DCT

3:23-cv-00057

BSD Crown Ltd v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00057, N.D. Cal., 01/05/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of California, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have engaged in events giving rise to the claims in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video streaming services, which utilize the HLS and MPEG-DASH standards, infringe a patent related to real-time network media streaming technology.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns HTTP-based adaptive bitrate live streaming, a foundational technology for delivering smooth, real-time video broadcasts over standard internet infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff previously litigated the patent-in-suit against Apple, resulting in a 2014 jury verdict of non-infringement based on the HLS standard at that time, and against Microsoft, which settled. The complaint alleges that the HLS standard has since changed, rendering it infringing. The complaint also alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent because it was cited as primary prior art by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of an Amazon patent application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-03-24 U.S. Patent 6,389,473 Priority Date
1998-04-13 Plaintiff's technology allegedly used for White House cybercast
2002-05-14 U.S. Patent 6389473 Issued
2014-07 Jury trial in prior lawsuit against Apple concludes
2015-03-02 Amazon Technologies, Inc. files patent application later examined against the '473 Patent
2015-06 Prior lawsuit against Microsoft is terminated
2015-12-18 PTO issues Office Action in Amazon's application, citing the '473 Patent
2016-08-01 Appellate process in prior Apple lawsuit ends
2023-01-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 - "Network Media Streaming," issued May 14, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, real-time video broadcasting over a network required expensive, dedicated systems, such as a specialized "broadcast server," to compress and route the data stream to clients, making it inaccessible for general use by individuals or standard Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (’473 Patent, col. 1:13-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to broadcast media using common, existing infrastructure. A transmitting computer divides a data stream into a sequence of files, or "slices," which it uploads to a standard network server using a common protocol like FTP. Client computers can then download this sequence of files from the server using another standard protocol, like HTTP, to reconstruct and play the media in real-time. This system architecture, illustrated in Figure 2 of the patent, eliminates the need for a costly, specialized broadcast server (’473 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-21).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this approach of using standard HTTP servers for live streaming was a "contrarian" but novel solution that enabled scalable, cost-effective broadcasting, forming a basis for modern adaptive bitrate streaming technologies (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶78, 83).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • Providing a data stream with a given data rate at a transmitting computer.
    • Dividing the stream into a sequence of "slices," each with a "predetermined data size."
    • Encoding the slices into a sequence of files, each with a respective "index."
    • Uploading the sequence of files to a server at a rate "generally equal to the data rate of the stream" so that clients can download the sequence at a similar rate.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Amazon’s "AWS Elemental Media Services" and "AWS Elemental Live," and Twitch’s "Twitch Live Streaming" service (Compl. ¶¶57, 59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these services infringe by implementing the HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and/or MPEG-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG-DASH) standards for live video streaming (Compl. ¶¶57-60).
  • The complaint describes the accused HLS functionality as dividing an audio-video input, encoding it into a series of short media files ("slices"), uploading those files to a web server along with an index file, and allowing a client to download the files in order for playback (Compl. ¶35). The complaint presents a diagram of the Apple HLS standard to illustrate this architecture (Compl. ¶32, Ex. 9 at 1).
  • The complaint alleges that Amazon’s media assets are worth approximately $500 billion and that Twitch is worth $15 billion, and it highlights the deep operational integration between the defendants, including Twitch's reliance on AWS infrastructure (Compl. ¶¶7, 73). A screenshot of an AWS blog post titled "AWS is Streaming Live on Twitch" is provided to illustrate this connection (Compl. ¶70, Ex. 14 at 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' implementation of the HLS and MPEG-DASH standards practices every step of claim 1 of the '473 Patent. It draws direct parallels between the patented method and the architecture of modern streaming standards, contrasting a diagram from the patent with one for the HLS standard (Compl. ¶¶32-33, Ex. 1 at Fig. 2, Ex. 9 at 1).

  • ’473 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing at the transmitting computer a data stream having a given data rate The HLS standard allegedly requires live streams to have a "given data rate" specified by a bandwidth parameter in the stream manifest. ¶65 col. 2:1-3
dividing the stream into a sequence of slices, each slice having a predetermined data size associated therewith The HLS standard allegedly requires that live streams be divided into "slices" (media segments) of a predetermined size (specified as a time duration). ¶66 col. 2:4-6
encoding the slices in a corresponding sequence of files, each file having a respective index The HLS standard allegedly requires that the "slices" be encoded into media files and organized by an index file (manifest). ¶67 col. 2:6-8
uploading the sequence to a server ... such that the one or more client computers can download the sequence ... The HLS standard allegedly requires a client to download the sequence of media files from a server for playback. ¶68 col. 2:8-13
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's theory relies on equating the patent's term "slice" with the HLS/DASH term "segment," and the patent's "index" with the HLS/DASH "manifest file." The case may turn on whether the court finds these terms to be synonymous in this technical context.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires dividing the stream into slices with a "predetermined data size." The accused HLS standard primarily defines segments by a predetermined time duration. A central question will be whether a predetermined duration meets the "predetermined data size" limitation, especially since dependent claim 23 of the patent separately recites "time slices, each having a predetermined duration."
    • Legal Questions: A key issue will be the effect of the prior non-infringement verdict in the Apple litigation. The complaint alleges that the HLS standard has changed since 2014 to reduce latency (Compl. ¶30). The court will have to determine whether these alleged changes are material enough to bring current HLS implementations within the scope of the patent's claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "predetermined data size"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused HLS and DASH standards primarily segment media by time (e.g., two-second segments), not by file size (e.g., 256 kilobytes). The infringement case depends on construing this term to read on segmentation by time.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the purpose of slicing is to enable real-time transfer and playback, and it teaches adjusting slice duration in response to network conditions, suggesting that the precise size is a functional parameter rather than a fixed value (’473 Patent, col. 7:36-40; col. 12:50-54).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language specifies "data size." Furthermore, dependent claim 23 explicitly recites "dividing the stream into a sequence of time slices, each having a predetermined duration associated therewith." The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the scope of independent claim 1 is broader than and distinct from this more specific limitation, which could be interpreted to mean "predetermined data size" does not simply mean "predetermined duration."

  • The Term: "index"

    • Context and Importance: The patent teaches using an "index" for clients to maintain synchronization, which the complaint maps to the manifest files (e.g., .m3u8) used in HLS. Practitioners may focus on this term because a manifest file is a more complex structure than the simple sequential index implied by the patent's figures (’473 Patent, Fig. 3C).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the index as enabling a client to "identify at what point in stream 40 to begin" and "maintain proper synchronization" (’473 Patent, col. 2:15-17; col. 8:3-5). This functional description could encompass the role of a modern manifest file.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the index file as containing the "index of the file in the sequence that was most recently uploaded" and shows it as a simple, linear list of numbers (J, J+1, ... N), which could support a narrower construction limited to a simple file counter (’473 Patent, col. 4:5-7; Fig. 3C).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '473 Patent (Compl. ¶¶56, 80, 85). The primary basis for this allegation is the prosecution history of an Amazon patent application. The complaint alleges that on December 18, 2015, the PTO cited the '473 Patent as a primary prior art reference against the Amazon application, thereby providing Amazon with actual notice (Compl. ¶¶43-46). A screenshot from the PTO's "Notice of References Cited" listing the '473 Patent is included as evidence (Compl. ¶44, Ex. 12 at 62). Knowledge is imputed to Twitch through its acquisition by Amazon and its alleged use of the same patent prosecution counsel (Compl. ¶¶52-54).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and differentiation: Can the term "predetermined data size" from claim 1 be construed to cover the accused systems' practice of segmenting streams by "predetermined time duration," especially when a dependent claim explicitly recites that very limitation? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
  • A central legal question will be the impact of prior litigation: To what extent does the 2014 jury verdict of non-infringement for Apple's earlier HLS standard preclude a finding of infringement now? The case will require a detailed factual analysis of whether the HLS standard has materially changed since that verdict.
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: The complaint provides specific evidence of Amazon's knowledge of the patent via its own patent prosecution history. A significant question for the court will be whether this evidence is sufficient to establish the "wanton and malicious" conduct required for a finding of willful infringement, and whether that knowledge can be imputed to Twitch.