DCT
1:25-cv-00197
Visual Creative Artists, LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Key IP Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00197, E.D. Va., 02/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged principal place of business being located in Richmond, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Homes.com" online real estate platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for operating an electronic multi-media exchange based on user-submitted content.
- Technical Context: The patents describe a server-based architecture for collecting, filtering, assembling, and distributing user-generated multimedia content, a concept foundational to modern crowdsourcing and content-driven platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted claims previously overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 during prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This suggests that patent eligibility may be a central issue in the litigation. The patents-in-suit share a specification and claim priority to the same 1999 provisional application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’480 and ’665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Issues |
| 2025-02-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued November 22, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a dual-sided market failure: individuals with creative ideas (for books, screenplays, songs) found it difficult to connect with the appropriate media industry contacts, while media companies were "bombarded with scripts, songs and other artistic submissions" creating a "logistical nightmare" to sort through for fresh content (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-57). The complaint characterizes this as an "Internet-centric problem" requiring a technical solution for remote collaboration (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked "electronic multi-media exchange" to solve this problem. The system comprises multiple server subsystems that allow users to submit content, enable creators to search and filter those submissions based on specified criteria, assemble selected submissions into new multimedia content, and distribute it to an audience. The system also incorporates mechanisms for rating or voting on content. (’480 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-17).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a structured, server-side system for managing and monetizing large volumes of user-generated content, predating the widespread adoption of modern crowdsourcing platforms (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 16 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent requires:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and store electronic media submissions from users.
- 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 developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to vote for or rate the multimedia content or an electronic media 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, titled "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same," issued October 25, 2016 (Compl. ¶35).
- Technology Synopsis: The ’665 patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent but claims a method rather than a system. The claimed method involves the steps of electronically retrieving media submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes, electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions while maintaining submitter identification, and electronically transmitting that file to webservers for public viewing. (Compl. ¶38; ’665 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶46).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that CoStar's process of retrieving real estate listings based on user search criteria, generating web pages displaying those listings, and transmitting those pages for viewing on user devices infringes the method claims of the ’665 Patent (Compl. ¶47-52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The computer-based system operating the website "https://www.homes.com/" ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality is an online real estate platform that enables user-submitters (e.g., real estate agents, homeowners) to create profiles and post electronic submissions in the form of property listings, which include multimedia content like text and photos (Compl. ¶23-24). The system then makes these submissions available for other users (e.g., potential homebuyers) to view. The complaint alleges the system displays this content based on "user attributes" and employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions," leveraging multiple cloud server providers (Compl. ¶23, p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a real estate agent's editable profile page, illustrating the user-submission functionality (Compl. p. 8).
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... having... a submissions electronic interface configured to receive electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters over a public network... | The "Homes.com" system allegedly includes a subsystem with a web-based interface that allows users, such as real estate agents, to create profiles and upload property listings. | ¶24 | col. 5:34-43 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to select and retrieve a plurality of electronic media submissions from the electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter located on the electronic multimedia creator server... | The system allegedly selects and retrieves real estate listings from its database using filters based on user-selected attributes such as price, location, and number of bedrooms/bathrooms. A screenshot shows a search filter bar with these options (Compl. p. 22). | ¶27 | col. 24:51-67 |
| said filter being based at least in part on at least one of the one or more user attributes to develop multimedia content... | The filter allegedly uses attributes selected by the viewing user (e.g., desired price range, bed/bath count) to develop the multimedia content (the resulting webpage of listings) for viewing. | ¶27 | col. 24:51-67 |
| an electronic release subsystem operatively coupled to the electronic multimedia creator server subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one of more user devices. | The system allegedly serves the filtered real estate listings and associated content to users' devices, such as computers and smartphones, for viewing via web browsers or apps. | ¶29 | col. 4:41-46 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content or an electronic media submission... | The system allegedly enables users to "endorse or post a review for... real estate agent profiles" or to rate a listing by selecting a "Heart/Favorite button." Screenshots show agent profiles with "Endorsements" and property listings with a heart icon (Compl. p. 32, p. 31). | ¶30 | col. 12:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patent’s claims to a general "multi-media exchange" for creative works like screenplays and music can be construed to cover a specialized commercial application like an online real estate listing service. The defense may argue that the Accused Instrumentality is outside the patented field of invention.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of four distinct, "operatively coupled" subsystems (Compl. p. 8). A key evidentiary question will be whether the "Homes.com" architecture actually maps onto this claimed structure, or if its functions are performed by a more integrated system. Further, it raises the question of whether a "Heart/Favorite button" (Compl. p. 31) or an agent "endorsement" system (Compl. p. 32) performs the specific function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem," which the patent describes in the context of ranking content to determine monetary awards.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsystem"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent recites four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. A narrow construction requiring physically separate servers or distinct, non-integrated software modules could present a higher burden of proof for the Plaintiff than a broader construction allowing for logically or functionally distinct components within a more unified software architecture.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a "central controller" that houses numerous databases and processors performing different functions (e.g.,
’480 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an interpretation that a "subsystem" is a functional grouping rather than a physically separate hardware component. - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself alleges CoStar employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. p. 8), potentially framing the dispute around a narrower view. The patent's description of a distributed architecture with multiple controllers (e.g.,
’480 Patent, Fig. 3) could also be cited to support an interpretation requiring more than just logical separation.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a "central controller" that houses numerous databases and processors performing different functions (e.g.,
The Term: "electronic vote for or electronically rate"
Context and Importance: The mapping of the accused "Heart/Favorite button" and agent "endorsements" to the "electronic voting subsystem" will depend heavily on the construction of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused features are common in modern web applications, and their inclusion within this claim term's scope would be significant.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is broad, suggesting that any user action indicating a preference could constitute a "vote" or "rating."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the voting/rating process in a more structured context, where an audience rates content "on a scale from 1 to 10" to determine which submitters receive "rewards in the form of credit payment, cash or other rewards" (’480 Patent, col. 12:1-9). This could support a narrower construction that requires a more formal ranking or evaluation system than a simple binary "like" or "favorite" function.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of patent eligibility and scope: Can the patent claims, which were drafted to cover a general-purpose "multi-media exchange" for creative works and reportedly overcame a §101 rejection, be validly and broadly applied to a modern, specialized vertical market platform for real estate listings? The complaint's proactive defense of the claims' eligibility signals this will be a central legal battle.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural and functional correspondence: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the "Homes.com" platform is built upon the specific four-part "subsystem" architecture required by Claim 1, and do common web features like a "favorite" button or professional "endorsements" perform the specific function of the claimed "electronic voting subsystem," which the patent specification links to a formal content ranking and award process?