Helios Streaming LLC v. Fandango Media LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Helios Streaming, LLC (Delaware) and IdeaHub, Inc. (Republic of Korea)
  • Defendant: Fandango Media, LLC (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 8:21-cv-00211, C.D. Cal., 01/29/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Fandango Media, LLC maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including its principal office in Beverly Hills, California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s video-on-demand streaming service infringes four patents related to adaptive HTTP streaming technology compliant with the MPEG-DASH standard.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue, MPEG-DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP), is a widely adopted international standard for streaming video content over the internet, forming the technical backbone for major video-on-demand and live streaming services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the asserted patents, developed by researchers at the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), claim inventions incorporated into the MPEG-DASH standard. Plaintiff IdeaHub acquired the patent applications between June and August 2018, and Plaintiff Helios obtained an exclusive license in or about August 2018. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had actual notice of infringement of the ’830, ’414, and ’145 patents as of November 13, 2019, and of the ’130 patent as of January 16, 2020. The complaint also asserts that many of the patent claims are subject to Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-09-01	’145 Patent Priority Date
2011-03-16	’830 Patent Priority Date
2011-03-16	’414 Patent Priority Date
2011-07-19	’130 Patent Priority Date
2018-06-01	Plaintiff IdeaHub began acquiring asserted patent applications (approx.)
2018-08-01	Plaintiff Helios obtained an exclusive license to asserted patent applications (approx.)
2019-04-23	U.S. Patent No. 10,270,830 Issued
2019-06-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,313,414 Issued
2019-07-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,356,145 Issued
2019-07-23	U.S. Patent No. 10,362,130 Issued
2019-11-13	Alleged notice of infringement for ’830, ’414, and ’145 Patents
2020-01-16	Alleged notice of infringement for ’130 Patent
2021-01-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,270,830 - “Apparatus and Method for Providing Streaming Content Using Representations”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical environment of adaptive streaming services, where a client device requests media sequences suitable for its specific conditions (e.g., network bandwidth, screen size) from a server that holds the content in various different qualities and formats (U.S. Patent No. 10,270,830, col. 1:33-51). The implicit problem is how to efficiently and logically describe this complex array of media options to the client device.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hierarchical data model, known as a Media Presentation Description (MPD), to organize and describe the streaming content (U.S. Patent No. 10,270,830, Fig. 1). The media is structured into a sequence of "periods", which contain "adaptation sets" (e.g., all video streams or all audio streams), which in turn contain multiple "representations" (e.g., different bitrates of the same video), composed of media "segments" (U.S. Patent No. 10,270,830, col. 5:46-6:17). The solution's efficiency stems from defining attributes or data elements that are "common" to various levels of this hierarchy, allowing information defined at a higher level (e.g., the Period) to apply to all subordinate levels, thereby reducing redundancy in the metadata file ('830 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This hierarchical metadata structure with inheritable properties is a foundational concept of the MPEG-DASH standard, which enables adaptive streaming from conventional HTTP web servers without requiring specialized streaming servers (Compl. ¶15, 18-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 and dependent claim 11 (Compl. ¶28, 38).
• Independent Claim 8 requires a method comprising the steps of:
  • transmitting a Media Presentation Description (MPD) to a client;
  • receiving a request from the client for a segment;
  • transmitting the media content to the client;
  • wherein the MPD has a four-level hierarchy of periods, adaptation sets, representations, and segments;
  • wherein the MPD includes attributes or elements common to all four levels;
  • wherein the period includes attributes or elements common to the three levels below it;
  • wherein the adaptation set includes attributes or elements common to the two levels below it; and
  • wherein the representation includes attributes or elements common to the segments within it.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent but does so for others.

U.S. Patent No. 10,313,414 - “Apparatus and Method for Providing Streaming Content Using Representations”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Within the context of adaptive streaming, client devices need detailed, structured information about the available media streams to make intelligent decisions about which stream to select and how to request individual media segments ('414 Patent, col. 1:35-51). The technical challenge is creating a flexible and standardized metadata framework to convey this wide variety of information.
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for providing media content where the MPD file contains specific attributes and elements at various levels of the data hierarchy (e.g., MPD level, Period level, Adaptation Set level) to signal properties of the media streams to the client ('414 Patent, Abstract). The solution involves defining specific metadata tags, such as a "SegmentTemplate" for describing how to locate segments, and attributes like "maxSegmentDuration", "audioSampleRate", and "contentType" at particular levels to provide a comprehensive and parsable description of the available content options ('414 Patent, col. 15:19-16:51; col. 17:42-18:49).
• Technical Importance: The standardization of specific metadata attributes and their placement within the MPD hierarchy is fundamental to the interoperability of the MPEG-DASH ecosystem, allowing any compliant client to understand the manifest from any compliant server (Compl. ¶15-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claims 11 and 25, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶48).
• Independent Claim 11 requires a method comprising the steps of:
  • transmitting an MPD to a client;
  • receiving a request for a segment;
  • transmitting the media content to the client;
  • wherein the MPD has a hierarchy of periods, adaptation sets, representations, and segments;
  • wherein the MPD or one of its hierarchical components includes one or more attributes or elements; and
  • wherein the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set.
• Independent Claim 25 is similar but specifically requires that information on the location, availability, or property of segments is comprised in a "SegmentTemplate" element.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,356,145 - “Method and Device for Providing Streaming Content”

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a method for providing streaming content where the MPD organizes media "representations" into "groups" (a term used interchangeably with adaptation sets). The technology focuses on including a "group element" within the MPD that provides a summary of attribute values—such as minimum and maximum bandwidth or resolution—for all representations contained within that group, allowing a client to make efficient stream-switching decisions without needing to parse the details of every individual representation ('145 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-16).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent method claims 1 and 11, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶94).

Accused Features

The FandangoNow streaming service is accused of using MPDs where adaptation sets (termed "groups" in the patent claims) contain summary elements such as "minBandWidth" and "maxBandwidth", which allegedly provide a summary of the bandwidth attributes of the various video representations available within that set (Compl. ¶101-102, 105).

U.S. Patent No. 10,362,130 - “Apparatus and Method for Providing Streaming Contents”

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims a method for providing streaming content where the MPD includes specific attributes to ensure reliable playback. The invention specifies that a "representation" must include a "bandwidth attribute" related to a hypothetical constant bitrate channel, which assures the client that it will have enough data for continuous playback after buffering for a specified "minbuffertime". The invention also requires that segments include sub-segments indexed by a segment index and that the MPD provides a "frame rate" or "timescale" ('130 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-6).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method) and 4 (server), along with dependent claims (Compl. ¶140).

Accused Features

The FandangoNow service is accused of utilizing MPDs where video representations include a "bandwidth" attribute that works in conjunction with a "minBufferTime" value to ensure smooth playback. The complaint further alleges that the accused service uses indexed segments and includes a frame rate or timescale within its MPDs for video adaptation sets (Compl. ¶148-150).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Fandango's video-on-demand ("VOD") streaming media services (Compl. ¶26, 48).

Functionality and Market Context

The service operates by delivering streaming media content, such as movies, to end-users in accordance with the MPEG-DASH standard (Compl. ¶26). This process involves a server transmitting a Media Presentation Description (MPD) file to a client device. The MPD file acts as a manifest, describing the available audio and video streams, often at multiple bitrates. Based on this information, the client device requests specific segments of the media content from the server for playback (Compl. ¶27, 49). The complaint alleges these services are offered throughout the United States (Compl. ¶4). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'830 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
transmitting a Media Presentation Description (MPD) of a media content to a client	A server operating on behalf of Fandango transmits an MPD file (e.g., "dash.mpd") to the client when a movie like "The Lego Movie (UHD)" is selected.	¶29	col. 5:9-14
receiving a request, from the client, for a segment of the media content	The Fandango server receives a request from the client for a segment of the selected movie.	¶30	col. 1:36-39
transmitting the media content to the client	The Fandango server transmits the requested media segment to the client in response to the request.	¶30	col. 1:39-41
wherein the MPD includes one or more periods, wherein each of the periods includes one or more adaptation sets, wherein each of the adaptation sets includes one or more representations, wherein each of the representations includes one or more segments	The accused MPD allegedly includes at least one period, which contains audio and video adaptation sets. The video adaptation set contains multiple representations (e.g., five), and each representation contains multiple segments.	¶31-33	col. 5:46-51
wherein the MPD includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the periods, each of the adaptation sets, each of the representations, and each of the segments	The accused MPD allegedly includes attributes such as "mediaPresentationDuration", "maxSegmentDuration", and "minBufferTime" that are common to all hierarchical levels below the MPD level.	¶34	col. 10:20-27
wherein the period includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the adaptation sets, each of the representations, and each of the segments for that period	The accused MPD's period level includes a "duration" attribute that is allegedly common to the adaptation sets, representations, and segments within that period.	¶35	col. 10:27-33
wherein the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations and each of the segments for that adaptation set	The accused MPD's video adaptation set allegedly includes attributes such as "contentType", "par", "minBandwidth", and "codecs" that are common to the representations and segments within that set.	¶36	col. 10:33-38
wherein the representation includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the segments for that representation	A video representation in the accused MPD allegedly includes attributes such as "id", "bandwidth", "width", and "height" that are common to all segments within that representation.	¶37	col. 10:39-42

Identified Points of Contention (’830 Patent)

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the interpretation of "common to." A central question for the court will be whether this term requires a specific technical mechanism of inheritance as described in the patent's schema, or if it is satisfied by the mere fact that a higher-level attribute functionally applies to lower-level elements. The claim's recitation of this "common to" relationship at four distinct hierarchical levels suggests a potential point of dispute over whether the accused system implements all four specific types of commonality.
• Technical Questions: What is the specific evidence that an attribute like "mediaPresentationDuration" at the highest MPD level is technically "common to each of the segments," as opposed to describing a property of the presentation as a whole? The defense may argue that while the attribute affects all segments, it is not "common to" them in the structural sense required by the distinct limitations of the claim.

'414 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
transmitting a Media Presentation Description (MPD) of a media content to a client	A Fandango server transmits an MPD file ("dash.mpd") to the client for the movie "Bumblebee".	¶51	col. 5:9-14
receiving a request, from the client, for a segment of the media content	The Fandango server receives a request from the client for a segment of "Bumblebee".	¶52	col. 1:35-39
transmitting the media content to the client	The Fandango server transmits the requested media segment to the client.	¶52	col. 1:39-41
wherein the MPD includes one or more periods, wherein each of the periods includes one or more adaptation sets, wherein each of the adaptation sets includes one or more representations, wherein each of the representations includes one or more segments	The accused MPD for "Bumblebee" allegedly includes at least one period, audio and video adaptation sets, four video representations, and multiple segments per representation.	¶53-55	col. 5:46-51
wherein the MPD, the period, the adaptation set, the representation or the segments includes one or more attributes or elements	The accused MPD allegedly includes numerous attributes at various levels, such as "mediaPresentationDuration" at the MPD level, "duration" at the Period level, and "bandwidth" at the Representation level.	¶56	col. 11:51-12:12
and, wherein the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set.	The video adaptation set in the accused MPD for "Bumblebee" allegedly includes a "maxHeight" attribute of "480" that is shared by all representations within that video adaptation set.	¶57	col. 11:27-32

Identified Points of Contention (’414 Patent)

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may center on the final limitation. The question for the court will be whether an adaptation set "includes" a "common" attribute if the same attribute and value simply appear within each of its child representation elements, or if the claim requires the attribute to be defined once at the adaptation set level itself and inherited by the representations.
• Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide evidence that the "maxHeight" attribute is defined at the adaptation set level in the accused MPD, or merely that all constituent representations happen to share the same value for that attribute? A defense may argue that the latter is a property of the encoded video content, not an implementation of the claimed metadata structure where the adaptation set itself includes the common element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "common to" ('830 Patent, Claim 8)

• Context and Importance: This term is the linchpin of claim 8, appearing in four separate limitations that define a multi-level inheritance hierarchy. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused MPD structure meets this "common to" requirement at each of the recited levels. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a functional application of a high-level setting is sufficient, or if a specific syntactic structure is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a hierarchical data model where a period "may typically represent a media content period during which a consistent set of encoded versions of media content is available," suggesting that consistency across levels is an inherent feature ('830 Patent, col. 6:50-53). This could support a reading where attributes defined at a higher level are functionally "common to" all subordinate elements.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed XML schema definitions for each element ("MPD", "Period", "AdaptationSet") ('830 Patent, Tables 3-5). A party could argue that for an attribute to be "common to" a set of child elements, the schema must show it as an attribute of the parent element, implying a specific syntactic structure rather than just a functional relationship.

The Term: "wherein the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set" ('414 Patent, Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: This clause is the core inventive concept distinguished in claim 11. The infringement question will turn on whether the accused adaptation sets are found to "include" such common attributes. The defendant may argue its adaptation sets are mere containers for fully-defined representations, while the plaintiff will argue they define common properties for those representations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "The element AdaptationSet may include default values for elements and attributes associated with one or more representations included in an adaptation set" ('414 Patent, col. 11:30-33). This language may support an interpretation where the adaptation set itself is a place to define properties that are "common to" its constituent representations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the adaptation set to "include" the common attribute. A party could argue this requires the attribute to be syntactically defined within the XML <AdaptationSet> tag itself. If the accused MPDs simply repeat the same attribute value inside each individual <Representation> tag, an argument could be made that the adaptation set does not "include" the common attribute as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. While the direct infringement allegations include "causing to be used" language, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific knowledge and intent required for a claim of induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of infringement for all four patents on specific dates prior to the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶41, 87, 133, 166). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement, and the prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 31, ¶D).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and evidence: do the terms "common to" and "includes," as used in the asserted claims, require a specific hierarchical inheritance structure defined syntactically in the MPD file, or are they met by the functional reality that attributes defined at a higher level apply to elements below them, or that all elements at one level share a factual characteristic? The case may turn on evidence of how the accused MPD files are structured versus how they function in practice.
• A second key question will relate to damages and patent essentiality: Plaintiffs allege the patents are fundamental to the MPEG-DASH standard and subject to FRAND obligations (Compl. ¶15-17, 169). This will focus the dispute on determining an appropriate reasonable royalty for allegedly standard-essential patents and whether Defendant’s alleged refusal to take a license constitutes "hold-out behavior" that might impact damages or equitable remedies (Compl. ¶170).