DCT

2:22-cv-09245

Onstream Media Corp v. Carrierx LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Onstream Media Corporation (Florida)
- Defendant: CarrierX, LLC (Delaware); Start Meeting, LLC (Nevada); and Free Conferencing Corporation (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkowski Legal, PC; Daignault Iyer LLP
Case Identification: 2:22-cv-09245, C.D. Cal., 12/20/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each defendant has its principal place of business in the Central District of California.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ cloud-based communication and video conferencing products and services infringe nine U.S. patents related to remotely accessed, server-side systems for recording, storing, and delivering audio and video streams.
Technical Context: The technology concerns client-server architectures for media stream recording, where the processing and storage burden is shifted from a user's device to remote servers, a foundational concept for modern cloud-based collaboration platforms.
Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates that all nine patents-in-suit descend from the same original patent application and share a common specification, suggesting that claim construction and technical arguments may have significant overlap across the asserted portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-24	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-10-13	U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068 Issues
2016-10-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 Issues
2018-07-31	U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930 Issues
2019-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648 Issues
2020-06-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,674,109 Issues
2020-06-23	U.S. Patent No. 10,694,142 Issues
2020-11-24	U.S. Patent No. 10,848,707 Issues
2021-03-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,951,855 Issues
2021-09-21	U.S. Patent No. 11,128,833 Issues
2022-12-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued October 13, 2015

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes how new online business communication systems often result in "increased intellectual complexity and/or increased computer system requirements," which creates a barrier to entry for new users (Compl. ¶¶21-22; ’068 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an Internet-based recording system where the recording software and storage memory reside on a "host back end" (a server), rather than the "user front end" (a client device) (Compl. ¶24; ’068 Patent, col. 2:10-32). This allows a user with only a web browser to access a "virtual recording room" and initiate the recording of an audio/video stream, with all processing and storage handled remotely, thereby reducing the technical requirements for the user's device (’068 Patent, Abstract).
Technical Importance: This client-server architecture for media recording shifted the computational and storage burden away from the end-user's device, making sophisticated recording capabilities more accessible to users with less powerful computers and without requiring installation of specialized software (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).
Essential elements of Claim 1 (method):
- Recording audio and video material over an Internet browser connection, where the material originates on a user front end but is recorded on a host back end.
- This recording is accomplished "without requiring recording functionality on the user front end."
- Storing the recorded material on the host back end.
- Providing access to the recorded material.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued October 11, 2016

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: As noted in the complaint, the specification of the ’728 Patent is the same as the ’068 Patent, addressing the complexity and high system requirements of prior art recording systems (Compl. ¶30).
The Patented Solution: This patent builds on the server-side recording concept by introducing a method where the host system transmits a "platform-independent web application" to the user's browser (Compl. ¶91; ’728 Patent, col. 15:53-56). This application initiates the streaming of audio/video from the user's device to the host's back-end servers for recording and storage. The system then generates a code (e.g., a hyperlink or embed code) that allows the recorded content to be accessed from other locations, such as a website (’728 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-44).
Technical Importance: This approach not only simplified recording for the end-user but also provided a streamlined mechanism for distributing and embedding the recorded media across the web without requiring the file itself to be moved from the host's storage (Compl. ¶¶93-94).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶89).
Essential elements of Claim 1 (method):
- Transmitting a platform-independent web application from a host back end to a user front end via a network.
- The web application initiates the streaming of audio and video material from a receiving device on the user front end to the host back end as it is being captured.
- Recording the material on the host back end via the web application.
- Storing the recorded material as a complete video file.
- Generating code associated with the stored material to facilitate access from another location.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued July 31, 2018

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for remote, browser-based recording. It focuses on transmitting a "browser-independent recording application" from a server to a client, which then executes in the browser to capture and stream media back to the server for recording, eliminating the need for locally installed software (Compl. ¶¶99-101).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶98).
Accused Features: The accused functionality is the transmission of a browser-based application from the CarrierX System servers to a client device, which executes in the browser to manage the recording process without requiring a separate software installation (Compl. ¶¶99, 100).

U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued February 5, 2019

Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method for an Internet-based recording system that performs all recording functions over a browser connection. The key steps include recording material that originates at the user front end onto a host back end and then storing the material on that back end (Compl. ¶¶106-107).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the CarrierX System of providing an Internet-based recording method that performs and stores audio/video recordings over a browser connection between the user and CarrierX's servers (Compl. ¶¶106-107).

U.S. Patent No. 10,674,109 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued June 2, 2020

Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a distributed audio and video recording system. Its claims focus on a front-end device streaming material to a host back-end server system for recording, without the material being stored as a complete file on the front-end device before streaming (Compl. ¶117).
Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶113).
Accused Features: The CarrierX system is accused of operating as a distributed system where a user's device streams audio and video to CarrierX servers for recording without first saving the entire recording locally on the user's device (Compl. ¶117).

U.S. Patent No. 10,694,142 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued June 23, 2020

Technology Synopsis: The patent covers a method where, in response to a user interaction, a host back end delivers a "first code" to the user front end. This code, when executed, initiates the streaming of captured audio/video material from the user's device to the host back end for recording (Compl. ¶¶124-126).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶122).
Accused Features: The accused method involves the CarrierX servers delivering executable code to a user's browser in response to a user action (e.g., clicking "record"), which then initiates the streaming and recording process (Compl. ¶124).

U.S. Patent No. 10,848,707 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued November 24, 2020

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for remotely recording streamed media at host back-end servers and storing it as a sequentially stored file. The system then generates a pointer, such as a URL, to provide remote user access to the stored file (Compl. ¶¶132-135).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
Accused Features: The CarrierX system is accused of remotely recording streamed media onto its servers, storing it, and then generating a URL or link that allows users to access the recording (Compl. ¶¶132-133, 135).

U.S. Patent No. 10,951,855 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued March 16, 2021

Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to a secure, distributed recording system that includes an application operating on a mobile front-end device. The application securely streams captured audio and video to a host back-end application server for recording (Compl. ¶¶141, 145-146).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶139).
Accused Features: The accused system includes the StartMeeting and FreeConferenceCall.com mobile applications, which allegedly comprise a secure system for streaming and recording meetings from a mobile device to CarrierX's servers (Compl. ¶141).

U.S. Patent No. 11,128,833 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

Issued September 21, 2021

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a network-based method where recording is done over a packet-based network at a host back end. The system records material originating from a user front end without requiring recording software to be installed on that front end and subsequently generates a code to facilitate access to the stored recording (Compl. ¶¶154, 157).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶152).
Accused Features: The CarrierX system is accused of providing network-based recording at its host back end of material from a user's device, where no software is installed on the user's device, and then generating a shareable code or link for the recording (Compl. ¶¶154, 157-158).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "CarrierX Products and Services" and the "CarrierX System" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶11-12). This includes specific offerings such as the CarrierX Core API, Conference API, StartMeeting services (including mobile and web applications), and FreeConferenceCall.com services (including mobile and desktop apps) (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products collectively form a Communications Platform as a Service (CPaaS) that provides cloud-based voice, video, and messaging tools for developers and end-users (Compl. ¶75). The relevant functionality is the ability to conduct and record audio/video conferences and meetings. The complaint alleges that users can initiate these recordings through a web browser or application, and the audio/video stream is transmitted to and stored on CarrierX's servers, which are referred to as the "host back end" (Compl. ¶¶75, 81, 82). A screenshot from Defendants’ marketing materials describes the service as "Simple HD video conferencing with a clean, intuitive interface" (Compl. p. 11). The system is alleged to operate across a variety of platforms and devices, including PCs, Macs, Chromebooks, iOS, and Android, without requiring a software download for browser-based users (Compl. ¶¶78, 84). Another screenshot highlights a feature of providing "10 GB Storage" for audio conferences and video presentations, indicating a cloud-based storage model (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’068 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An Internet-based recording method . . . comprising: recording audio and video material over an Internet browser connection established between a user front end and a host back end	The CarrierX System allegedly employs a method to record audio and video material over an internet connection established between a user's device (front end) and CarrierX's servers (host back end).	¶75	col. 2:10-15
wherein audio and video material originates on the user front end and is recorded on the host back end without requiring recording functionality on the user front end	The complaint alleges audio and video is captured on the user's device but recorded on CarrierX's servers, and that this is done without using any recording software installed on the user's device. A provided screenshot for the "Web Viewer" states, "No download is necessary." (Compl. p. 21).	¶84	col. 2:28-32
storing the recorded audio and video material on the host back end	The complaint alleges that recordings are made and stored on the host back end, providing users with "Free Cloud Storage" on CarrierX's servers. A screenshot shows marketing for "10 GB Storage" where users can find an "archive of all your recordings" (Compl. p. 18).	¶82	col. 2:15-17
and providing access to the recorded audio and video material.	After a recording is complete, the CarrierX System allegedly provides users access to the entire audio and video recording for playback or sharing.	¶83	col. 2:18-19

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question may be the meaning of "without requiring recording functionality on the user front end." The patent's priority date (2004) predates modern browser APIs (e.g., WebRTC) that provide native media capture capabilities. A dispute may arise over whether using such built-in browser functions constitutes "recording functionality on the user front end" as the patentee understood it, or if the term was intended only to exclude separately installed, third-party software.
Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused browser-based system does not rely on any "recording functionality"? The allegations are based on marketing claims of "no download," which may not fully capture the technical operation of the JavaScript code running in the browser.

’728 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
transmitting, to the user front end from the host back end via a network . . . a platform-independent web application	The complaint alleges that servers of the CarrierX System deliver code to a user's browser that can be executed across various operating systems and browsers, which it characterizes as a platform-independent web application. The complaint provides a screenshot listing compatibility with Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Chrome, and Firefox (Compl. p. 25).	¶91	col. 2:45-50
wherein the web application initiates the streaming of audio and video material from a receiving device on the user front end to the host back end as it is being captured with the receiving device	The complaint alleges this browser-executable code initiates the streaming of audio and video from the user's device (e.g., camera and microphone) to CarrierX's servers as the media is being captured, rather than after a full file is created locally.	¶91	col. 2:28-32
recording the audio and video material on the host back end (e.g., one or more servers of the CarrierX System) via the web application	The accused system is alleged to use the web application to record the streamed audio and video on servers that are part of the host back end.	¶92	col. 2:51-55
and storing the recorded audio and video material as a complete video file.	The complaint alleges the system stores the recorded material on the host back end as a complete video file in the user's cloud storage account.	¶92	col. 2:56-58
generating code associated with the recorded and stored audio and video material to facilitate accessing the recorded and stored audio and video material from an additional location	The system is alleged to generate a shareable link associated with the recording, which can be pasted into an email or onto a website to provide access. A screenshot states, "The recording can be downloaded and shared or shared via a link" (Compl. p. 28).	¶¶93-94	col. 2:33-37

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: Does the accused browser-based code qualify as a "platform-independent web application"? Defendants may argue that code relying on specific APIs available in modern browsers, but not older ones, is not truly platform-independent. The interpretation of this term, which is not explicitly defined in the specification, may be a key point of dispute.
Technical Questions: Does the "generated code" (e.g., a URL) satisfy the claim limitation that its "content... depends on a type of code supported by the additional location"? The complaint's allegations on this point are high-level and may require further technical evidence to substantiate how the generated link is tailored for different sharing contexts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "without requiring recording functionality on the user front end" (’068 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical to the infringement analysis for the ’068 patent. Its construction will determine whether the use of modern, native browser APIs for media capture falls outside the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technological baseline for what constitutes "functionality on the user front end" has shifted dramatically since the patent's 2004 priority date.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems that "require some type of additional 'plug in' or other additional custom software application to be downloaded and installed locally" (’068 Patent, col. 6:1-4). This language may support an interpretation where "recording functionality" refers only to external, installable software, not built-in browser capabilities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the invention is "accomplished without requiring recording functionality on the user front end" (’068 Patent, Abstract). This broad statement could support an argument that any function on the user's device that participates in the capture and transmission of the stream is a form of "recording functionality" precluded by the claim.

The Term: "platform-independent web application" (’728 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to infringement of the ’728 patent. The dispute will likely center on whether a web application that runs on multiple platforms but may rely on different underlying browser engines or APIs meets the definition. The defendant may argue it is not truly "independent" if its behavior or code path differs across platforms.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific technical definition for this term. A patentee might argue that in the context of the invention, the term simply means an application delivered via the web that is not tied to a single proprietary operating system, consistent with the patent's goal of broad accessibility.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself implies a high degree of portability and uniformity of operation across different platforms. A defendant could argue that if the accused application uses browser-specific features or requires different code to run on Chrome versus Safari, it is not "platform-independent" in the strictest sense.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. While one paragraph mentions "direct indirect infringement" (Compl. ¶128), it does not plead the required elements of knowledge and intent with specific supporting facts.

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

A core issue will be one of temporal scope and claim construction: can claim terms drafted in 2004, such as "without requiring recording functionality on the user front end," be interpreted to cover modern web applications that leverage native, but complex, browser APIs for media capture? The resolution will depend on whether these terms are construed to mean only the absence of third-party plugins, or the absence of any substantive media processing function on the client side.
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: beyond the marketing materials cited, what technical evidence will demonstrate that the accused systems' browser-based code and server architecture perform the specific, ordered steps of the asserted method claims? The case may turn on a detailed comparison between the patented methods and the actual, line-by-line operation of the accused services.