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: Law Office of David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02275, S.D.N.Y., 06/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's interactive video advertising platform infringes a patent related to obtaining and displaying supplemental data for selectable elements within a video, including composited or layered video content.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for allowing a viewer to select a specific object or element within a video stream and retrieve information about that specific element, synchronizing the selection with the precise time and coordinates of the element's appearance.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities to resolve litigation, stating that none of these licenses were for the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-31	'814 Patent Priority Date
2022-11-08	'814 Patent Issue Date
2026-06-29	Complaint Filing Date

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, issued November 8, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a problem where information about content within a video was available in databases but was "not quickly or easily retrievable and is not tied or synchronized with the video content for easy retrieval" '814 Patent, col. 2:18-20 Compl. ¶17 Existing systems provided only general information about a scene, preventing a user from selecting a specific on-screen element to get information about only that element '814 Patent, col. 2:21-30
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a technical architecture that synchronizes "annotation data" with displayed video, tying a viewer's selection to a specific screen coordinate within a specific frame '814 Patent, col. 11:33-42 Compl. ¶18 To handle complex video with layered or composited elements (e.g., interactive overlays), the system uses a "composited annotation indicator" and an "ordered list" of such indicators to correctly identify the topmost element selected by the viewer at a given coordinate '814 Patent, col. 35:50-36:65 Compl. ¶19
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the functionality of interactive video by enabling precise, element-level identification and information retrieval within a specific frame of a video stream, including within composited video Compl. ¶21

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent system claims 1, 14, and 20 Compl. ¶16
• Independent Claim 20, described as the broadest asserted claim, includes the following essential elements Compl. ¶16:
  • A display device, a media device providing a video stream, and a pointing device for user selection.
  • "frame specification data" that identifies the specific video frame displayed when the user makes a selection.
  • A "query" containing the screen coordinate and the frame specification data.
  • The query's data includes a "media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator" for "composited in scene elements."
  • The augmented media tag contains an "ordered list of composited annotation indicators" where the annotation data maps screen coordinates to the composited items.
• The complaint notes that it reserves the right to assert other claims as discovery proceeds Compl. ¶35

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentality" is Defendant's advertising platform, which includes its interactive video advertising products and formats, ad-serving and delivery infrastructure, creative-authoring tools, and measurement functionality Compl. ¶23

Functionality and Market Context

• The platform is alleged to create and deliver interactive video advertising campaigns across various environments, including connected television and digital devices Compl. ¶24 The core accused functionality involves placing "images and other visual elements as overlays on top of video content," which allows a viewer to "click into different areas of an ad" Compl. ¶24 The complaint alleges that these interactive ad formats utilize multiple selectable overlay regions within a single ad Compl. ¶25
• The complaint alleges that Defendant's platform records "when a consumer views or clicks on an advertisement" and uses this interaction data for measurement and optimization, which is central to its business (Compl. ¶¶25; Compl. ¶32). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• Claim Chart Summary: The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory for Claim 20, which it states is the broadest of the asserted claims Compl. ¶16 The core allegations are summarized below.

11,496,814 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a display device that displays video content to a person...	The viewer's connected television, smartphone, tablet, or computer monitor that displays the interactive video advertisement.	¶25	col. 10:40-51
a media device that provides a video stream including the video content to the display device;	Defendant's ad-serving and delivery infrastructure that provides the video stream to the viewer's display device.	¶25	col. 11:19-32
a pointing device that the person uses to select a screen coordinate on the display device;	The viewer's remote control, touchscreen, or mouse used to click on an interactive element in the advertisement.	¶25	col. 10:25-34
frame specification data that identifies...which of the frames...was displayed on the display device when the person chose the screen coordinate;	The playback-state and ad-tag metadata that Defendant's platform allegedly maintains and processes, which identify the video content and playback position (i.e., the specific frame) at the moment of a click.	¶25	col. 42:2-6
a query comprising the screen coordinate and the frame specification data... wherein the data... comprises a media tag augmented with a composited annotation indicator containing annotation data for composited in scene elements... wherein the augmented media tag contains an ordered list of composited annotation indicators...	The interaction telemetry that Defendant's platform allegedly transmits upon a click, which contains the screen coordinate, playback-state data, and a VAST or VPAID media tag. This data allegedly defines the structured overlay data for each overlay element, its placement coordinates, and its rendering order.	¶25	col. 42:7-19

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification frequently refers to "movie," "show," and "video game" content '814 Patent, title '814 Patent, col. 3:21 An issue for the court may be whether the claims, when read in light of the specification, are properly construed to cover the interactive video advertisements that constitute the Accused Instrumentality.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 20 requires a specific data architecture: a "media tag augmented with an ordered list of composited annotation indicators" that maps coordinates for layered items. The complaint alleges that Defendant's VAST/VPAID ad tags and internal metadata meet this limitation Compl. ¶25 A key technical question will be whether the data structures actually used by Innovid's platform contain the specific "ordered list" and layered mapping functionality recited in the claim, or if there is a technical distinction in how the systems operate.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "ordered list of composited annotation indicators"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's proposed solution for handling interactive elements that are layered or composited on top of a base video. The infringement case hinges on whether the Defendant's system for managing ad overlays uses a data structure that meets this specific definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a non-standard, inventor-coined term whose meaning will likely be defined primarily by the patent's own text.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not impose a specific data format for the "ordered list," which may support an argument that any system that logically prioritizes layered elements, regardless of implementation, could fall within its scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the list's order reflects "the order in which compositing occurred" so that "the element identifier for the topmost item at the selected coordinates" is returned '814 Patent, col. 36:1-5 This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, sequential data structure that explicitly tracks the Z-order of composited video layers.

• The Term: "frame specification data"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the data that ties a user's click to a precise moment in time within the video stream. Its construction is critical for establishing the temporal synchronization required by the claims. The dispute may turn on what type of data suffices to "identify...which of the frames...was displayed" '814 Patent, col. 42:3-5

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "synchronization data" in general terms, such as "elapsed time from the video start," which could support a broader definition encompassing various forms of timing metadata '814 Patent, col. 11:43-45
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific, requiring data that "identifies...which of the frames...was displayed" '814 Patent, col. 42:3-5 This may support an argument that a simple timestamp is insufficient, and that the data must be capable of resolving to a unique frame number or equivalent identifier, a point the complaint addresses by inference Compl. ¶25

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) Compl. ¶29 The theory is that Defendant provides advertisers and publishers with tools (e.g., "creative-authoring and campaign-submission tools") and instructions (e.g., "documentation, help articles, marketing materials") that encourage them to build and deploy the accused interactive ads, thereby causing direct infringement by end-users or the advertisers themselves Compl. ¶¶31-32
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continued infringement after having "knowledge of the '814 patent at least as of the filing and service of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶33; Compl. ¶41). This is a post-suit willfulness allegation.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical scope: Does the term "ordered list of composited annotation indicators," a phrase seemingly coined by the inventor, read on the VAST/VPAID tags and other metadata structures allegedly used by Defendant's advertising platform? The case may turn on whether Innovid's system for managing ad overlays functions in the specific, layer-aware manner described in the patent.
• A second key question will be one of infringement and evidence: What evidence will be presented to show that Defendant's system generates and uses "frame specification data" sufficient to identify a single, unique video frame at the moment of a user's selection, as required by the claims, rather than a more general timestamp or playback position?
• Finally, the litigation may also explore the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art: Given that interactive video and ad overlays existed prior to the patent, a central question will be whether the specific architecture claimed-particularly the combination of frame-specific queries and ordered, layered annotation data structures-represents a patentable, non-obvious improvement over existing technologies at the time of the invention.