DCT
3:21-cv-03649
Netflix v. Avago Tech Intl Sales Pte Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Netflix, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: CA, Inc. (Delaware) and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Singapore)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
- Case Identification: 3:21-cv-03649, N.D. Cal., 05/14/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Netflix, Inc. alleges that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred there, as it is where Netflix is headquartered and where its relevant engineers and managers are located.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for five patents related to content delivery networks, distributed computing, and video streaming technologies, following a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Defendants against Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for operating large-scale, high-performance digital content delivery networks, including specialized data caching, distributed task management, and adaptive bitrate video streaming.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a lawsuit filed by the Defendants against Netflix in the Eastern District of Texas on March 9, 2021, asserting the same five patents. That Texas lawsuit itself followed an earlier, separate litigation between the parties' parent/subsidiary companies, initially filed in the Central District of California and later transferred to the Northern District of California. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against U.S. Patent Nos. 9,402,098 and 10,911,938. The provided patent documents include IPR certificates indicating that claims 1-29 of the ’938 patent and claims 1-5 and 7 of the ’098 patent, which include the only claims identified in the complaint for these patents, have been cancelled.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-06-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 Priority Date |
| 2004-03-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,646,014 Priority Date |
| 2004-03-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,402,098 Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 Issued |
| 2007-06-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,911,938 Priority Date |
| 2009-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 Priority Date |
| 2014-02-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,646,014 Issued |
| 2014-02-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 Issued |
| 2016-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,402,098 Issued |
| 2020-03-13 | Defendants' affiliate (Broadcom) files "original lawsuit" vs. Netflix |
| 2021-02-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,911,938 Issued |
| 2021-03-09 | Defendants file "second lawsuit" vs. Netflix in E.D. Tex. |
| 2021-05-14 | Netflix files current Declaratory Judgment Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 - Network Object Cache Engine
Issued September 5, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional proxy servers for caching internet content as being inefficient. It states that their reliance on a general-purpose local operating system and file system introduces significant overhead and delay, restricts functionality, and makes recovery from partial storage loss difficult without expensive solutions like RAID. (’794 Patent, col. 1:42-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dedicated "cache engine" that bypasses a conventional operating system to take direct control of its memory and mass storage. This engine is designed to intelligently determine when and where to store network objects, perform "atomic" write episodes to ensure data consistency without persistence guarantees, and store key system objects holographically across multiple disks, so that the failure of a single disk only reduces the cache's capacity rather than causing a total system failure. (’794 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-50).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a self-contained, high-performance caching appliance that provides greater speed and resilience than software-based proxies running on general-purpose hardware and operating systems. (’794 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by Defendants. (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part:
- Receiving a set of network objects in response to a request to a server from a client.
- Maintaining the network objects in a cache memory within a "cache engine," which includes mass storage.
- Wherein the maintaining step includes recording and retrieving the objects in a way that "substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving said network objects from said mass storage."
- The complaint does not specify if dependent claims are asserted but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for the entire patent. (Compl. ¶30).
U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 - Dynamic Distributed Evaluator
Issued February 18, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that traditional distributed computing methods, like Remote Procedure Calls (RPC), are rigid because they require operations to be pre-compiled and require the client to know in advance what operations a server can perform. (’419 Patent, col. 1:10-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "dynamic distributed evaluator" system where a first node can instruct a plurality of other nodes to perform an operation without knowing in advance which specific node will perform it. The system allows for the necessary computer code to be located and transmitted to the executing node in real-time, enabling a flexible and transparent distribution of tasks across heterogeneous systems. (’419 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-44).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows for the creation of highly flexible distributed applications where code can be updated and deployed without downtime and tasks can be dynamically assigned to available resources, increasing efficiency and resilience. (’419 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by Defendants. (Compl. ¶34).
- Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part:
- A first node with an interface to communicate with a second node.
- One or more processors operable to:
- Tell a plurality of nodes (including the second node) to perform an operation.
- Instruct the plurality of nodes how to perform the operation using computer code.
- Tell the plurality of nodes what to do with the result.
- Wherein the processors do not know which one of the plurality of nodes will perform the operation.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for the entire patent. (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 8,646,014 - Multistream Video Communication with Staggered Access Points
Issued February 4, 2014
- Technology Synopsis: To reduce latency in video streaming (e.g., during a channel change), the patent discloses a method of simultaneously transmitting multiple streams of the same video content. One stream can be encoded with more frequent access points to allow for a faster start-up, while another can be encoded for higher quality, with a receiver initially processing the low-latency stream before potentially switching to the higher-quality one. (’014 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:47-54).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted. (Compl. ¶39).
- Accused Features: Netflix’s streaming service is alleged to infringe, but Netflix contends its service does not "receiv[e] . . . a plurality of video information streams" from which one is identified as having lower latency, as required by the claim. (Compl. ¶¶37, 39).
U.S. Patent No. 9,402,098 - Fast Channel Change
Issued July 26, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for reducing video start-up time by transmitting an initial portion of the video at a high "burst" rate that is faster than the typical playback rate. This initial transmission rate is determined based on factors like available bandwidth and a model of the receiver's decoder buffer to quickly fill the buffer without causing an overflow, allowing playback to start sooner. (’098 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted. (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: Netflix's "adaptive streaming technologies" are accused of infringement. Netflix denies infringement, stating its service does not determine a distinct "initial transmission rate," a "first steady-state transmission rate," and a "second transmission rate" in the manner required by the claim. (Compl. ¶¶42, 44).
U.S. Patent No. 10,911,938 - Method and System for a Networked Self-Configuring Communication Device Utilizing User Preference Information
Issued February 2, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: The invention provides a system for synchronizing user preferences and configuration settings across multiple devices. A user's configuration information can be generated on a first device and stored locally or on a network; a second device can then download this information to automatically configure itself, simplifying the process of setting up a new device for an existing user. (’938 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted. (Compl. ¶49).
- Accused Features: Netflix's streaming service is accused of infringement. Netflix contends its service does not include "computing devices" that "update the user configuration information corresponding to the first user" based on the provision of the streaming service to a first device, as the claim requires. (Compl. ¶¶47, 49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: (1) Netflix’s subscription-based on-demand content streaming service, and (2) Netflix's "Titus container management platform." (Compl. ¶¶17, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Netflix streaming service as a content-delivery network that uses "various storage, caching, processing, computing, and custom-tailoring techniques to optimize content delivery." (Compl. ¶27). It is offered as a subscription-based service providing on-demand access to a library of television series and films. (Compl. ¶17).
- The "Titus container management platform" is identified as the instrumentality accused of infringing the ’419 patent. (Compl. ¶32). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on its operation.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’794 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as denied by Netflix) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache engine, said cache engine connected via a network to the server and the client, said cache memory including mass storage | Netflix states that its service does not "maintain[ received] network objects in a cache memory in a cache engine" as required by the claim. | ¶29 | col. 8:1-14 |
| wherein said step of maintaining includes steps of ... retrieving said network objects from said cache memory, so as to substantially minimizes a time required ... | The complaint implicitly denies this element by denying the antecedent "maintaining" step. | ¶29 | col. 8:41-50 |
’8,656,419 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as denied by Netflix) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| one or more processors operable to: tell a plurality of nodes to perform an operation ... instruct the plurality of nodes how to perform the operation ... tell the plurality of nodes what to do with a result ... | Netflix states that its Titus platform does not comprise processors that perform the recited functions. | ¶34 | col. 4:35-45 |
| wherein the one or more processors does not know which one of the plurality of nodes will perform the operation. | Netflix specifically denies that its Titus platform includes processors that do not know which node will perform the operation, asserting this is a required feature of the claim that its platform lacks. | ¶34 | col. 3:35-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for the ’794 patent will be the proper construction of "cache engine." The infringement dispute raises the question of whether Netflix’s CDN architecture, which likely leverages standard server operating systems, falls within the patent’s narrower teaching of a specialized system that operates without a conventional OS or file system. (Compl. ¶29; ’794 Patent, col. 4:36-50).
- Technical Questions: For the ’419 patent, the dispute focuses on the internal operation of the Titus platform. This raises the factual question of what level of information the controlling processors in the Titus system possess regarding which node will execute a given task, and whether this aligns with the claim requirement that the processor "does not know" the executing node. (Compl. ¶34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"cache engine" (’794 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The existence of a "cache engine" is a foundational element of the asserted claim. The entire non-infringement theory presented in the complaint for this patent hinges on the assertion that the Netflix service does not use such an engine. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the patent to specialized hardware appliances or broaden it to cover more general software-based caching systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself describes the "cache engine" functionally as being "connected via a network to the server and the client" and having a "cache memory including mass storage," which could be argued to cover any network caching node. (’794 Patent, col. 17:9-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly distinguishes the invention from the prior art by its independence from a host operating system, stating, "Moreover, the cache engine 100 operates exclusively... There is no separate 'operating system,' no user, and there are no user application programs which execute independently on the processor 101." (’794 Patent, col. 4:36-41). This language may support a narrower construction limited to a self-contained, OS-less appliance.
"does not know which one of the plurality of nodes will perform the operation" (’419 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the "dynamic" and "distributed" nature of the claimed evaluator. Netflix’s denial of infringement rests on the assertion that its system does not meet this requirement. The construction of "does not know" is critical to determining whether there is a literal mismatch in technical operation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language describing the system's flexibility could support a reading where "does not know" simply means the calling node does not explicitly designate a target, even if the system scheduler has that information. The specification notes an instruction can be sent "without knowing the specific node 20 that has the resources to perform the operation." (’419 Patent, col. 3:41-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the "transparent" nature of the distribution, stating "local and remote calls may have the same outward semantics so that a node 20 may not know if the operation it called is being performed by another node 20." (’419 Patent, col. 3:38-41). This could support a stricter definition requiring a genuine lack of information at the level of the controlling processor about the eventual executor's identity.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- Netflix seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not induced infringement or contributed to the infringement of the Disputed Patents. (Compl. ¶¶28, 33, 38, 43, 48). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations from the Defendants that would form the basis of an indirect infringement claim.
Willful Infringement
- Netflix requests a declaration that it has not willfully infringed any of the Disputed Patents. (Compl. p. 9-10, Request for Relief). The complaint does not allege facts related to when or how Defendants provided notice to Netflix, which would be relevant to a willfulness analysis.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question for the ’098 and ’938 patents will be one of procedural viability: given that post-filing IPRs have reportedly cancelled all asserted claims of these two patents, a threshold issue is whether any live controversy remains regarding them, or if Defendants must amend their contentions to a surviving claim, such as claim 30 of the ’938 patent.
- A core issue for the ’794 patent will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cache engine," which the specification describes as a specialized, OS-independent system, be construed broadly enough to read on the architecture of Netflix’s content delivery network, which likely utilizes more conventional software running on general-purpose operating systems?
- A key evidentiary question for the ’419 patent will be one of functional operation: does the internal architecture of Netflix’s "Titus" platform meet the specific claim requirement that the controlling processor "does not know" which node will perform a task, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the level of information awareness within the accused system versus what the patent claims?