical object... | The complaint alleges that the Snapchat application receives user inputs, such as taps or swipes, that indicate a user's preference for the presented content. | ¶18 | col. 27:42-45 |
| ...processing, by the one or more computer devices, the plurality of tags specific to the user based on the preference... to determine a next set of tags... | The complaint alleges that Snapchat's servers process user preference data to determine the attributes of the next piece of content to show the user. | ¶18 | col. 27:46-51 |
| ...generating a sequence of electronic images... by repeating the transmitting, the causing, the receiving of the input, the processing, and the determining... | The complaint alleges that Snapchat continuously presents content to the user in a sequence, where each new piece of content is influenced by the user's interaction with the prior content. | ¶18 | col. 28:59-67 |
'705 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...receiving, via a user input device, an unfavorable indication of a disinclination for the image features... | The complaint alleges that the Snapchat application receives user inputs, such as a swipe-away gesture, that indicate a dislike for presented content. | ¶25 | col. 27:28-34 |
| ...analyzing at least some of the tags to determine a next set of tags associated with a subsequent digital image; | The complaint alleges that Snapchat's systems analyze attributes of disliked content to determine a different set of attributes for subsequent content. | ¶25 | col. 27:35-37 |
| ...adjusting weights of at least some of the tags based on an association relative to tags within the same category of tags to which the subsequent digital image belongs; | The complaint alleges that Snapchat's content recommendation algorithm adjusts the prominence or likelihood of certain content attributes based on user feedback. | ¶25 | col. 27:38-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the '786 patent is whether the term "physical object", which is exemplified in the patent with tangible items like food dishes and restaurants, can be construed to read on the potentially ephemeral, user-generated digital content common in the Snapchat application ('786 Patent, col. 9:4-13).
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which features of Snapchat perform the claimed steps. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that Snapchat's content algorithm performs the specific function of "adjusting weights" of descriptive "tags" as required by the '705 patent, or if it operates on a fundamentally different technical principle.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "physical object" ('786 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the '786 patent hinges on this term. If construed narrowly to mean only tangible, purchasable goods as exemplified in the specification, infringement may be difficult to prove. If construed broadly to include the subjects depicted in any digital image, the scope is significantly wider.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the term to a specific type of object, and the specification lists broad categories like "consumer goods" and "physical locations" ('786 Patent, col. 9:6-9).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed description are heavily focused on the embodiment of discovering a "food craving" and finding restaurants, which may suggest a more limited scope tied to tangible, commercially available items ('786 Patent, col. 1:44-51; col. 2:2-3).
Term: "adjusting weights" ('705 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method of the '705 patent. The case may turn on whether Snapchat's algorithm performs a function that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes the core mechanism of learning from user feedback.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific mathematical formula for "adjusting weights," potentially allowing the term to cover various algorithmic methods for increasing or decreasing the probability of showing content with certain attributes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process as adding or removing tags from a set to build a new set for the next image (e.g., Fig. 3). A defendant may argue this implies a discrete manipulation of tag sets, rather than a more abstract numerical weighting used in modern machine learning models ('705 Patent, col. 15:36-42; col. 21:19-34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead facts to support a claim for indirect infringement (e.g., inducement or contributory infringement). The infringement counts are limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶¶18, 25).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff 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 appear to be based on notice from the filing of the lawsuit itself, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
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 patent's examples of tangible food dishes, be construed to cover the type of digital multimedia content presented within the Snapchat application?
- A second central question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that Snapchat's content recommendation algorithm performs the specific functions of "processing... a plurality of tags" to create a "next set of tags" ('786 patent) and "adjusting weights" of those tags ('705 patent) in the manner claimed?