Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Acceleration Bay LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Acceleration Bay LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-08231, N.D. Cal., 09/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Comcast alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Acceleration Bay's principal place of business is located within the district and it has established minimum contacts by sending demand letters to Comcast from an address in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Content Delivery Network (CDN) services do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for five of Defendant's patents related to methods for broadcasting information across computer networks.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to creating and maintaining peer-to-peer style broadcast networks, a technology foundational to scalable content delivery for applications like video streaming, online gaming, and large-scale data distribution.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes an extensive litigation history for the patents-in-suit, alleging that Defendant has previously asserted them against at least five other major technology companies. This history includes multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals where, according to the complaint, dozens of claims have been invalidated. The complaint also cites prior district court cases resulting in summary judgment of non-infringement against Defendant, with those decisions reportedly turning on the same key claim terms at issue in this case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-31	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2004-03-30	U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 Issues
2004-05-04	U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 Issues
2004-12-07	U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 Issues
2005-06-21	U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 Issues
2005-07-19	U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 Issues
2019-03-04	Acceleration Bay sends first demand letter to Comcast
2019-05-09	Comcast responds, requesting detailed infringement information
2025-08-29	After six years, Acceleration Bay sends follow-up email to Comcast
2025-09-05	Comcast's counsel responds to Acceleration Bay's email
2025-09-26	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 - "Information Delivery Service"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of then-existing network communication techniques—such as client-server or point-to-point protocols—for simultaneously sharing information among a large, widely distributed group of computers. These methods are described as not scaling well, creating performance bottlenecks, or having single points of failure. (’966 Patent, col. 1:29-col. 2:42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a decentralized "broadcast channel" that overlays an existing point-to-point network. Each computer ("participant") in the channel connects to a fixed number, m, of other "neighbor" participants. To broadcast a message, an originating participant sends the data only to its immediate neighbors. Each neighbor, upon receiving the data for the first time, forwards it to its other neighbors, causing the message to propagate efficiently and redundantly throughout the entire network graph. (’966 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-47). This structure is defined as an "m-regular" graph, where every participant has exactly m neighbors. (’966 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a robust, scalable, and fault-tolerant multicasting system suitable for applications like online gaming or conferencing without the central point of failure inherent in client-server models. (’966 Patent, col. 2:37-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of the "surviving claims," specifically referencing claim 12 (Compl. ¶¶7, 26). According to an IPR certificate attached to the patent, claims 1-11 were cancelled, leaving claim 12, which originally depended on claim 1. The central limitations are derived from original claim 1.
• Essential elements of the asserted technology (derived from original claim 1, incorporated into surviving claim 12) include:
  • A computer network for providing an information delivery service for a plurality of participants.
  • Each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants.
  • An originating participant sends data to its neighbors, and each receiving participant forwards the data to its other neighbors.
  • The network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant.
  • The number of participants is at least two greater than m, resulting in a non-complete graph.

U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 - "Leaving a Broadcast Channel"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like the ’966 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a reliable and scalable network communication system. It specifically focuses on the problem of how a participant can disconnect from the broadcast channel without disrupting the network's integrity and connectivity. (’147 Patent, col. 1:33-col. 2:44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses methods for "healing" the network graph after a participant disconnects, either in a planned or unplanned fashion. When a computer leaves, its former neighbors detect the broken connection (the "hole") and initiate a process to find new participants to connect to. The goal is to repair the network structure so that it continues to function as an "m-regular graph," preserving the network's connectivity and reliability. (’147 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:8-24).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides mechanisms for maintaining the stability and fault tolerance of a decentralized broadcast network as participants dynamically join and leave, a critical feature for real-world applications. (’147 Patent, col. 9:8-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of claim 6 (Compl. ¶35).
• Essential elements of independent claim 6 include:
  • A method for healing a disconnection of a first computer from a second computer in a broadcast channel.
  • The broadcast channel is an m-regular graph where m is at least 3.
  • The method involves attempting to send a message, and upon failure, broadcasting a "connection port search message."
  • A third computer responds to the search message "in a manner as to maintain an m-regular graph."

U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 - "Broadcasting Network"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a non-routing table based broadcasting network where each participant sends data it receives from one neighbor to its other neighbors. The network is structured as an "m-regular and m-connected" graph, where m is the fixed number of neighbors for each participant.
• Asserted Claims: Claim 10 (Compl. ¶44).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Comcast's CDN does not infringe because it fails to meet the requirement that "the network is m-regular and m-connected," citing a prior court construction defining "m-regular" as a state where each participant is connected to exactly m neighbors (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 - "Joining a Broadcast Channel"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for adding a new participant to an existing network of participants. A key feature is that the existing network is one where "each participant being connected to three or more other participants."
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges non-infringement by arguing that the relevant claim language was construed in prior litigation to require a network where each participant is connected to the same number of other participants, a condition Comcast's CDN allegedly does not meet (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 - "Connecting a Broadcast Channel"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for a new computer to connect to a broadcast channel by first locating a "portal computer." The invention claims specific "means for" identifying the portal computer and selecting its call-in port using a "port ordering algorithm."
• Asserted Claims: Claim 9 (Compl. ¶62).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges non-infringement by arguing that the asserted claim elements are means-plus-function limitations. It states that Comcast's products do not include the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the claimed functions, such as a processor programmed with the specific algorithm described at col. 11:60–12:12 of the patent (Compl. ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Accused Products are identified as "Comcast's Content Delivery Network relating to broadcasting data across a network, including its associated network infrastructure and video distribution platforms" (Compl. ¶15). Specific consumer-facing services mentioned as part of this ecosystem include Peacock and Xfinity Stream (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a "distributed Content Delivery Network ('CDN')" that provides "CDN solutions designed to deliver online media at scale" (Compl. ¶¶3, 17). This infrastructure is central to Comcast's business as a leading provider of internet, cable television, and streaming services (Compl. ¶3). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the CDN, focusing instead on why it does not meet specific patent limitations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'966 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from original Independent Claim 1, part of surviving Claim 12)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a computer network for providing an information delivery service for a plurality of participants...	Comcast's CDN, including its network infrastructure and video distribution platforms.	¶15	col. 30:1-3
wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant...	Comcast alleges its Accused Products do not satisfy this limitation because its network is not configured to maintain a state where each participant is connected to exactly m neighbor participants.	¶27	col. 30:10-13

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The dispute centers on whether Comcast's CDN, which presumably features dynamic connectivity based on network load and topology, can be considered "m-regular." This raises the question of whether a modern, large-scale CDN is "configured to maintain" a state where every node has an exact, fixed number of connections, as required by the claim construction cited in the complaint (Compl. ¶27).

'147 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method for healing a disconnection of a first computer from a second computer, the computers being connected to a broadcast channel...	The complaint does not provide specific details on the disconnection and healing functionalities of the Accused Products.	¶36	col. 29:15-18
...having a third computer not already connected to said first computer respond to said connection port search message in a manner as to maintain an m-regular graph.	Comcast alleges its Accused Products do not satisfy this limitation because the network is not configured to maintain a state where each participant is connected to exactly m neighbor participants.	¶36	col. 29:21-25

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: Similar to the '966 Patent, the key question is factual and technical: Do the network maintenance and routing protocols in Comcast's CDN operate "in a manner as to maintain an m-regular graph"? The complaint's position is that they do not, because the underlying network architecture is not designed to enforce a fixed, exact number of connections for every participant (Compl. ¶36).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network is m-regular" / "maintain an m-regular graph"
• Context and Importance: This concept is the foundation of the technology claimed in at least four of the five asserted patents and appears to be the primary basis for Comcast's non-infringement arguments. The complaint cites prior litigation where this term was construed to mean "a state that the network is configured to maintain, where each participant is connected to exactly m neighbor participants" (Compl. ¶¶27, 36, 45). Practitioners may focus on this term because its narrow construction could exclude most modern, dynamically routed content delivery networks from its scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the patent's extensive discussion of processes for "composing" and "decomposing" the graph, including "healing" after unplanned disconnections, suggests the term should not be interpreted with rigid staticity. The specification describes a dynamic system that must be actively managed, which could support an interpretation where "maintain" allows for transient states where connectivity is not exactly m for all participants. (’966 Patent, col. 8:64-col. 10:4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides strong support for a narrow, literal interpretation. The Abstract explicitly defines the network as "m-regular where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant." (’966 Patent, Abstract). Claim 1 contains this same "exact number" language. The specification repeatedly uses "4-regular graph" as its primary embodiment, reinforcing the concept of a fixed, uniform number of connections. (’966 Patent, col. 4:38-40).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint seeks a declaration of no indirect infringement. The stated basis is that because Comcast's products do not directly infringe any claim, there can be no underlying act of direct infringement to induce or contribute to. The complaint further alleges that Comcast has a "good faith belief that [the asserted claim] is invalid and not infringed," which would negate the knowledge and intent required for indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶¶28, 37, 46, 55, 64).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness. As a declaratory judgment action, it seeks a judgment of non-infringement and non-willful infringement (Compl. p. 16, ¶1.a). The complaint notes Defendant's demand letters from March 2019 and August 2025 as the basis for the existing controversy between the parties (Compl. ¶¶16, 19).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "m-regular", which is rooted in graph theory and defined in the patents as requiring an "exact" number of connections per participant, be construed to cover the architecture of a modern, large-scale CDN where connectivity is likely dynamic and variable? The extensive prior litigation history, including the claim constructions cited by Comcast, will be a significant factor.
• A key evidentiary question for the ’497 patent will be one of structural correspondence: does Comcast's system for connecting to its network use the specific "port ordering algorithm" disclosed at col. 11:60–12:12 of the patent, or a structure that is demonstrably equivalent? This presents a highly technical, fact-intensive inquiry into the operation of the Accused Products.
• A central strategic question will be the impact of prior art and litigation history: given the complaint's allegations of widespread invalidation of claims in IPRs and multiple prior summary judgments of non-infringement based on the "m-regular" limitation, a critical question is whether the remaining asserted claims present a meaningfully different infringement theory or can survive the same validity and infringement challenges.