DCT

2:18-cv-09344

Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Adobe Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-09344, C.D. Cal., 12/21/2018
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts, asserting that Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in that district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media encoding, distribution, and player software products infringe seven U.S. patents related to adaptive video compression, quantization, and data distribution technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for efficiently compressing and distributing digital video data, a foundational technology for the modern streaming media and digital content creation industries.
  • Key Procedural History: Post-issuance proceedings have significantly impacted several patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. RE46,777 is subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate canceling the asserted independent claim. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,929,442 and 8,934,535 are subject to IPR certificates and disclaimers that cancel all asserted claims. U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 is subject to an IPR certificate where the asserted claim was found patentable. The cancellation of asserted claims in three of the seven patents-in-suit suggests that the viability of those infringement counts may be a central procedural issue.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-13 Priority Date for '046, '442, '535, '907, '477 Patents
2007-01-01 Adobe adds H.264 support to Flash Player 9
2008-03-10 Priority Date for '777 Patent
2008-06-10 '046 Patent Issues
2010-06-28 Priority Date for '298 Patent
2014-01-21 U.S. Pat. No. 8,634,462 (original patent of '777) Issues
2015-01-06 '442 Patent Issues
2015-01-13 '535 Patent Issues
2015-01-01 Adobe products add support for HEVC/H.265
2017-02-21 '298 Patent Issues
2017-09-12 '907 Patent Issues
2017-09-19 '477 Patent Issues
2018-04-03 '777 Patent (reissue) Issues
2018-12-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 - "Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046, "Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression," issued June 10, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the performance bottleneck caused by the significant disparity between the high speeds of modern processors and the much lower data storage and retrieval bandwidth of mass storage devices like magnetic disks (’046 Patent, col. 2:46-54). It also notes the inherent trade-off in data compression, where algorithms that achieve high compression ratios are typically slower than those that are faster but less efficient (’046 Patent, col. 2:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a data compression system with a controller that monitors the system’s throughput to detect bottlenecks (’046 Patent, Abstract). When the throughput falls below a predetermined threshold, the controller commands the system to switch to a different compression routine—for example, a faster, less aggressive algorithm—to increase the data rate and alleviate the bottleneck, thereby dynamically balancing speed and compression efficiency based on real-time conditions (’046 Patent, col. 4:5-15; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a system to adapt its data compression strategy on the fly, optimizing for either storage efficiency or data throughput as system loads and performance requirements change.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 40 (Compl. ¶9).
  • The essential elements of Claim 40 are:
    • A system comprising a data compression system for compressing and decompressing data.
    • A plurality of selectively utilized compression routines, including at least a first and second routine with different compression algorithms.
    • A controller that tracks throughput by tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device.
    • The controller generates a control signal to select a compression routine based on the tracked throughput.
    • When the controller determines throughput has fallen below a threshold, it commands the system to use a routine that provides a faster rate of compression to increase throughput.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’046 Patent (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. RE46,777 - "Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE46,777, "Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding," issued April 3, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In hybrid video coding standards, quantizing coefficients after a frequency transform is a key step in data reduction. However, the patent notes that coding a block containing only a single non-zero quantized coefficient can be inefficient, potentially requiring a high data rate for only a marginal improvement in visual quality (’777 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for making a more efficient decision about whether to encode the coefficients in a subblock or discard them entirely. It proposes calculating two separate metrics: a first "quantization efficiency" for the subblock with its existing quantized values, and a second "quantization efficiency" for the same subblock assuming all its values are set to zero (’777 Patent, Abstract). The system then compares these two efficiencies and proceeds with whichever option is determined to be more efficient, providing a formal rate-distortion trade-off at the subblock level (’777 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:35-50).
  • Technical Importance: This rate-distortion optimization method allows a video encoder to more intelligently manage the trade-off between bit rate and visual quality, which may lead to better compression performance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A method for coding a video signal using hybrid coding, comprising reducing temporal redundancy via motion compensated prediction to establish a prediction error signal.
    • Performing quantization on the prediction error signal (or its transform coefficients) to obtain quantized values within a plurality of subblocks.
    • Calculating a first quantization efficiency for the quantized values of at least one subblock.
    • Setting the quantized values of that subblock to all zeroes.
    • Calculating a second quantization efficiency for the subblock while its values are all zeroes.
    • Selecting which of the first and second efficiencies is higher.
    • Selecting for further processing either the original quantized values or the zeroed-out values, based on which of the two efficiencies was higher.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’777 Patent (Compl. ¶40).

Multi-Patent Capsules

U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442 - "System and method for video and audio data distribution"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442, "System and method for video and audio data distribution," issued January 6, 2015 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an apparatus for decompressing data. The apparatus includes a decompression system and a storage medium. The system is configured to handle data that was compressed using one or more algorithms selected from a plurality of options, where the selection was based on communication channel throughput and data block attributes, and where at least one of the available algorithms is asymmetric.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: Adobe products such as Adobe Media Encoder and HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS) that utilize the H.264 standard, which allegedly includes asymmetric compression algorithms like CAVLC and CABAC that are selected based on parameters such as bitrate and resolution (Compl. ¶¶51, 53, 55).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 - "Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535, "Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution," issued January 13, 2015 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for data compression and storage. The method involves determining a parameter of a data block, selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from a plurality of available compressors based on that parameter, compressing the data block with the selected compressor(s), and storing the resulting compressed data.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: Adobe products utilizing H.264, which allegedly determine parameters such as bitrate or GOP structure, select between asymmetric compressors like CAVLC and CABAC based on those parameters, and then store the compressed data (Compl. ¶¶69, 72, 74).

U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298 - "Method for Decoding 2D-Compatible Stereoscopic Video Flows"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298, "Method for Decoding 2D-Compatible Stereoscopic Video Flows," issued February 21, 2017 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for efficiently decoding 2D-compatible stereoscopic (3D) video. The method involves receiving a video stream with composite frames containing a pair of stereoscopic images, receiving metadata that defines the area occupied by one of the images, determining that area based on the metadata, and then decoding only that specific part of the composite frame to generate a 2D output image.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: Adobe products such as Media Encoder CC 2015.1 that support the HEVC/H.265 standard for stereoscopic video. These products allegedly receive metadata defining frame packing arrangements and can decode only the portion of a composite frame required for a 2D view, as described in the HEVC specification (Compl. ¶¶87, 90, 92).

U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 - "System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907, "System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution," issued September 12, 2017 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a system having multiple different asymmetric data compression algorithms, where one routine produces a higher data rate than another. A processor analyzes data parameters related to expected communication channel throughput and selects two or more different compression routines based on that analysis.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: Adobe HDS, which is alleged to contain different asymmetric compression routines (CAVLC/CABAC) and a processor that analyzes parameters like bandwidth to select between these routines to adapt streaming quality (Compl. ¶¶107, 111).

U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 - "Video data compression systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, "Video data compression systems," issued September 19, 2017 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system with a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders, where a first encoder is configured for a higher compression rate than a second. The system includes a processor that determines data parameters related to communication channel throughput (measured in bits per second) and selects one or more encoders based on those parameters.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: Adobe products like HDS that allegedly shift quality and compression rate by selecting between different asymmetric encoders (such as CAVLC and CABAC) based on detected client bandwidth and computer resources (Compl. ¶¶124, 126, 129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a broad set of Adobe's software products as the "Accused Instrumentalities," including Adobe Media Encoder, Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe Flash, Adobe Flash Player, Adobe After Effects, and Adobe HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS), across various versions such as Creative Suite (CS) and Creative Cloud (CC) (Compl. ¶¶8, 21, 49).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products provide tools for encoding, editing, distributing, and playing back digital video and audio content (Compl. ¶¶8, 21). The complaint alleges these products implement industry standards such as H.264 and H.265 (HEVC) for data compression and decompression (Compl. ¶¶10, 28). A key accused functionality is Adobe's HDS technology, which allegedly enables adaptive bitrate streaming by "detect[ing] the client's bandwidth and computer resources" and serving content at the "most appropriate bitrate" (Compl. ¶12). This functionality is alleged to involve selecting between different compression routines, such as Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC) and Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC), based on parameters like throughput, bitrate, and resolution (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). The complaint positions these products as central to the digital media market, noting that H.264 is the "most widely used codec on the planet" (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'7,386,046 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 40) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system, comprising: a data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input; The Accused Instrumentalities utilize video codecs such as H.264, which are systems for compressing and decompressing video data. ¶10 col. 1:15-22
a plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system, wherein a first...includes a first compression algorithm and a second...includes a second compression algorithm; The H.264 standard as implemented in the accused products allegedly includes at least two asymmetric compression routines, namely the CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders. ¶11 col. 12:1-4
and a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput, Adobe's HDS technology allegedly contains the "ability to shift quality depending on bandwidth and computer power" and can "detect the client's bandwidth and computer resources." ¶12 col. 4:5-15
wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device; The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly include storage devices (e.g., disks, buffers, servers) that receive pending access requests, which the controller could track to monitor throughput. ¶12 col. 14:43-44
and wherein when the controller determines that the throughput falls below a predetermined throughput threshold, the controller commands the data compression engine to use one of the plurality of compression routines to provide a faster rate of compression so as to increase the throughput. An H.264-compliant system allegedly determines a profile (e.g., baseline, main, high) based on the identified throughput or bitrate, and if the parameter falls below a threshold, it selects between compressors (e.g., CAVLC or CABAC) to provide a faster rate of compression. ¶14 col. 12:64-col. 13:2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused functionality of adapting video streaming quality based on network "bandwidth and computer power" (Compl. ¶12) meets the specific claim limitation of a controller that tracks throughput by "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The defense could argue that network condition monitoring is technically distinct from monitoring an I/O queue for a storage device, as described in the patent (’046 Patent, col. 14:43-44).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that selecting an H.264 profile based on a throughput parameter "commands the data compression engine to use one of the plurality of compression routines to provide a faster rate of compression" (Compl. ¶14). A technical question will be whether this alleged mechanism—selecting a profile which in turn dictates the encoder—functions as the direct command-and-control system described in the claim, or if it is a more indirect configuration choice.

RE46,777 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method for coding a video signal using hybrid coding, comprising: reducing temporal redundancy by block based motion compensated prediction in order to establish a prediction error signal; The Accused Instrumentalities utilize H.265 (HEVC), which employs a "classic block-based hybrid video coding approach" that includes inter-picture prediction to reduce temporal redundancy. ¶¶28-29 col. 1:16-22
performing quantization on samples of the prediction error signal or on coefficients resulting from a transformation...to obtain quantized values...wherein the prediction error signal includes a plurality of subblocks... The accused HEVC process performs quantization on transform coefficients of the prediction error signal, and the video signal is structured into a plurality of subblocks (e.g., prediction blocks). ¶¶30-31 col. 1:22-29
calculating a first quantization efficiency for the quantized values of at least one subblock...; setting the quantized values...to all zeroes; calculating a second quantization efficiency...while all of the quantized values are zeroes; The complaint points to the HEVC reference software, which allegedly calculates an efficiency for keeping quantized values ("totalCost") and a separate efficiency for setting all values to zero ("d64BestCost"). The complaint provides a code snippet showing calculation of the "d64BestCost" variable. ¶¶32, 34-35 col. 4:35-42
selecting which of the first and second quantization efficiencies is a higher efficiency; The HEVC reference software allegedly compares the two calculated efficiencies ("totalCost" and "d64BestCost") to determine which is better. A code snippet showing this comparison is provided in the complaint. ¶¶32, 37 col. 4:42-43
and selecting, for further proceeding, the at least one subblock with the quantized values...if the first quantization efficiency is higher and selecting the at least one subblock with the quantized values set to zero...if the second quantization efficiency is higher. Based on the comparison of efficiencies, the HEVC reference software allegedly selects for further processing either the block with its original quantized values or the block with its values set to zero. A screenshot of code allegedly showing this selection is included in the complaint. ¶¶32, 38 col. 4:43-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the term "quantization efficiency" as used in the patent encompass the "cost" calculation variables ("d64BestCost", "totalCost") from the HEVC reference software (Compl. ¶¶35, 36)? The defense may argue for a narrower construction of "efficiency" that is not met by the simple cost variables cited in the complaint.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Adobe's commercial products that implement the HEVC standard also practice the specific rate-distortion optimized quantization (RDOQ) steps detailed in the complaint's allegations and reference software code snippets (Compl. ¶¶34-38). The plaintiff will need to demonstrate that this optional, computationally intensive feature of the standard is in fact implemented and used in the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’046 Patent, Claim 40: "tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific mechanism by which the patented system monitors performance. The infringement allegation hinges on equating this with monitoring network bandwidth and client resources for adaptive streaming. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused HDS functionality falls within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the controller as tracking "throughput (bandwidth) of a system," which could be read more broadly than just a single hardware component (’046 Patent, Abstract). The specification also refers generally to tracking the "throughput of the data processing system" (e.g., ’046 Patent, col. 12:15-18).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself explicitly defines "tracking throughput" with the narrower function of "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The specification provides an example where the controller "may track the number of pending disk accesses" (’046 Patent, col. 14:43-44), which may suggest the claim is limited to monitoring a storage device's I/O queue.

  • Term from ’777 Patent, Claim 1: "quantization efficiency"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the metric used to make the core decision of the claimed method: whether to keep a subblock's coefficients or zero them out. The plaintiff's infringement theory maps this term directly to cost variables in the HEVC reference software. The case may turn on whether this mapping is appropriate.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a precise mathematical definition, stating the goal is to balance the "effort and the benefit of maintaining the quantized values" ('777 Patent, col. 4:37-39). This could support a broader construction covering any rate-distortion cost-benefit analysis.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "efficiency" in the context of signal processing might be argued to have a more specific technical meaning than a generic "cost." The specific context of the patent, which calculates two separate "efficiencies" (one for the quantized values, one for the zeroed-out version), may be used to argue for a specific structure or formula that must be met.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Adobe provides its products along with "training, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides," which instruct customers on how to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶21, 44, 62, 80, 99, 117, 135). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are especially made or adapted for infringing the patents and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶22, 45, 63, 81, 100, 118, 136).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge. For each patent, the complaint alleges Adobe has had knowledge "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" and that by the time of trial, Adobe "will have known and intended" that its continued actions constitute infringement (Compl. ¶¶20, 43, 61, 79, 98, 116, 134).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technical mapping: can the plaintiff demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the high-level, standards-based functionalities of Adobe's commercial products (like adaptive bitrate streaming in HDS or quantization in HEVC) actually implement the specific, granular steps recited in the patent claims? This may require moving beyond descriptions of the standards and reference software to direct evidence of the accused products' internal operations.
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' specific disclosures, such as "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device" ('046 patent), be construed broadly enough to read on technically distinct but functionally related concepts in the accused products, such as monitoring network bandwidth?
  • A threshold procedural question will be the ongoing viability of the case: given that post-grant proceedings have resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims for U.S. Patent Nos. RE46,777, 8,929,442, and 8,934,535, the court will need to address the legal effect of these cancellations on the corresponding infringement counts in this litigation.