Content Aware LLC v. Eyebuydirect Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Content Aware, LLC (Virginia)
  • Defendant: EyeBuyDirect, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00066, E.D. Tex., 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products or services infringe a patent related to systems for content recognition and data categorization.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using machine learning and artificial intelligence to analyze digital content, such as user-generated photos, to identify objects and brands in both the foreground and background, thereby creating a structured database for marketing and business analysis.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,107,098 - "System and method for content recognition and data categorization"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that while vast amounts of digital content are created daily, the tools for extracting deep, contextual information are limited, leaving significant marketing and demographic data uncaptured. (’098 Patent, col. 1:60-64, col. 2:6-15). The industry, it suggests, is "barely scratching the surface of what can be mined and cataloged per piece of content." (’098 Patent, col. 2:9-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that ingests content (e.g., photos from social media), uses AI and machine learning processes to identify objects and brands within that content (including in the background), and then catalogs this information into a structured, relational database. (’098 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:29-44). This database allows a user (e.g., a business) to analyze brand correlations and consumer behavior, such as discovering which other brands are popular among its customers, to inform marketing strategy. (’098 Patent, col. 6:45-59). The process is depicted in a flowchart in Figure 3 of the patent.
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to move beyond surface-level content analysis (e.g., likes or tags) to create a comprehensive, searchable repository of real-world product and brand associations derived from unstructured user-generated media. (’098 Patent, col. 6:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims but refers to the "Exemplary '098 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). The first independent claim is Claim 1.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Maintaining a database on a server that communicates with third-party content provider and user computing systems.
  • Storing user profiles, each associated with a "first unique user" and at least one "brand identifier."
  • Collecting captured content from third-party systems.
  • Identifying objects within the content using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology.
  • Transforming the extracted data into a standardized format by "stripping" details from the content and uploading them with "additional fields cataloging various items displayed in foregrounds and backgrounds" using machine learning processes.
  • Searching the database to identify potential "associated brand identifiers" based on the user profile and the collected object data.
  • Determining a "brand correlation" between the user's brand identifier and the potential associated brand identifiers to assist the user.
  • Presenting data representing the potential associated brand identifiers to provide a "more accurate vantage point of a current market."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided, and its narrative allegations are conclusory. (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's core infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '098 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '098 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Due to the lack of specific allegations, the primary points of contention are not yet defined. However, based on the patent's claims, future disputes may raise questions such as:

• Scope Questions: What is the scope of a "third party content provider computing device system" in the context of Defendant's business? Does the processing performed by the accused systems meet the specific multi-step "transforming extracted data" limitation of Claim 1, which requires cataloging items from both foregrounds and backgrounds?
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform OCR to identify objects as required by Claim 1? What factual basis exists for the allegation that the accused systems determine a "brand correlation" and present it to a user to provide a "vantage point of a current market"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"brand identifier"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, as the system's purpose is to find correlations between a user's "brand identifier" and others found in captured content. The breadth of this term will directly impact the scope of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly: "A brand or logo may include, but is not limited to a trademark, animation, text, movies, movie clip, movie still, TV shows, books, musical bands or genres, celebrities, historical or religious figures, geographic locations, colors, patterns, occupations, hobbies or any other thing that can be associated with some demographic information such as a sports team." (’098 Patent, col. 6:14-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that, in the context of the claim's goal of analyzing a "current market," the term should be limited to commercially significant identifiers, such as registered trademarks or logos actively used in commerce, rather than any "color" or "pattern."

"transforming extracted data... by stripping the one or more captured content for one or more details and uploading the one or more details with additional fields cataloging various items... in foregrounds and backgrounds"

• Context and Importance: This lengthy limitation describes the core technical process of converting raw content into a structured, searchable database. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system performs this specific sequence of "stripping," "uploading," and "cataloging" for both foreground and background elements.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this language covers any process that extracts metadata from an image and stores it in a database, a common function in digital asset management.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process where content details are "stripped from the content, and uploaded to a cloud storage location with additional fields cataloging various items displayed, both in the foregrounds and backgrounds of each picture, discretely." (’098 Patent, col. 6:35-39). This suggests a more complex process than simple metadata tagging and may require separating and individually cataloging distinct visual elements.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users to use its products in a manner that infringes. (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). Specifics are purportedly contained in the unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" and that infringement has continued despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing damages and potentially enhanced damages, but it is based on knowledge acquired after the lawsuit began.

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

• A foundational issue will be one of specification: what specific products or services of EyeBuyDirect are accused of infringement? The complaint's failure to identify an accused instrumentality leaves the central dispute undefined.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: assuming an instrumentality is identified, can the plaintiff demonstrate through discovery that Defendant’s back-end systems perform the specific, multi-step data transformation and brand correlation analysis required by the asserted claims, particularly the cataloging of both foreground and background objects?
• A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "brand identifier," which the patent defines expansively to include concepts like "colors" and "patterns," be applied as written, or will the court construe it more narrowly to cover only conventional commercial indicators like trademarks and logos?