Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Move Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Move, Inc. (Place of business in Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00004, W.D. Tex., 01/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Move, Inc. having an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Realtor.com online platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for managing, filtering, and displaying user-submitted multimedia content.
• Technical Context: The patents describe a networked system for crowdsourcing media content, involving distinct subsystems for submission, creation, release, and user voting, conceptualized prior to the widespread adoption of modern user-generated content platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that arguments regarding the specific, unconventional, and well-defined nature of the claimed subsystems were used to overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during the prosecution of both asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480, issued November 22, 2016.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, there was a technical challenge in developing a computer system that could allow numerous remote contributors to submit, share, and collaborate on electronic media to create new content for distribution (Compl. ¶11). The patent background highlights the logistical difficulties for both media companies in sorting submissions and for artists in reaching the right contacts (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked computer system structured as a multi-media exchange. It comprises a set of distinct, operatively coupled server "subsystems" with corresponding databases: one for receiving electronic media submissions, one for creating new multimedia content by filtering those submissions, one for releasing the content to an audience, and one for allowing users to vote on or rate the content (’480 Patent, Abstract; ’480 Patent, col. 3:20-46).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed architecture provided a structured, scalable framework for managing what is now commonly known as user-generated or crowdsourced content, predating many modern platforms (Compl. ¶11).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9, 11, and 16 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a computer-based system comprising four essential elements:
    • An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and a database to store submissions.
    • 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.
    • An electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the multimedia content available for viewing.
    • An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content or a submission.

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665, issued October 25, 2016.
• The Invention Explained:
  • The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and is directed to the same underlying technology (Compl. ¶40). The core technical problem, patented solution, and historical context are the same as described for the ’480 Patent. The primary distinction lies in the claims, with the ’665 Patent claiming a method of operation rather than a system.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 16 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires an electronic method comprising four essential steps:
    • 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 while maintaining submitter identification.
    • Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to webservers to be available 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 content.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The Accused Instrumentality is Defendant Move, Inc.’s computer-based system that operates the Realtor.com website and associated mobile applications (Compl. ¶22).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The Realtor.com system enables users, such as real estate agents, to create profiles and submit electronic media in the form of real estate listings, which include photos and textual content (Compl. ¶23).
  • The system makes this user-submitted content available to other users, who can search for and view listings. The display of listings is governed by an electronic filter that selects content based on user-specified attributes such as price, location, property type, and number of bedrooms (Compl. ¶27).
  • The complaint alleges that the Realtor.com system is built upon function-specific subsystems and utilizes multiple cloud server providers to manage its different functions, such as content management, web hosting, and data centers (Compl. ¶¶23, 34). One screenshot provided in the complaint shows a dashboard interface for agents to upload listing photos, described as a submissions electronic interface (Compl. at 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’480 Patent Infringement Allegations

A screenshot of the Realtor.com search interface shows filter options for property type, which is alleged to correspond to the electronic content filter (Compl. at 18).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "electronic voting subsystem", described in the patent in the context of ranking content for contests and rewards (’480 Patent, col. 12:4-15), can be construed to read on the general-purpose "favorite" or "like" function (the "Heart" button) alleged in the complaint.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on Realtor.com being architected as four distinct, "operatively coupled" subsystems. It will be a key factual dispute whether the accused platform, likely a modern integrated or microservices-based architecture, meets this structural requirement from a patent with a 1999 priority date.

’665 Patent Infringement Allegations

A screenshot of a Realtor.com listing on a map includes a heart icon, alleged to be part of the GUI for voting (Compl. at 26). Another screenshot shows a user selecting "Single Family Home" as a categorical filter for a search (Compl. at 27).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Similar to the ’480 Patent, a dispute is likely to arise over the meaning of "transmitting data indicating a vote or rating." The question will be whether clicking a "favorite" button constitutes the act of voting or rating in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes a system for determining the "highest rated" content for rewards (’665 Patent, col. 12:4-15).
  • Technical Questions: While this is a method claim, the question of how the accused system technically performs these steps will be critical. The analysis will focus on whether the user's click of a "Heart" button functionally constitutes the transmission of "data indicating a vote or rating" as required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electronic voting subsystem" (’480 Patent, Claim 1) and "providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating" (’665 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: These related terms are central to the infringement allegations for both patents. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether a generic "favorite" or "like" feature, common on modern websites, falls within the scope of these terms. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification repeatedly frames voting and rating in a specific context of contests and determining winners for rewards.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is facially broad, simply requiring a subsystem "configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate" content (’480 Patent, col. 40:53-56). This language does not explicitly require a contest or reward.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the preferred embodiment explains that the audience has the opportunity to "vote for and rank the released content" and that the "highest rated concept submitters receive rewards" (’480 Patent, col. 12:4-9). This specific implementation could be used to argue that the term should be limited to a system designed for ranking content for a competitive purpose.

• The Term: "subsystem" (used throughout ’480 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent requires four distinct, operatively coupled subsystems. The defendant may argue that its modern, integrated web architecture does not map onto this claimed structure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "subsystem," potentially allowing for a functional interpretation where any distinct software module performing a claimed function qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s block diagrams depict discrete components like "Billing Processor" and "Payment Processor" (e.g., ’480 Patent, Fig. 2). This may support an argument that the claims require more formal architectural separation than is present in the accused system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus exclusively on direct infringement by the Defendant (Compl. ¶22, ¶48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the concepts of an "electronic voting subsystem" and a GUI for transmitting "data indicating a vote or rating," which the shared patent specification describes in the context of contests and rewards, be construed to cover the general-purpose "favorite" or "like" functionality of the accused Realtor.com platform?

2. A key factual question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused Realtor.com system, a modern web platform, operate using the four distinct, "operatively coupled" server "subsystems" required by the ’480 patent's system claim, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused product's actual design?

3. A persistent underlying issue may be one of patent eligibility: given that the complaint highlights that the patents overcame § 101 rejections during prosecution, the court may closely scrutinize whether the claims, despite reciting multiple computer components and subsystems, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter or are merely an abstract idea of crowdsourcing implemented with generic technology.