DCT

2:24-cv-01316

Weple IP Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01316, W.D. Wash., 10/31/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Meta has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains business offices and facilities there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, infringe six patents related to mobile-based streaming media, timed content delivery, and user interaction functionalities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves core features of modern social media applications, such as the integration of live and recorded video, the management of ephemeral content like "Stories," and the distribution of content across multiple feeds and applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant notice letters with infringement claim charts for the ’730 and ’952 patents in February and May 2024, respectively. After filing an initial complaint in August 2024, Plaintiff allegedly sent further notice letters for the four most recently issued patents in October 2024. Plaintiff claims Defendant did not respond to its pre-suit communications, a fact which may be material to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-02-12 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2023-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,734,730 Issued
2024-02-08 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding the ’730 patent
2024-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 11,966,952 Issued
2024-05-03 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding the ’952 patent
2024-08-22 Plaintiff files initial complaint against Defendant
2024-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,112,357 Issued
2024-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,118,591 Issued
2024-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 12,131,356 Issued
2024-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 12,131,357 Issued
2024-10-29 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding four newly issued patents
2024-10-31 Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,734,730 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued August 22, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where video messaging on social media was limited, often requiring separate desktop applications for creating and viewing content, and failing to integrate live streaming with recorded video messaging within a single, seamless mobile user experience (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for coordinating video messages within a mobile application that handles both creation and viewing (Compl. ¶21; ’730 Patent, col. 7:46-49). The system receives and stores video messages that include simultaneously presented text and audio, provides comment functionality, and integrates notifications for live streams, allowing a user to switch from viewing recorded messages to a live stream within the same application (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This integration of live and recorded video with interactive features in a single mobile application addressed a key limitation in prior systems, aiming to enhance user engagement on mobile-first platforms (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Providing mobile applications for both viewing and creating video messages.
    • Receiving and storing a plurality of video messages that include text and audio for simultaneous presentation.
    • Sending the video messages to a first mobile application, which presents them with a comment prompt.
    • Receiving a notification that a second mobile application has started a live stream.
    • Streaming the live stream to the first mobile application upon request.

U.S. Patent No. 11,966,952 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued April 23, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior social media platforms allegedly offered users limited control over the timing and distribution of their content in mobile application feeds, lacking the ability to schedule content based on specific airtimes and expiration dates (Compl. ¶23).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server-based method for managing media messages by associating them with a "scheduled airtime" and "expiration information" (’952 Patent, col. 7:51-58). The server selects subsets of these time-limited messages for inclusion in different feeds, which are then provided to different mobile applications, thereby affording content creators strategic control over message delivery (Compl. ¶24; ’952 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This system of dynamic curation based on time parameters enables more effective content management and targeted promotional campaigns by aligning content availability with optimal audience engagement windows (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges inducement of claim 8 (Compl. ¶¶54, 57).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving and storing media messages associated with scheduled airtime and expiration information.
    • Selecting a first subset of messages for a first feed based on this time information.
    • Providing the first feed to a first mobile application, which presents the content with an advertisement prompt.
    • Selecting a second subset of messages for a second feed, which differs from the first.
    • Providing the second feed to a second mobile application.

U.S. Patent No. 12,112,357 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued October 8, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,112,357, Mobile Device Streaming Media Application, issued October 8, 2024 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses managing time-limited media messages across multiple, switchable feeds within a single mobile application. The system is described as enhancing user interaction by displaying messages with a share prompt that generates a shareable link (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets features in Meta's applications that allow users to switch between different content feeds and share time-limited content like Stories or Reels (Compl. ¶¶26, 70-71).

U.S. Patent No. 12,118,591 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued October 15, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,118,591, Mobile Device Streaming Media Application, issued October 15, 2024 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers systems and methods for distributing "expiration-bound media messages across multiple feeds within the same application," which is alleged to broaden audience exposure (Compl. ¶¶24, 12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The allegations point to the distribution of ephemeral content, such as Stories, across various presentation contexts within a single app, like a user's profile page and the main discovery feed (Compl. ¶¶87-88).

U.S. Patent No. 12,131,356 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued October 29, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,131,356, Mobile Device Streaming Media Application, issued October 29, 2024 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology described in this patent extends the multi-feed concept to a "broader mobile application ecosystem." It discloses platform configurations where media messages with expiration limits appear in at least two switchable feeds within a single application and also in a third feed on a different mobile application (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶104).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations likely target cross-platform sharing features, such as posting a single Story or Reel simultaneously to both Facebook and Instagram (Compl. ¶¶103-104).

U.S. Patent No. 12,131,357 - Mobile Device Streaming Media Application

Issued October 29, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,131,357, Mobile Device Streaming Media Application, issued October 29, 2024 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses methods for enhancing user interaction by displaying media messages in mobile feeds with prompts for sharing, bookmarking, and commenting. It also describes distributing these interactive messages across switchable feeds (Compl. ¶27).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target the fundamental user interaction buttons (e.g., Share, Save/Bookmark, Comment) associated with content presented within Meta's various mobile application feeds (Compl. ¶¶119-120).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. This encompasses the server infrastructure and associated software, as well as the related mobile applications such as the Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Meta Ads Manager, and Meta Business Suite mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶31, 41, 53).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused platforms provide an integrated environment for users to create, share, and consume media content (Compl. ¶¶3-6). Specific accused functionalities include the seamless integration of recorded video (e.g., Reels) and live video streaming; the use of ephemeral, time-limited content (e.g., Stories); the presentation of content in multiple, sometimes switchable, feeds; cross-posting capabilities between applications like Facebook and Instagram; and standard user engagement prompts for sharing, commenting, and saving content (Compl. ¶¶21, 24, 26, 27). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s incorporation of these features eroded the market distinctiveness of its own Weple® platform (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided in the filed document; therefore, the infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

’730 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Meta’s platforms meet the claim limitations by providing mobile applications (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) for both creating and viewing video content (Compl. ¶¶41-42). It asserts that Meta's servers receive and store user videos with accompanying text and audio, which are then delivered to other users' mobile devices for simultaneous presentation with a comment prompt (Compl. ¶42). The infringement theory further relies on Meta's live-streaming features, alleging that the platforms issue notifications when a user starts a live stream and then stream that video to other users upon request, thereby meeting the final limitations of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶21, 42).

’952 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Meta’s platforms receive and manage media messages, such as advertisements or Stories, that have associated timing information like scheduled start times and 24-hour expiration periods (Compl. ¶¶53-54). The infringement theory posits that Meta’s systems select subsets of this time-limited content and provide it to users in different "feeds" (e.g., a primary content feed versus a secondary feed for a different user or application) (Compl. ¶¶24, 54). The allegations state that this content is presented in mobile applications alongside an "advertisement prompt," thus mapping to the elements of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶54).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’952 patent, a central question may be the interpretation of providing different feeds to a "first mobile application" and a "second mobile application." The dispute may turn on whether this requires two distinct software applications (e.g., Facebook and Instagram) or could also read on two different user instances of the same application. For the ’730 patent, a question may arise as to whether a user pulling content from a server by scrolling a feed constitutes "sending" the content to the user's application, as recited in the claim.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’952 patent, a technical question is whether Meta's algorithmic feed curation, which relies on a multitude of signals, performs the specific function of selecting media "based on the scheduled airtime and the expiration information" as required by the claim, or if the claim requires a more direct, rules-based scheduling function.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’730 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "receiving a notification that a second one of the mobile applications has started a live stream video message"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for determining how the claimed system architecture operates. Practitioners may focus on this term because its language suggests a peer-to-peer or application-to-application notification, whereas the accused systems likely use a centralized, server-based notification model.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to detail the specific origin or path of the notification, which may leave room for an interpretation where a server-generated notification about a stream originating from a mobile application satisfies the limitation. The claim requires "receiving a notification," without specifying the sender.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrasing "that a second one of the mobile applications has started" could be construed to mean the notification must originate from, or be directly caused by, the second application itself, potentially excluding a purely server-initiated alert.

For the ’952 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "second mobile application"
  • Context and Importance: This term's definition will directly impact the scope of infringement. If construed narrowly to mean a different software program (e.g., Instagram is the "second mobile application" relative to Facebook as the "first"), the infringement theory is limited to cross-platform scenarios. If construed broadly to mean another user's instance of the same software, the infringement theory would cover nearly all feed-based interactions on a single platform.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated goal is to coordinate streams to "other application users," which could support a reading that covers different users of the same application (’952 Patent, col. 3:50-52).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of "first mobile application" and "second mobile application" as distinct terms in the same claim suggests they are intended to be different entities. The complaint itself identifies Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger as separate "Meta Mobile Applications" (Compl. ¶31).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing users and businesses with "help pages, websites, instructions, tutorials, and other materials" that instruct them on how to use the accused platforms in a manner that directly infringes claims of the asserted patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶57, 74, 91, 107, 123).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶44, 61, 78, 95, 111, 127). This knowledge is predicated on a series of notice letters sent between February and October 2024, which allegedly included detailed infringement claim charts and to which Defendant purportedly did not respond (Compl. ¶¶32-35, 39).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "second mobile application" be construed broadly to cover different users of the same platform, or will they be limited to requiring distinct software programs (e.g., Facebook vs. Instagram), significantly impacting the scope of alleged infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the complex, multi-factor algorithmic curation of Meta's content feeds perform the specific function of selecting media "based on the scheduled airtime and the expiration information" as recited in the ’952 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A third central issue will be willfulness: given the allegations of repeated pre-suit notice with detailed claim charts and a subsequent lack of response or design changes, the court will likely focus on what actions, if any, Defendant took after being notified of the patents to determine if its conduct rises to the level of willful infringement meriting enhanced damages.