DCT
2:20-cv-02250
Quibi Holdings LLC v. Interlude US Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Quibi Holdings, LLC. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Interlude US, Inc. d/b/a Eko (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morrison & Foerster LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-02250, C.D. Cal., 03/09/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts commercial activities in the district, sent an infringement demand letter into the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, which is Plaintiff's principal place of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Turnstyle" mobile video technology does not infringe Defendant's patent related to adaptive video presentations.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for dynamically altering a video presentation on a user device in response to changes in the device's properties, such as orientation or window size.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that following a public demonstration of Plaintiff's technology, Defendant sent a demand letter, contacted a technology reporter, and submitted a notice of complaint to the Apple App Store, all alleging patent infringement. This history establishes the "actual case and controversy" required for a declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-08-26 | '765 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2017-03-23 | Eko CEO emails Quibi founder regarding potential investment |
| 2018-07-01 | Quibi is formed |
| 2018-09-01 | Quibi begins development of its "Turnstyle" app feature |
| 2019-10-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765 issues to Eko |
| 2020-01-08 | Quibi demonstrates Turnstyle at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) |
| 2020-01-28 | Eko's counsel sends infringement demand letter to Quibi |
| 2020-03-02 | Eko sends notice of complaint to Apple Inc. |
| 2020-03-09 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Quibi |
| 2020-04-06 | Planned launch date for Quibi's mobile app |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765, Systems and Methods for Adaptive and Responsive Video, issued October 29, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that when viewing digital video on devices with different screen sizes and orientations, the video is often scaled in a way that results in undesirable cropping (loss of content) or letterboxing (black bars) ('765 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "smart video response" technique where video content can adapt in real-time to changes in properties associated with a user device ('765 Patent, col. 1:38-44). Rather than simply resizing a single video, the system can seamlessly transition to a different video presentation or state based on a detected change, such as a device rotation or a change in the media player's window size ('765 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-65). This allows for different, custom-framed content to be shown in, for example, portrait versus landscape orientations.
- Technical Importance: This approach allows content creators to provide a more tailored and seamless viewing experience on mobile devices, avoiding the compromises of traditional scaling and ensuring the video remains optimized for different viewing contexts.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims of the patent, with a specific focus on Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 33).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- Receiving video from a first and a second, different video presentation simultaneously.
- Providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window height and width ranges.
- During playback, determining that a media player window has been resized to change from first dimensions to second, different dimensions.
- Determining that the second height and second width are included in particular height and width ranges.
- Evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation is mapped to both the particular height and width ranges.
- In response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the first video presentation to the second video presentation.
- The complaint seeks judgment as to "any claim" of the '765 patent, implicitly reserving the right to address all claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 14(A)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff's (Quibi's) mobile application, specifically a feature known as "Turnstyle" (Compl. ¶ 10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Turnstyle feature is designed to enhance the viewing experience on a mobile phone by seamlessly adapting video content to changes in the device's orientation (Compl. ¶ 14). It is described as receiving a single stream containing a first video asset for portrait mode and a second video asset for landscape mode, and selectively presenting one of the two based on the orientation of the user's device (Compl. ¶ 37). The complaint positions Turnstyle as a key innovative technology for its high-profile, premium short-form video streaming service (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 10, 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the analysis reflects the plaintiff's (Quibi's) stated reasons for why its product does not infringe.
’765 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Quibi) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining that a media player window in which the video is playing has been resized to change from first dimensions... to second, different dimensions... | The Quibi app does not determine if a media player window has been resized. Instead, it transitions video in response to the physical rotation of the mobile device, an action the patent specification explicitly distinguishes from window resizing. | ¶¶ 36, 38 | col. 5:50-54 |
| providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window height ranges and media player window width ranges... | The Quibi app does not provide or use a mapping of video presentations to specific height and width ranges as required by the claim. | ¶¶ 37, 42 | col. 12:56-59 |
| determining that the second height is included in a particular one of the media player window height ranges; determining that the second width is included in a particular one of the media player window width ranges; | The Quibi app does not perform any determination of whether a window's height or width falls within particular ranges. | ¶¶ 36, 41 | col. 14:6-9 |
| evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation is mapped to both the particular media player window height range and the particular media player window width range; | No such "evaluating the mapping" occurs in the Quibi app. The complaint provides two screenshots from a CES keynote address, one showing a video in a vertical portrait orientation and the other showing a different view of the video in a horizontal landscape orientation after the device was presumably rotated (Compl. p. 7). | ¶¶ 42, 43 | col. 14:10-14 |
| in response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video from the first video presentation to the video from the second video presentation... | The transition in the Quibi app occurs in response to a change in orientation of the mobile device, not in response to "evaluating the mapping" as claimed. | ¶ 43 | col. 14:15-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be the proper construction of the claim phrase "determining that a media player window... has been resized." The complaint argues this phrase cannot be interpreted to cover the detection of a physical rotation of a device, pointing to specification language that treats these as distinct user actions (Compl. ¶ 35, citing '765 Patent, col. 5:50-54).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether Quibi's system performs the specific technical steps of the claim. The complaint alleges that Turnstyle's mechanism—querying device orientation to select one of two video assets—is fundamentally different from the claimed method of consulting a predefined "mapping" of video presentations to specific "height ranges and... width ranges" (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 42).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "determining that a media player window... has been resized"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical. Quibi's entire non-infringement argument is premised on its Turnstyle feature responding to device rotation, which it contends is a different event than a window being "resized."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument for a broader reading might point to the patent's general theme of adapting to device state changes. Figure 2 of the patent, which is used to illustrate the invention, depicts a device being rotated, which could be argued to show the inventor's intent to cover such a change ('765 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint highlights specification language that appears to explicitly distinguish rotation from resizing: "[R]rather than physically rotating or repositioning the user device, the user changes the window size or state..." ('765 Patent, col. 5:50-54; Compl. ¶ 35). This language suggests the patentee viewed these as mutually exclusive actions, supporting a narrower construction that excludes rotation.
The Term: "evaluating the mapping"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because Quibi alleges its technology does not perform this step at all (Compl. ¶ 42). The infringement analysis for this element may turn on what technical process qualifies as "evaluating the mapping."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any logical process that associates a device state with a corresponding video presentation constitutes a form of "evaluating the mapping."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation is mapped to both the particular media player window height range and the particular media player window width range" ('765 Patent, col. 14:10-14). This specificity suggests the "evaluating" step must involve a direct comparison against predefined numerical height and width ranges, not merely a response to a binary state like orientation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff Quibi seeks a declaration that it does not infringe "directly or indirectly, literally or by equivalents" (Compl. ¶ 14(A)). However, the body of the complaint focuses exclusively on direct non-infringement and does not provide specific facts for analysis of indirect infringement theories.
- Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not an issue raised in this declaratory judgment complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "determining that a media player window... has been resized," as used in the patent, be construed to cover detecting the physical rotation of a mobile device? The patent's own specification appears to create a distinction between these two user actions, which may be a significant factor in the court's analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does Quibi's Turnstyle feature, which allegedly selects between two video assets based on device orientation, in fact perform the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 1? This includes determining if a window's new dimensions fall within specific height and width ranges and "evaluating the mapping" based on those ranges, a mechanism Quibi contends its technology does not use.