DCT
2:25-cv-00066
Visual Creative Artists LLC v. CoStar Realty Information Inc
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: 2:25-cv-00066, E.D. Va., 03/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a place of business in Richmond, Virginia, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Homes.com online real estate platform infringes patents related to computer systems and methods for creating, distributing, and receiving feedback on multimedia content generated from user submissions.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to the architecture of online platforms that aggregate, filter, and distribute user-generated multimedia content, a technological field foundational to modern crowdsourcing and social media systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the claims of the ’480 Patent overcame a patent eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution, with the applicant successfully arguing that the claimed combination of specifically configured subsystems constituted a technical solution to an "Internet-centric problem."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date Claimed (’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 |
| 2020-04-29 | Date of earliest-cited YouTube video showing Accused Instrumentality |
| 2025-03-20 | 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," issued November 22, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, the patent describes an "Internet-centric problem" requiring a technical solution: how to create a computer system that allows remote users to contribute, collaborate on, and receive feedback for electronic content used to develop new media content (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a specific, distributed computer architecture to solve this problem. It is a system composed of four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems": one for receiving media submissions, one for creating new multimedia content from those submissions using a filter, one for releasing the content to users, and one for voting on the content (Compl. ¶¶12, 33; ’480 Patent, col. 5:8-12). This arrangement is described as yielding a "more dynamic and flexible system, less prone to catastrophic hardware failures" than a monolithic system (’480 Patent, col. 10:10-12).
- Technical Importance: The claimed distributed hardware and software structure is presented as a technological improvement over prior art internet exchanges that typically maintained all software on a single processor (Compl. ¶40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶50).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with a submissions database and interface for receiving submissions 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, and which maintains the submitter's identification with the content.
- An electronic release subsystem, operatively coupled to the creator subsystem, configured to make the multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable a user to electronically vote for or rate the multimedia content or a submission within it.
- The complaint also asserts infringement of claim 16 (Compl. ¶50).
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 patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’480 Patent: developing a computer system for remote collaboration and feedback on user-submitted media content (Compl. ¶¶66, 75).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a specific, ordered electronic process for generating and distributing media. The method involves four main steps: electronically retrieving submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes; generating a new multimedia file from these submissions in a selected format while maintaining the submitter's ID; transmitting this file to publicly accessible webservers; and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (Compl. ¶67; ’665 Patent, col. 39:26-56).
- Technical Importance: This claimed method is described as a technological improvement that solves media format incompatibility issues and creates a simpler environment for tracking user feedback by maintaining submitter identification throughout the process (Compl. ¶¶86-87).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶97).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- 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, wherein the submitter's identification is maintained.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices via a web browser.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content or a submission within it.
- The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 3 and 16 (Compl. ¶97).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the computer-based system operating the website https://www.homes.com/ (“Homes.com”) (Compl. ¶50).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Homes.com platform enables user-submitters, such as real estate agents, to create profiles and post electronic submissions in the form of real estate listings containing multimedia content like text and images (Compl. ¶51). A screenshot from the complaint shows a real estate agent profile page, an example of user-submitted multimedia content (Compl. p. 19). The platform then displays these listings and profiles to other users, with the complaint alleging that the content shown is based on user attributes (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges that CoStar’s system employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions," utilizing multiple cloud server providers for services such as content management, web hosting, and data centers (Compl. ¶51).
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 the electronic media submissions... | CoStar’s system allegedly includes a subsystem that enables users (e.g., real estate agents) to create profiles and submit real estate listings with multimedia content via a web-based portal over the internet. | ¶52 | col. 40:4-16 |
| an electronic multimedia creator server subsystem operatively coupled to the electronic media submissions 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... | CoStar’s system allegedly employs a subsystem that selects and retrieves real estate listings from its database using a filter. A screenshot shows filter criteria such as Price, Beds, and Baths, which are alleged to be the claimed "user attributes" (Compl. p. 29). | ¶55 | col. 40:17-31 |
| ...wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained with each selected and retrieved submission within the multimedia content... | The listings allegedly maintain the identification of the submitter, such as the agent's name. A provided screenshot shows agent directories where names are displayed with their listings (Compl. p. 33). | ¶56 | col. 40:28-31 |
| 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 or more user devices... | CoStar’s system allegedly uses a release subsystem to serve real estate listings with associated photo and textual content to users for viewing on devices like computers and smartphones. | ¶57 | col. 40:32-37 |
| an electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | CoStar’s system allegedly includes a voting subsystem in the form of a "Heart/Favorite button" for real estate listings and features for users to endorse or post reviews for agent profiles. | ¶58 | col. 40:38-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the distributed, cloud-based infrastructure of Homes.com, as described by the complaint, maps onto the patent's specific four-part "subsystem" architecture. The complaint alleges these subsystems exist as "function-specific" and "separate" server systems (Compl. ¶51), which may become a focal point of claim construction and factual dispute.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether a "Heart/Favorite button" and agent review/endorsement features fall within the scope of an "electronic voting subsystem."
’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... using an electronic content filter located on one or more data processing apparatus, said filter being based at least in part on... user attributes... | The Homes.com system allegedly retrieves real estate listings from its database using a filter based on user-selected attributes such as price, location, bed/bath count, and amenities. | ¶99 | col. 39:27-36 |
| 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... | The system allegedly generates multimedia files (e.g., web pages displaying listings) in a digital format compatible with the end-user's device, while maintaining the submitter's identification (e.g., the agent's name) within the generated content. | ¶102 | col. 39:37-41 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices over a public network via a web-browser... | CoStar allegedly uses servers to transmit the generated listings to end-users for viewing on their devices (computers, smartphones) via web browsers. | ¶103 | col. 39:42-47 |
| ...providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating... | The Homes.com platform allegedly provides a GUI with a "Heart/Favorite button" for listings and an "endorsement" feature for agent profiles, which the complaint asserts enables users to transmit votes or ratings. A screenshot shows agent profiles with "Endorsements" (Compl. p. 43). | ¶104 | col. 39:48-56 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key technical question may be whether displaying a web page with database-driven content constitutes "electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" as required by the claim, or if this describes standard, non-infringing web server functionality.
- Functional Questions: As with the ’480 Patent, the dispute may center on whether the platform's "Favorite" and "Endorsement" functions meet the claim limitation of a GUI that enables a user to "transmit data indicating a vote or rating."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "an electronic ... server subsystem" (as used in Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent for the submissions, creator, release, and voting subsystems)
Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’480 Patent hinges on whether CoStar's architecture can be characterized as comprising these four distinct, operatively coupled subsystems. The definition of a "subsystem"—whether it requires distinct hardware or can be a logical software module—will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges CoStar uses "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶51), directly tying its infringement theory to a specific architectural interpretation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the subsystems to be "operatively coupled," which could be argued to encompass software modules communicating over a network, not just physically distinct servers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes the distributed arrangement as yielding a system "less prone to catastrophic hardware failures affecting the entire system" (’480 Patent, col. 10:10-12). This language suggests that the subsystems are physically or logically separate to an extent that the failure of one does not cause the failure of others, potentially supporting a narrower construction requiring more than mere software modularity.
The Term: "electronically generating a multimedia file" (as used in Claim 1 of the ’665 Patent)
Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is central to whether the routine operation of the Homes.com web server constitutes infringement. If "generating a multimedia file" is construed to mean more than dynamically assembling a web page from database content, the infringement argument could be challenged.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires generating a file "in accordance with a selected digital format," which could be interpreted broadly to mean any format suitable for the user's web browser.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses transforming submissions into a "new format" to solve incompatibility issues between submission and output formats (Compl. ¶¶85-86). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a distinct transformation or file creation step, rather than simply displaying existing data.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement for both the ’480 Patent and the ’665 Patent (Compl. ¶¶50, 97). The complaint does not contain explicit counts or factual allegations supporting indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely present three central questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does CoStar’s modern, cloud-based platform embody the specific, four-part "subsystem" hardware and software architecture required by Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed structure and the accused implementation?
- A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims’ requirements for an "electronic voting subsystem" (’480 Patent) and a GUI for transmitting a "vote or rating" (’665 Patent) be construed to cover the "Favorite" buttons and agent endorsement features of the accused platform, or are these generic web functionalities outside the patented invention?
- Finally, a threshold question of patent eligibility may arise: Despite the patents having survived § 101 scrutiny during prosecution, the case may test whether the claims, as applied to a modern web platform, are directed to the abstract idea of crowdsourcing content without a sufficient inventive concept rooted in a specific technological improvement.