DCT
2:25-cv-00141
Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mann Law Group
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00141, W.D. Wash., 01/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant operates numerous physical store locations within the district, including a specific address in Seattle, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, specifically its system for user-submitted product reviews, infringes two patents related to an electronic multi-media exchange for creating and distributing user-generated content.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational concepts of crowdsourcing and managing user-generated multimedia content online, a technology central to modern e-commerce, social media, and content platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the claims of the '480 and '665 patents overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. The patents share an identical specification and a family lineage dating back to a 1999 provisional application, potentially giving them an early priority date relative to the development of modern web platforms.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-05-05 | Earliest Priority Date for '480 and '665 Patents |
| 2016-10-25 | '665 Patent Issued |
| 2016-11-22 | '480 Patent Issued |
| 2025-01-22 | Complaint Filed |
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 on November 22, 2016 (Compl. ¶10, ¶16).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention in the late 1990s, the technical problem was how to create a structured computer system that would allow remote users to submit, share, and collaborate on electronic content to develop new media, a concept that predates modern crowdsourcing platforms (Compl. ¶12). For media companies, this addressed the logistical challenge of managing a high volume of unsolicited artistic submissions ('665 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system architecture composed of four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems" designed to manage the lifecycle of user-generated content (Compl. ¶13). These include a submission subsystem to receive and store user media, a creator subsystem to filter that media based on user attributes, a release subsystem to make the resulting content public, and a voting subsystem for community feedback ('665 Patent, Fig. 2; Compl. ¶15-19).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided an early, comprehensive framework for a networked, server-based platform to manage the entire process of crowdsourced content creation, from submission and curation to publication and community rating (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 22 (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An electronic media submissions server subsystem with an interface to receive and store electronic media submissions from a plurality of submitters.
- An electronic multimedia creator server subsystem configured to select and retrieve submissions using an electronic content filter based at least in part on user attributes.
- An electronic release subsystem configured to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
- An electronic voting subsystem configured to enable users to vote for or rate the available multimedia content.
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 on October 25, 2016 (Compl. ¶37).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '665 Patent shares an identical specification with the '480 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of creating a structured online exchange for media submissions (Compl. ¶40; '665 Patent, col. 2:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than a system of subsystems, the '665 Patent claims a computer-implemented method. The process involves electronically retrieving submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes, generating a new multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers, and providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for end-users to vote on or rate the content ('665 Patent, Fig. 5D; Compl. ¶41, ¶43-45).
- Technical Importance: The invention defined a specific, technology-rooted process for curating and presenting user-generated content, including filtering and community rating features, at a time when such integrated online systems were not conventional (Compl. ¶46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 14 and 16 (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential steps of independent 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, maintaining the submitter's identification.
- Electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers for viewing over a public network.
- Providing a web-based graphical user interface enabling a user to transmit data indicating a vote or rating for the content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the computer-based system supporting the website "https://www.lowes.com/", particularly the functionality that enables users to post and interact with reviews and comments for products sold on the site (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶49).
Functionality and Market Context
- The system provides a web-based interface for users to submit product reviews, which can include both text and multimedia content such as photos (Compl. ¶24, ¶25). A screenshot in the complaint shows the user interface for writing a review, including fields for text and options to add a photo or video (Compl. p. 12).
- Submitted reviews are stored in a database and published on the relevant product page for other users to view (Compl. ¶26).
- The system captures user attributes associated with each review, such as a star rating and a "Would you recommend" selection (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a screenshot of a published review that displays the submitter's chosen username (Compl. p. 16).
- The platform provides users with an "electronic content filter" in the form of sorting and filtering tools to organize reviews based on attributes such as "Highest to Lowest Rating" or "Most Helpful" (Compl. ¶28, ¶50). A screenshot illustrates the "Sort by" dropdown menu available to users viewing reviews (Compl. p. 20).
- The system also incorporates a voting function where users can rate the helpfulness of a review by selecting a "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" icon (Compl. ¶31, ¶55).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'9,501,480 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... and store... | Defendant's system receives user comments, which include text and images, via a web-based portal and stores them in a database. | ¶25 | col. 8:31-44 |
| An electronic multimedia creator 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... | Defendant's system retrieves and displays user comments, which are filtered and sorted based on user attributes like star ratings, date, or helpfulness votes, thereby developing the content view presented to the end user. | ¶28 | col. 10:46-51 |
| An electronic release subsystem... configured to make the multimedia content electronically available for viewing on one or more user devices. | Defendant's system serves the user-submitted comments and associated multimedia content for viewing on its public product webpages, accessible by computers and mobile devices. | ¶30 | col. 4:41-45 |
| An electronic voting subsystem... configured to enable a user to electronic vote for or electronically rate an electronically available multimedia content... | Defendant's system provides "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" icons, allowing users to vote on or rate the helpfulness of other users' comments. | ¶31 | col. 8:45-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Defendant's cloud-based web architecture, which the complaint alleges uses "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" (Compl. ¶24), maps onto the distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems" recited in the claim. The analysis may turn on whether functional separation in a modern, virtualized environment meets the structural requirements of the claim language.
- Technical Questions: The analysis raises the question of whether the sorting and filtering of user reviews on a webpage constitutes "develop[ing] multimedia content" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges that using the filter to affect which submissions appear to the user is a form of content development (Compl. ¶29), which may be a point of technical and legal dispute.
'9,477,665 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| electronically retrieving a plurality of electronic media submissions from an electronic media submissions database using an electronic content filter... based at least in part on... user attributes... | Defendant's system retrieves stored user comments from its database and allows users to filter or sort them based on attributes such as star rating, date posted, or helpfulness. | ¶50 | col. 10:46-51 |
| electronically generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions... wherein the identification of the submitter is maintained... | Defendant's system dynamically generates a webpage view that displays the retrieved comments, with each comment presented alongside the username of the user who submitted it. | ¶53 | col. 11:2-4 |
| electronically transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers to be electronically available for viewing... | Defendant's system, allegedly using cloud providers and geographically distributed servers, transmits the webpage content to make it publicly accessible to users over the Internet. | ¶49, ¶54 | col. 4:41-45 |
| providing a web-based graphical user interface that enables a user to electronically transmit data indicating a vote or rating... | Defendant's website provides a GUI with "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" icons that allows users to vote on the helpfulness of a displayed comment. | ¶55 | col. 11:21-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A key issue for construction may be the term "generating a multimedia file." The complaint's theory appears to be that the on-the-fly rendering of a webpage displaying comments meets this limitation (Compl. ¶53). The court may need to determine if this term can be construed to cover dynamic webpage generation or if it requires the creation of a discrete, persistent data object (e.g., a PDF or video file).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs the claimed step of "transmitting the multimedia file to a plurality of publicly accessible webservers"? The allegation relies on general knowledge of modern web infrastructure (Compl. ¶49), and a detailed factual analysis of Defendant's specific server and content delivery network architecture may be required.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "server subsystem"
- (as in "electronic media submissions server subsystem" from '480 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The structure of Claim 1 of the '480 Patent is built upon a combination of discrete "subsystems." The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether Defendant's modern, likely integrated cloud architecture can be parsed into the separate components required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's definition of these architectural boundaries will be critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's description of a distributed architecture in Figure 3, which shows multiple "Controller" and "Processor" units connected via a "WAN HUB," may support a construction where logical or functional separation, even on a shared infrastructure, constitutes distinct subsystems ('665 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in Figure 2 depicts various functional databases (e.g., Submitter, Creator, Voting) as components within a single "Central Controller," which could support a narrower construction requiring more significant structural separation than mere software modularity ('665 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "generating a multimedia file"
- ('665 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the '665 Patent hinges on this term encompassing the standard web-server function of rendering a webpage for a user's browser. If the term is construed more narrowly, the infringement theory may be difficult to sustain.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly defines content material as anything that "may be stored in file text, video, audio, etc. and transferred through the network system" ('665 Patent, col. 4:31-33). This could support viewing the collection of data (HTML, text, images) transmitted to render a webpage as a "multimedia file."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites "generating a multimedia file... in accordance with a selected digital format." This language may suggest a process of creating a new, standalone file with a specific format (e.g., MPEG, JPEG, PDF), rather than the dynamic assembly of components for a transient webpage display.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege indirect infringement or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely involve a close examination of how claim language drafted in the early stages of the commercial internet applies to the architecture of a modern e-commerce platform. The central questions for the court appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Can the functionally distinct software modules and services of Defendant’s cloud-based website be considered the separate, structurally-defined "server subsystems" required by the '480 patent, or does modern web architecture represent a fundamentally different, more integrated system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of definitional scope: Does the routine, on-the-fly server process of sorting data and rendering a webpage for a browser meet the '665 patent's requirement of "generating a multimedia file," or does the claim require the creation of a new, discrete data object that is absent in the accused system's operation?