Bluejay Tech Ltd v. Spotify USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bluejay Technologies Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: Spotify USA Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Continuum Law
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-06559, C.D. Cal., 08/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Group Session" and "Jam" features, which enable shared music listening, infringe a patent related to systems for simulated live broadcasting of programmed media playlists.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for allowing a "host" user to curate and broadcast a synchronized music playlist to multiple "recipient" users over the internet, creating a shared, radio-like listening experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Bluejay had B2B discussions and provided detailed PowerPoint presentations to Spotify about its technology in 2018, including discussions of a potential non-disclosure agreement, before Spotify later launched allegedly similar features.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,627,344 - "System for Streaming," Issued April 11, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a gap in the online media landscape where streaming services were focused on on-demand, individual listening. It identifies a need for a solution to enable users to easily create and broadcast their own personally curated, "short-lived" internet radio stations to a group of friends for a shared, "live" experience, without requiring the broadcaster to build or maintain significant technical infrastructure (ʼ344 Patent, col. 2:16-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system using a software application with a "host mode" and a "recipient mode." A user in host mode can program a playlist session by selecting content from various local or cloud-based sources. This session is then transmitted to a streaming server, which relays the content in a synchronized fashion to multiple recipients, who use the same application in recipient mode to join and listen to the "substantially live" broadcast (’344 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:7-44). The system architecture is designed to be scalable and to manage the technical complexities of broadcasting behind the scenes (’344 Patent, col. 7:4-13).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to combine the personal curation of a mixtape with the shared, real-time experience of traditional radio broadcasting, adapted for the internet and mobile device ecosystem (ʼ344 Patent, col. 2:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 6.
• The essential elements of Claim 6 include:
  • Executing a software application on a host device in a "host mode," where the application is configured to "only on the host device, program, transmit and receive the programmed audio music playlist session."
  • Programming the session from the host by selecting a sequence of music items from a plurality of content stores and identifying their internet locations.
  • Initiating the session by transmitting the content items to a streaming server, which then streams them to recipient devices.
  • Executing the software on recipient devices in a "recipient mode," where the application is configured to "only on the recipient devices, receive the programmed audio music playlist session."
  • A multi-step authorization process managed by the streaming server, involving receiving authorization requests, generating login prompts, validating user information, and issuing access tokens and authorization codes to the host device to enable the streaming session.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 7-14 are also asserted (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Spotify's "Group Session" and "Jam" features, referred to collectively as the "Accused Services" (Compl. ¶17, ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that "Group Session" was a feature for premium subscribers allowing up to five users to listen to music or podcasts remotely together (Compl. ¶27-28).
• "Jam" is described as a successor feature that provides a "DJ function" for a host to broadcast to recipients (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint alleges that Jam allows a host to control a shared playlist, with management limited to the host (Compl. ¶31, ¶40).
• The services allegedly allow users to join a session via a link or code to listen to a "simulated broadcast" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint characterizes Jam as a "Real-Time Collaborative Playlist Feature" (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory for the '344 patent is primarily supported by citing to the technical descriptions within two patents owned by Spotify, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,570,518 ("Broberg I") and 11,283,846 ("Broberg II"), which Plaintiff alleges "represented" the structure and operation of the Accused Services (Compl. ¶34).

’344 Patent Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A central issue may be whether the technical descriptions in Spotify’s Broberg patents, filed for Spotify's own inventions, accurately and completely describe the functionality of the accused "Jam" and "Group Session" products as they operate in the market. The defense may argue that patent specifications describe embodiments that are not necessarily implemented in commercial products.
• Technical Question: The complaint characterizes "Jam" as a "Collaborative Playlist Feature" (Compl. ¶37), which raises the question of whether this functionality conflicts with the claim limitation that programming occurs "only on the host device." The degree of control or input available to recipient users will be a key factual determination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "only on the host device"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 6 to define the locus of control for programming the playlist session. Its construction is critical because the accused "Jam" feature is described in the complaint as "collaborative." The infringement analysis will depend on whether any collaborative input from recipients takes the feature outside the scope of a session programmed "only on the host device."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the host's "control" of programming from listeners' ability to engage in "chat functionality" or "liking or disliking songs" ('344 Patent, col. 4:24-29). A party could argue that as long as the ultimate authority to add, remove, or reorder tracks resides with the host, the "only on the host device" requirement is met, even if recipients can suggest or "like" songs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is restrictive. The specification emphasizes that the "host device is capable of controlling the programming of the session" and that in a preferred form, "the live broadcast of the session may only be controlled by the host" ('344 Patent, col. 4:35-46). This could support an interpretation that any ability for a recipient to directly influence the playlist (e.g., adding a song to a queue) would mean the programming is not done "only on the host device."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. Count I alleges that Spotify directly infringed "by performing...each and every step of the claims by using methods that embody the patented invention" (Compl. ¶33, ¶26), framing this as a case of direct infringement by the service provider.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" or demand enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in the prayer for relief, but it does plead facts that could support a willfulness claim. It alleges Spotify had pre-suit knowledge of Bluejay's technology and intellectual property concepts through "B2B discussions," "detailed PowerPoint presentations," and communication about a potential NDA in 2018, years before the patent issued and the lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶14-17).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff prove that the accused Spotify "Jam" and "Group Session" features operate in the manner described in Spotify's own patents (Broberg I and II), and is that operational method sufficient to meet every limitation of the asserted claims of the '344 patent?
• A second key question will be one of claim scope: Does the claim limitation requiring that a playlist be programmed "only on the host device" read on a feature that is marketed and described as "collaborative"? The outcome may turn on the precise level of control retained by the host versus the input allowed from recipients in the accused services.
• A third question relates to damages and intent: Given the allegations of pre-launch discussions between the parties, a central theme will be whether Spotify’s alleged use of the technology was an independent development or was informed by Bluejay’s earlier disclosures, which could significantly influence a jury’s view on willfulness and damages if infringement is found.