DCT

6:23-cv-00197

Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Google LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00197, W.D. Tex., 03/17/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Google maintains places of business in Austin and San Antonio.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Photos service infringes two patents related to systems and methods for an electronic multi-media exchange based on crowdsourced content.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns networked computer systems that allow users to submit media, which is then filtered, curated into new multimedia content, distributed to an audience, and rated by users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the asserted claims of both patents-in-suit overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. The patents share an identical specification and an early priority date, predating many modern crowdsourcing and social media platforms.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-05 Earliest Priority Date (’480 & ’665 Patents)
2016-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues
2016-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues
2023-03-17 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, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued November 22, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the logistical challenges faced by media companies in managing a high volume of unsolicited artistic submissions (e.g., scripts, songs) and the lack of a structured, centralized "open exchange" for creative content. (’480 Patent, col. 2:51-65). The complaint characterizes this as the technical problem of how to allow remote contributors to share and collaborate on creating new media content before the advent of modern crowdsourcing platforms. (Compl. ¶11).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer system composed of several distinct, interacting subsystems to manage the lifecycle of user-submitted content. (’480 Patent, Abstract). A "submissions server subsystem" receives and stores media from users; a "multimedia creator server subsystem" selects and retrieves those submissions using filters to develop new content; an "electronic release subsystem" makes that new content available for viewing; and an "electronic voting subsystem" allows an audience to rate the content. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 15, 17, 18). The system architecture, illustrated in Figure 2, relies on a central controller managing specialized databases for submitters, content, and voting. (’480 Patent, FIG. 2).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific, structured computer architecture for managing and monetizing user-generated content in a networked environment. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶22).
    • Essential elements of claim 1 include a computer-based system comprising:
      • An electronic media submissions server subsystem configured to receive and store media submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network.
      • An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem operatively coupled to the submissions subsystem, configured to select and retrieve submissions using an electronic content filter based on user attributes to develop multimedia content.
      • An electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing.
      • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the available multimedia content.
    • The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims later. (Compl. p. 54).

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued October 25, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of creating a structured exchange for user-submitted media content. (Compl. ¶37; ’665 Patent, col. 2:51-65).
    • The Patented Solution: Unlike the system claimed in the ’480 Patent, the ’665 Patent claims an electronic method for generating multimedia content. The method comprises the steps of retrieving media submissions with a filter based on user attributes, generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to publicly accessible webservers, and providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for users to vote on or rate the content. (Compl. ¶38; ’665 Patent, col. 39:24-55).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific, multi-step process for transforming raw user submissions into distributable, rated multimedia content. (Compl. ¶37).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶45).
    • Essential elements of claim 1 include a method comprising the steps of:
      • Electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using an electronic content filter based on user attributes.
      • Electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions in a selected digital format, maintaining submitter identification within the file.
      • Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing over a public network.
      • Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the multimedia content.
    • The prayer for relief is for "one or more claims" of the patent. (Compl. p. 54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Google Photos system, including its associated website and software applications. (Compl. ¶¶22, 45).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes Google Photos as a computer-based system that allows users to upload, process, and store media submissions such as photos and videos. (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The system allegedly uses "web-scale server farms" to store and stream user content. (Compl. ¶23).
    • Relevant functionality includes features for creating shared albums where multiple users can contribute content. (Compl. ¶8). The system is alleged to employ an "electronic content filter," such as facial recognition technology, to select and retrieve user submissions to automatically generate new multimedia content like "Albums," "Slideshows," or "Memories." (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
    • This generated content is then made available for viewing on user devices, and the system provides a graphical interface, such as a "heart" icon, that allegedly enables users to vote for or rate content. (Compl. ¶¶29-30). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the "People & Pets" feature, which uses facial recognition to group photos of individuals, as an example of filtering by user attributes. (Compl. p. 20).

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 over a public network, and store said electronic media submissions... Google Photos’ servers and databases receive and store media uploads (photos, videos) from multiple Google Photos users over the internet. ¶24 col. 7:31-43
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... Google Photos uses filters, such as facial recognition or search queries, to select user photos and automatically create new content like albums, slideshows, or "Memories." ¶27 col. 8:16-25
an electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices. The generated multimedia content (e.g., a shared album) is served from Google's servers and made available for viewing on user devices through the Google Photos website or application. ¶29 col. 4:46-51
an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... The Google Photos interface provides a "heart" icon, which the complaint alleges is a mechanism for users to vote for or rate photos and other multimedia content. ¶30 col. 12:1-7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the integrated software architecture of Google Photos comprises the distinct "subsystems" (submissions, creator, release, voting) required by the claim. The defense may argue that Google Photos is a monolithic service where these functions are not handled by discrete, operatively coupled subsystems as depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., FIG. 2).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the function of the accused "heart" icon is equivalent to the "vote or rate" function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem." The patent links voting and rating to a system of rewards and ranking content, which raises the question of whether a simple "like" button performs the same claimed function. (e.g., '480 Patent, col. 12:5-9). The complaint provides a screenshot of a "heart" icon in a chat-like interface. (Compl. p. 29).

'665 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from an electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter... said filter being based at least in part on... user attributes... Google Photos retrieves user photos from its databases using filters like facial recognition ("People & Pets") or search terms, which are alleged to be based on user attributes. ¶47 col. 25:39-49
electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions in accordance with a selected digital format, wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained... Google Photos generates new multimedia content such as albums and slideshows from the selected photos. The complaint alleges submitter identification is maintained, for example, within shared albums. ¶50 col. 39:41-45
electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices... via a web-browser... Google transmits the generated albums or memories from its distributed servers to be viewable on user devices via the Google Photos website (a web-browser interface) or the corresponding application. ¶51 col. 39:46-50
providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for an electronically available multimedia content... The Google Photos website provides a GUI that includes a "heart" icon, which allegedly enables a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content. A screenshot shows a "Christmas 2019" album in a web browser. ¶52 col. 39:51-55
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A key question will be whether the patent term "electronic content filter," read in light of a 1999 priority date, can be construed to cover modern, complex algorithms like machine-learning-based facial recognition. The defense may argue the patent contemplated simpler filters based on explicit, user-provided metadata.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Google Photos generates a "multimedia file" in a "selected digital format" where submitter identification is "maintained with each retrieved submission within the multimedia file"? The complaint shows a screenshot of a user sharing an album via a link, which may support the allegation of making content available. (Compl. p. 26). However, the technical details of how metadata is stored and associated with individual photos in a generated "memory" or slideshow remain a question for discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "electronic... subsystem" ('480 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in each of the four main limitations of the asserted system claim. The interpretation of whether a "subsystem" requires a degree of structural or architectural separateness, versus merely functional capability, will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because Google is likely to argue its integrated cloud-based service does not map onto the patent's more modular "subsystem" architecture.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines each subsystem primarily by its function (e.g., "configured to receive...," "configured to select..."). This may support an interpretation where any components that collectively perform the recited function meet the "subsystem" limitation, regardless of their integration with other components.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures, particularly Figure 2, depict distinct blocks for different functions (e.g., "Submitter/Member Database," "Points/Voting Database," "Billing Processor," "Payment Processor"), which may suggest that the inventor contemplated more structurally discrete components rather than a single, multi-function software platform. (’480 Patent, FIG. 2).

  • The Term: "electronic content filter... based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes" ('665 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory relies on this term covering Google Photos’ features like facial recognition and search. The scope of "user attributes" is therefore central to whether the accused functionality meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "based at least in part on" is broad. The patent also defines "user attributes" to include "user preferences" and "user memberships," which are general categories. (’665 Patent, col. 40:55-58). This could support covering any data associated with a user, including machine-generated data like facial vectors.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, originating from a 1999 priority date, describes user profiles containing information like "name, address, private key information, e-mail addresses, physical addresses, payment preferences," and "biographies." (’665 Patent, col. 8:58-62). This may support a narrower construction limited to more conventional, explicit user profile data rather than complex, algorithmically derived data like facial recognition patterns.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the ’480 Patent’s claim requirement for four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems" be met by the integrated, function-based software architecture of a modern cloud service like Google Photos, or does the patent require a more modular structure that is absent in the accused system?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of technological evolution: Does the claim term "electronic content filter based at least in part on... user attributes," as understood from a 1999 priority date, properly encompass modern machine-learning-driven features like facial recognition, or is its scope limited to filters based on more conventional, user-provided profile data contemplated at the time of the invention?
  • A central functional question will be whether the accused "heart" icon performs the specific "vote or rate" function of the claimed voting subsystem, which the patent specification links to a broader system of ranking content and distributing rewards, or if it is a simple "like" button with a fundamentally different purpose and technical operation.