Automated Complaint Validity Engine Using Historical Data

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Intellectual property rights owners face challenges in efficiently policing and removing infringing content from websites, particularly due to the time-consuming process of manually evaluating complaints and balancing legal rights between content owners and advertisers.

Innovation Solution

A machine-implemented method using an automated decision engine that evaluates complaints based on the history of the complaining party, automatically suspending content if the party has a high validity record, and manually evaluating complaints from new parties to streamline the process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual evaluation of complaints is performed, then accuracy in determining validity is improved, but processing time increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomplaint validity determination accuracyVSAvoidcomplaint processing delay

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated evaluation of complaints using historical data and validity indicators before manual review. This preliminary action filters out clearly invalid complaints and prioritizes potentially valid ones, reducing the overall processing time while maintaining accuracy for complex cases that require manual evaluation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

An automated decision engine acts as an intermediary between the complaint submission and final manual evaluation. This intermediary system pre-processes complaints, assigns priority levels, and provides recommendations to manual reviewers, thereby reducing their workload and accelerating the overall process without sacrificing determination accuracy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Productivity

If automated evaluation of complaints is implemented, then processing speed is improved, but accuracy in determining validity deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomplaint processing speedVSAvoidcomplaint validity determination accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The complaint evaluation process is segmented into automated and manual components. The automated system handles initial screening, data gathering, and priority assignment, while human reviewers focus on complex cases requiring judgment. This segmentation allows high-speed automated processing for routine aspects while preserving human accuracy for difficult determinations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The automated decision engine serves as an intermediary that prepares comprehensive analysis packages for manual reviewers, including historical complaint data, validity indicators, and preliminary assessments. This intermediary function enables automated speed benefits while ensuring human accuracy oversight for final decisions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Speed

If content is suspended immediately upon complaint receipt, then response time to infringement is improved, but risk of erroneous suspension increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveresponse time to complaintVSAvoidcomplaint validity assurance

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated assessment of complaint validity using historical data and validity indicators before taking suspension action. This preliminary action allows rapid response to clearly valid complaints while identifying cases requiring further review, balancing speed with reliability by avoiding hasty suspensions of potentially legitimate content.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

Different suspension response strategies are applied to different complaints based on their assessed validity. High-validity complaints from reputable sources receive immediate suspension, while lower-confidence cases undergo additional review. This localized quality approach optimizes response speed for reliable cases while maintaining accuracy for uncertain ones.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

4Measurement precision

If manual evaluation process is used for all complaints, then determination accuracy is improved, but resource consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomplaint validity determination accuracyVSAvoidevaluation system resource requirements

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The evaluation system is segmented into automated preprocessing components and manual review components. The automated portion handles data collection, historical analysis, and initial assessment, reducing the resource burden on manual reviewers who focus only on complex cases requiring human judgment. This segmentation maintains accuracy while reducing overall resource consumption.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Manual evaluation is applied selectively only to complaints that require human judgment based on automated assessment, rather than to all complaints. This partial application of manual review resources maintains accuracy for difficult cases while avoiding unnecessary resource consumption for routine cases that can be handled automatically.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS7680675B1Automated determination of validity of complaints

Publication Date: 2010.03.16 GOOGLE LLC

AI summary

The potential validity of complaints, including those relating to intellectual property rights, may be automatically determined. In one implementation, whether a complaint is determined to be valid is based on a history of complaints of the complaining party.