DCT
2:18-cv-10656
Data Scape Ltd v. Pandora Media Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Data Scape Limited (Ireland)
- Defendant: Pandora Media, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-10656, C.D. Cal., 12/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Pandora is registered to do business in California, has transacted business within the Central District, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Santa Monica, California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Pandora music streaming service infringes four patents related to systems and methods for managing and synchronizing data, such as music playlists, between a server and a portable device for offline use.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the management of digital media libraries, specifically the process of creating lists of content on one device (e.g., a server) and transferring or synchronizing that content to a portable device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2009-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 Issues |
| 2010-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 Issues |
| 2016-06-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,380,112 Issues |
| 2017-07-18 | U.S. Patent No. 9,712,614 Issues |
| 2018-12-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 - Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued May 18, 2010.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of transferring music from a large-capacity server to a portable device as potentially cumbersome, particularly when transferring files one-by-one or when using batch transfer lists where the purpose of the list can become unclear (e.g., for organization versus for transfer) (U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929, col. 2:24-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a communication system with a "second apparatus" (e.g., a server) and a "first apparatus" (e.g., a portable player). The server includes an "editor" that allows a user to create and modify a list of data for transfer, regardless of whether the portable device is connected. A "controller" on the server then manages the transfer of data based on this edited list when a connection is detected, comparing the server's list with the data already stored on the portable device to determine what needs to be transmitted (’929 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for managing content on a central device and automating the synchronization to a portable device, a foundational concept for modern cloud-synced media playlists (’929 Patent, col. 1:56-2:6).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’929 Patent, Compl. ¶10).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A communication system with a first apparatus (e.g., portable device) and a second apparatus (e.g., server).
- The second apparatus comprising a second storage medium, a communicator, a detector, an editor, and a controller.
- The editor is configured to edit management information (e.g., a transfer list) "without regard to the connection of said first apparatus."
- The controller is configured to "control transfer" of selected data to the first apparatus when a connection is detected.
- The controller is also configured to "compare" the edited management information on the second apparatus with information about data already stored on the first apparatus and transmit data based on the comparison result.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 - Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued November 10, 2009.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’929 Patent: the inefficiency of transferring media files piece-by-piece and the potential for confusion when using batch transfer lists (’537 Patent, col. 2:24-43).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for communication between two apparatuses. The method involves a specific sequence of steps: judging if a connection exists, comparing device identifiers, comparing a "first list" of content on the client with a "second list" on the server, and then transferring new content to the client and deleting content from the client that is no longer on the server list. This defines a logical process for synchronization (’537 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-18).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims the specific sequence of operations for synchronizing content between a server and a client, providing a methodological counterpart to the system claims of related patents (’537 Patent, col. 2:44-60).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’537 Patent, Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A communication method to transfer content data.
- Judging whether a first and second apparatus are connected.
- Comparing an identifier of the first apparatus with an identifier stored in the second apparatus.
- Comparing a "first list of content data" of the first apparatus and a "second list of content data" of the second apparatus.
- Transferring content from the second apparatus that is in the second list but not the first list.
- Deleting content from the first apparatus that is in the first list but not the second list.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,380,112 - Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,380,112, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued June 28, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’112 Patent claims a communication apparatus, such as a server, comprising memory to store a "first list of musical content" and circuitry to edit that list based on user input, regardless of a portable device's connection status. The circuitry is further configured to compare the edited list with a list of content stored on the portable apparatus and to control the transfer of data based on the comparison.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint generally asserts infringement of the ’112 Patent without specifying claims (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 50; Prayer for Relief ¶a). Independent Claim 1 is representative.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Pandora System's functionality that allows users to create and edit playlists on Pandora's servers, which are then synchronized to a user's mobile device. This includes adding songs via a "Thumbs-up" icon, deleting songs, and controlling playback based on the user's unique account identifier (Compl. ¶¶ 42-48).
U.S. Patent No. 9,712,614 - Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,712,614, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued July 18, 2017.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’614 Patent claims a communication apparatus comprising memory for musical content and associated "program lists." The apparatus includes a data interface to connect to an external device and circuitry configured to perform several functions: control playback based on the program lists and a predetermined identifier for the external device, present the lists to a user, accept edits, and control data transfer by comparing the program list with a list on the external device and omitting the transfer of common data.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint generally asserts infringement of the ’614 Patent without specifying claims (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 68; Prayer for Relief ¶a). Independent Claim 1 is representative.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Pandora System's ability to store and manage user playlists ("program lists"), use a graphical interface to present and allow edits to these lists (e.g., adding songs with a "Thumbs-up" icon), identify users and their devices, and synchronize content by comparing server-side and client-side lists (Compl. ¶¶ 56-66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's products and services, identified as "the Pandora System, including Pandora Premium, and all versions and variations thereof" (Compl. ¶8).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the Pandora System as a client-server architecture that communicates music files and playlists from web servers (the "second apparatus") to a user's mobile device or tablet with the Pandora app installed (the "first apparatus") (Compl. ¶11).
- Key accused functionalities include an "offline feature" that automatically downloads stations or allows users to download specific albums, songs, or playlists for listening without an internet connection (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 11).
- The system allows users to create and edit playlists, such as by adding a song with a "Thumbs-up" icon or deleting songs from a list, with these edits occurring on the server and later synchronizing to the mobile device (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 33). A screenshot in the complaint shows the Pandora web player interface, including a "Thumbs-up" icon highlighted by the plaintiff (Compl. p. 8).
- The system can also detect the connection status of a device, for example, by automatically switching to "Offline Mode" when a Wi-Fi or cellular connection is lost (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,720,929 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] communication system including a first apparatus having a first storage medium, and a second apparatus. | The Pandora System includes web servers (second apparatus) that communicate with a user's mobile device or tablet with the Pandora app (first apparatus). | ¶11 | col. 2:50-53 |
| a second storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred... | The Pandora System servers include storage (e.g., a hard drive) that stores user playlists, albums, and stations to be transferred to a mobile device. | ¶12 | col. 2:53-56 |
| a communicator configured to communicate with said first apparatus. | The Pandora System includes a communicator (e.g., network interface) to transmit playlists, albums, and stations to the mobile device. | ¶13 | col. 2:56-57 |
| a detector configured to detect whether said first apparatus and a second apparatus are connected. | The Pandora System determines whether a mobile device is connected to the Internet, for example, by switching to "Offline Mode" when a connection is lost. | ¶14 | col. 3:1-4 |
| an editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit said management information...without regard to the connection of said first apparatus. | The Pandora System allows users to add items to a playlist (e.g., via "Thumbs-up") or delete songs, regardless of whether the mobile device is connected to the server. | ¶15 | col. 3:5-9 |
| a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data...when said detector detects that said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected. | The Pandora System will resume a download to a mobile device if a connection is lost and then restored. | ¶16 | col. 3:9-15 |
| wherein said controller is configured to compare said management information...with management information of data stored in said first storage medium and to transmit data...based on result of the comparison. | The Pandora System resumes downloads that have already begun when a connection is lost and later restored, which allegedly involves a comparison to determine which data to transmit. | ¶17 | col. 3:15-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "second apparatus" comprising an editor, detector, and controller maps cleanly onto Pandora's distributed server-side system. A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a help page for users whose account is playing on more than one device, which Plaintiff uses as evidence that the system can identify a specific device is connected (Compl. p. 6).
- Technical Questions: The final limitation requiring a "comparison" of management information on the server with that on the client device will be a key point of dispute. The complaint's allegation that resuming a partial download satisfies this element (Compl. ¶17) raises the question of what technical process is actually performed. Does the system compare entire playlists, or does it merely check a transfer queue for undelivered file blocks? The specific function required by the claim may not be met by a simple download-resume feature.
7,617,537 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A communication method to transfer content data... | The Pandora System communicates music files and playlists from its servers to a user's mobile device. | ¶28 | col. 4:8-10 |
| judging whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected. | The Pandora System determines whether the server is connected to a mobile device, such as by switching to "Offline Mode" when a connection is lost. | ¶29 | col. 4:11-12 |
| comparing...an identifier of said first apparatus with an identifier stored in said second apparatus. | The Pandora System determines whether a device associated with a specific user account is connected to the server. | ¶30 | col. 4:13-16 |
| comparing...a first list of content data of said first apparatus and a second list of content data of said second apparatus. | The Pandora System resumes a download to a mobile device if the connection is lost and then restored, which allegedly requires comparing lists. | ¶31 | col. 4:16-20 |
| transferring...first content data, which is registered in said second list and is not registered in said first list. | The Pandora System resumes a previously started download when a connection is restored, and will not resend information already transferred. | ¶32 | col. 4:21-24 |
| deleting, from the first apparatus, second content data, which registered in said first list and is not registered in the second list. | When a playlist stored on Pandora servers is edited to remove a song, the playlist on the mobile device will have the same song deleted. | ¶33 | col. 4:25-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The method claim requires a specific sequence of steps. A key question for the court will be whether Pandora's system performs these steps in the claimed order and manner. For instance, does the system perform a device identifier comparison before a list comparison, as the claim recites?
- Technical Questions: The "comparing...a first list...and a second list" step is alleged to be met by the download-resume feature (Compl. ¶31). This raises an evidentiary question: what is the actual technical mechanism for resuming downloads? Does it involve comparing two distinct "lists" of content, or does it operate on a different principle, such as tracking file offsets or block checksums, which may not meet the claim's requirements?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "management information" ('929 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the data structure that is edited on the server and compared with data on the portable device. Its scope is critical; if it is construed narrowly to mean only a specific type of batch transfer file, it may not read on Pandora's dynamic playlists. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition underpins the entire infringement theory.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the system is for "transferring musical data from an audio server to a portable audio-data playback apparatus with ease" ('537 Patent, col. 2:46-49), suggesting the term should be interpreted functionally to cover modern equivalents like playlists that achieve this goal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to this as a "transfer list" or "program list" created for the purpose of a batch transfer operation, as depicted in the flowcharts (e.g., ’929 Patent, Fig. 13, "START EDITING A TRANSFER LIST"). This may support a narrower construction tied to a specific transfer-oriented data object.
The Term: "compare...a first list of content data...and a second list of content data" (’537 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This functional step is the core of the synchronization method. The infringement allegation hinges on whether Pandora's system actually performs a comparison between two lists. If Pandora's system simply transmits data from a queue without comparing it to a list on the client device, there may be no infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The overall purpose of the invention is to synchronize data. A broad, functional interpretation might cover any technical process that achieves synchronization by determining differences between server and client data states, even if not implemented as a literal comparison of two static lists.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites comparing "a first list" and "a second list," suggesting two discrete data structures are being compared. The specification also describes a process where a "stock list" (on the server) is compared to a "transfer list" (for the device) (’537 Patent, col. 22:38-45). This could support a narrower reading requiring a literal comparison of two defined lists.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Pandora provides instructions, user manuals, marketing materials, and product support that encourage and explain to users how to use the accused features, such as downloading content for offline use and creating and managing playlists (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 35-36).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents and infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 34, 49, 67). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused Pandora System's method for synchronizing content and resuming downloads perform the specific step-by-step "comparison" of two distinct "lists" of "management information" as required by the claims, or does it achieve a similar outcome through a technically different process that falls outside the claim scope?
- A key question will be one of claim construction: can terms like "management information" and the functional "compare" step, which are described in the patent's 1999-era context of transferring files from a PC to a portable player via a "transfer list," be construed broadly enough to cover the dynamic, cloud-based playlist synchronization architecture of a modern streaming service?