Flick Intelligence LLC v. Innovid Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Innovid Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02275, S.D.N.Y., 03/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's digital advertising management platform infringes a patent related to systems for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about user-selected elements within video content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses interactive video, enabling users to select objects or regions within a video stream on one device to retrieve and display related information, a foundational concept for "shoppable video" and second-screen advertising applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patents, though it asserts these licenses did not pertain to producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,496,814 - "Method, system and computer program product for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about a displayed movie, show, event or video game"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,496,814, titled "Method, system and computer program product for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about a displayed movie, show, event or video game," issued on November 8, 2022 (the "'814 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem where information about elements within video content (e.g., actors, products, music) exists in databases but is not easily or quickly retrievable in a way that is synchronized with the video being watched '814 Patent, col. 2:15-21 The patent notes a need for systems that allow a user to select a specific scene element and obtain information about only that element '814 Patent, col. 2:26-30
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can employ a handheld device (HHD) as an active pointer to select a point of interest on a separate multimedia display showing video content '814 Patent, abstract '814 Patent, Fig. 1 The system uses synchronization data to align the user's selection with the video timeline and annotation data to identify the selected on-screen element '814 Patent, col. 11:33-47 Upon selection, supplemental information related to that specific element is retrieved from a remote source and can be displayed on the HHD or another display, creating an interactive experience with the video content '814 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This technology describes a method for making passive video content interactive, a key concept for enabling second-screen experiences, interactive advertising, and direct e-commerce from video streams ("shoppable video") '814 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:2

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 of the '814 Patent Compl. ¶15 Independent claim 1 is a system claim with the following essential elements:

• A display device that displays video content comprising a plurality of frames.
• A media device that provides the video stream to the display device.
• A pointing device used by a person to select a screen coordinate.
• Frame specification data identifying the video content and the specific frame being displayed at the time of selection.
• A query comprising the screen coordinate and frame specification data.
• The frame specification data must comprise a "media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator" which contains annotation data for "composited in scene elements."
• The augmented media tag must contain an "ordered list of composited annotation indicators," and the annotation data must indicate screen coordinates for a "composited in item."
• An "element identifier" provided in response to the query, which includes a descriptor uniquely identified with an object on the display.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is identified as Defendant's "digital ad amnagament [sic] platform" and "Passthrough and related systems" Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a platform for digital ad management Compl. ¶17 However, the complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical operation or architecture of the platform, how users interact with it, or what specific features are alleged to infringe. The complaint references an "exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" for further support, but this exhibit was not included with the filed document Compl. ¶16 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Exhibit B) that is not provided in the submitted documents Compl. ¶16 The infringement allegations are therefore limited to the general assertion that Defendant's digital ad management platform practices one or more of claims 1-20 of the '814 Patent Compl. ¶15 The complaint does not contain a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused platform to the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's "digital ad management platform," which suggests a server-side advertising service, constitutes a "system" under the claim language, which requires a "person" using a "pointing device" to interact with a "display device." The complaint's allegations raise the question of how a backend ad platform could meet these user-interactive claim elements.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites a highly specific data structure: a "media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator containing annotation data for composited in scene elements." The complaint provides no factual allegations suggesting the accused platform uses or relies on such a data structure. A key technical question will be whether any feature of the accused platform performs the function of, or is structurally equivalent to, this specific claimed data format.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pointing device"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the system's architecture. The patent specification frequently describes the "pointing device" as a separate Handheld Device (HHD), such as a smartphone or remote control, that a user aims at a primary multimedia display '814 Patent, col. 9:25-38 '814 Patent, col. 10:25-33 The construction of this term will be critical in determining whether the claim covers user interactions on a single device (e.g., a mouse click or finger tap on a screen displaying video) or is limited to the second-screen scenarios emphasized in the specification.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing any user-operated tool for selecting screen coordinates, including a computer mouse or a finger on a touchscreen.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's repeated and detailed examples focus on a "wireless Hand Held Device (HHD)" that is "visually near a multimedia display screen" '814 Patent, col. 9:25-29 and may function as an "active pointer" that "emits a signal" '814 Patent, col. 9:35-36 This consistent focus on a two-device, remote-control paradigm could support a narrower construction.

• The Term: "media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator"

• Context and Importance: This is a non-standard technical term whose meaning is defined entirely by the patent. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on the presence of this exact data structure or a technical equivalent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a very specific and potentially limiting feature of the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any data structure that links video timing information with coordinates for an overlaid (or "composited") element meets the functional requirements of this term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed context for this term, explaining that it relates to annotation data for video layers that have been composited on top of an original video, such as replacing one advertisement with another '814 Patent, col. 35:22-col. 36:31 A court may find that the term is limited to this specific technical implementation of handling annotations for layered or edited video streams.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant encourages infringement by providing instructions to customers on how to use its platform via its website and product manuals Compl. ¶17 It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the platform is not a staple commercial product and its only reasonable use is infringing Compl. ¶18
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a general request for a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages in its prayer for relief but does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the '814 Patent. The plaintiff requests a declaration of willfulness contingent on discovery revealing such knowledge Compl. ¶VI.e

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the claims, which describe a user-centric system involving a "person" using a "pointing device" to select coordinates on a "display device," be construed to read on the architecture of a likely server-side "digital ad management platform"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused platform utilize the highly specific data structure required by Claim 1-a "media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator"-for which the complaint currently provides no specific factual basis?