DCT
6:23-cv-00213
Match Group LLC v. Muzz Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Match Group, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Muzz Limited (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00213, W.D. Tex., 03/23/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation not subject to the U.S. patent venue statute and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Muzz mobile dating application infringes a patent related to a mutual opt-in, card-based user interface for matching users.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the user interface and back-end process for online dating, specifically the "swipe-to-match" system that requires mutual consent before enabling communication between users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,513,666, issued after overcoming a Section 101 rejection and in view of prior art cited in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving related patents. The complaint also references prior litigation between the parties involving these related patents, alleging Defendant was aware of the patent family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-12-19 | ’666 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-01-01 | Muzz launched as web-based service (approx.) |
| 2012-09-01 | Tinder service first released for iPhone (approx.) |
| 2015-01-07 | Muzz Limited incorporated (approx.) |
| 2022-11-29 | ’666 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,513,666 - "Matching Process System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,513,666, issued November 29, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies issues with prior online matching systems, including users being inundated with unwanted messages and the resulting deterioration of the user pool when desirable users leave the platform due to this "nuisance." (’666 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem with a method of mutual, anonymous approval. A system presents a first user with a series of potential matches one at a time, often visualized as a stack of cards (’666 Patent, Fig. 6-8). The user indicates a positive or negative preference for a second user, but this preference is not revealed unless the second user independently indicates a positive preference for the first user. Communication is only enabled after a mutual match is confirmed, thereby gating interaction and preventing unwanted messages (’666 Patent, Fig. 10; col. 21:56-col. 22:4).
- Technical Importance: This mutual opt-in process, combined with a gestural card-based interface, created a more efficient and less intrusive user experience for online dating, which the complaint alleges "revolutionized the world of online dating" (Compl. ¶50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (computer-readable medium), 8 (system), 15 (method), and 22 (system), with claim 1 cited as representative (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Electronically receiving a plurality of online-dating profiles.
- Receiving a matching request from a first user.
- Causing the display of a potential match as a "first card of a stack of cards" where only that one potential match is displayed.
- Receiving a "first positive preference indication" from the first user via a gesture (dragging or tapping), where this preference is kept "anonymous" until a mutual interest is determined.
- In response to the positive preference, automatically displaying a second potential match as a "second card of the stack of cards."
- Receiving a positive preference indication from the second user regarding the first user.
- Allowing the first and second user to send messages to each other only in response to receiving positive preferences from both.
- A detailed sequence of receiving negative and positive preferences for third, fourth, and fifth potential matches, and managing communication permissions accordingly.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Muzz App," an online dating application for iOS and Android users, formerly known as Muzmatch (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Muzz App is alleged to utilize a "card-stack interface and a mutual opt-in premise before users communicate" (Compl. ¶11). Users are shown profiles of potential matches on "cards" and use gestures, such as tapping a heart or an "X," to indicate interest or disinterest (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16).
- The complaint alleges a core functional aspect is that two users are prevented from communicating until both have indicated a positive interest in one another, at which point a screen is displayed indicating a connection has been made (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
- The complaint provides a side-by-side screenshot comparing the Tinder and Muzz user interfaces to support its allegation that the Muzz app is "virtually identical to Tinder in its functionality" (Compl. p. 5).
- Plaintiff positions the Muzz App as a direct competitor that mimics Tinder's core functionality while targeting a specific demographic ("Muslim-cultural-specific marketing strategy") (Compl. ¶2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’666 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| electronically receive a plurality of user online-dating profiles, each profile comprising traits of a respective user | Muzz's servers receive user profiles with user traits when a new user signs up for the Muzz App. | ¶25 | col. 25:10-12 |
| cause the display of a graphical representation of a first potential match... displayed as a first card of a stack of cards such that... only the graphical representation of the first potential match is displayed | The Muzz App displays potential matches to a user as a series of individual profile cards on the graphical user interface. | ¶31 | col. 25:18-24 |
| receive from the electronic device of the first user a first positive preference indication... wherein the first user's positive preference for the second user is anonymous | A Muzz user indicates a positive preference by tapping a gesture-based icon, and this preference is not communicated to the other user unless that user also indicates a positive preference. | ¶32 | col. 25:25-43 |
| in response to the first positive preference indication... automatically cause the graphical user interface to display a graphical representation of a second potential match... displayed as a second card of the stack of cards | After a Muzz user indicates a preference for one profile, the Muzz App automatically presents the next potential match in the series. | ¶33 | col. 25:44-51 |
| in response to receiving from the electronic device of the first user the first positive preference indication... and receiving from the electronic device of the second user the positive preference indication... allow the first user and the second user to send messages to each other | When two Muzz users mutually indicate positive preference, Muzz displays a "You matched!" screen and enables the chat function between them. This functionality is depicted in a screenshot showing the "You matched!" screen. | ¶35, p. 14 | col. 25:55-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a highly specific sequence of events involving not just a pair of users, but subsequent interactions with a third, fourth, and fifth user based on negative and positive preferences. A central question will be whether infringement requires proof that the Muzz app performs this entire, complex sequence, or if the court will find infringement based on the core mutual-matching functionality between two users. The specificity of the claim language may create a high bar for proving literal infringement of the full claim.
- Technical Questions: Does the Muzz App's presentation of sequential profiles meet the claim limitation of being "displayed as a first card of a stack of cards"? The defense could argue this requires a specific UI metaphor with visual depth and layering, while the plaintiff will likely argue it covers any sequential, one-at-a-time card-like presentation, as shown in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. p. 5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stack of cards"
Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the claimed user interface. The infringement analysis depends on whether the Muzz App's UI falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a broad category of swipe-based UIs are covered or only a specific visual implementation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "set of suggested users may be displayed as stack of cards 88," which could be interpreted as a general descriptor for a sequential presentation rather than a strict technical requirement for visual layering (’666 Patent, col. 21:32-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figures 6-8, depict a distinct visual of one card overlapping the next, suggesting a physical stack metaphor. A defendant may argue the term should be limited to UIs that embody this specific visual characteristic, where unseen cards are implied to be physically underneath the visible one.
The Term: "anonymous"
Context and Importance: The anonymity of a user's initial positive preference is a cornerstone of the patent's solution to prevent unwanted messages. The dispute will center on whether the Muzz system's operation satisfies the claim's specific requirements for anonymity.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim states the preference is anonymous "such that the second user is not made aware that the first user expressed the positive preference... until after a determination that the... users are mutually interested" (’666 Patent, col. 25:35-39). Plaintiff will likely argue this is met as long as no direct notification of the unilateral "like" is sent to the second user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim further specifies that the preference "is not communicated to the second user before the second user indicates a positive preference" (’666 Patent, col. 25:40-43). A defendant could argue that if the Muzz algorithm uses a unilateral "like" to alter the order in which profiles are shown to the second user, this constitutes a form of "communication" that violates the anonymity limitation, even if no explicit notification is sent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on Muzz allegedly providing the app and instructional materials with the specific intent for users to perform the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43). Contributory infringement is based on the Muzz App allegedly being a software component especially made for infringement with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Muzz was aware of the patent family due to prior litigation involving related patents and was aware of the pending application that led to the ’666 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 47). This prior knowledge, followed by continued operation of the Muzz App, is alleged to constitute willful and deliberate infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of claim element satisfaction: Can Match Group prove that the ordinary use of the Muzz app meets every limitation of the highly detailed sequence recited in the asserted claims, including the specific steps involving negative preferences and third, fourth, and fifth users, or will the analysis focus on a potentially narrower interpretation of the claim's core functionality?
- The case will likely involve a critical issue of definitional scope: Will the term "stack of cards" be construed broadly to encompass any sequential, gestural interface for reviewing profiles, as Match Group's allegations suggest, or will it be limited to the specific visual metaphor of layered cards depicted in the patent's figures?
- A central legal question will be the impact of extensive litigation history: Given the complaint’s allegations that Muzz was aware of the patent family from prior lawsuits and that the ’666 patent issued after overcoming challenges to related patents, a court will have to determine how this history affects the tenability of any invalidity defense and the strength of the willfulness claim.