DCT

4:12-cv-01971

Digital REG Of Texas LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:11-cv-00305, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each defendant has transacted business in the district and has committed or induced acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital content distribution platforms and digital rights management (DRM) systems infringe seven patents related to methods for securing, delivering, and tracking access to digital content.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is Digital Rights Management (DRM), a class of technologies used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, and copyright holders to control the use, modification, and distribution of digital content such as software, games, music, and e-books.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-05-15 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,389,541
1998-11-24 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,751,670 and 7,673,059
1999-01-15 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,127,515, 7,272,655, and 7,562,150
2002-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,389,541 Issues
2003-10-20 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,421,741
2004-06-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,751,670 Issues
2006-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,127,515 Issues
2007-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,272,655 Issues
2008-09-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,421,741 Issues
2009-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,562,150 Issues
2010-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,673,059 Issues
2011-06-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,389,541 - "Regulating Access to Digital Content," issued May 14, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the need for content producers to regulate access to digital products, particularly by receiving payment before granting access and by preventing the easy copying and redistribution of unlocked digital files, which undermines commercial distribution models (’541 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes storing digital content as a compressed and encrypted data file, or "object," on a user's computer. Access is prohibited until a real-time authorization process is completed. This process involves the user's computer sending payment or use data to a payment server, which verifies it with an authorization center. Upon approval, the server transmits a "token" back to the user's computer, which initiates an installation that "locks" the content object to that specific machine, rendering copies made after this point inaccessible on other computers (’541 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-64).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for content creators to sell digital goods directly to consumers over the internet while maintaining control over access and mitigating revenue loss from unauthorized copying (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’541 Patent (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 6,751,670 - "Tracking Electronic Content," issued June 15, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background notes the difficulty for senders of electronic content, such as e-mail attachments, to confirm receipt and access by the intended recipient. It also highlights the ease with which such attachments can be forwarded to a large number of unknown individuals, making it difficult to track dissemination (’670 Patent, col. 1:11-23; col. 1:35-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention creates a file, described as an "envelope," that includes both the electronic content and a set of executable instructions. When a recipient triggers an event, such as an attempt to access the content, the instructions collect "notification information" and attempt to transmit it to a predetermined address. The system is designed to deny access to the electronic content until this notification is transmitted successfully (’670 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-39).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a "certified receipt" for digital content that goes beyond simple delivery confirmation, allowing a sender to track actual access attempts, even as the content is forwarded through a chain of subsequent recipients (Compl. ¶23; ’670 Patent, col. 3:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’670 Patent (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 7,127,515 - "Delivering Electronic Content," issued Oct. 24, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for delivering electronic content where instructions on a first computer (e.g., a web page) cause it to collect information, including an e-mail address, and transmit it to a second computer (a server). The server then processes the information to select and e-mail electronic content to the provided address, allowing content delivery without the user navigating away from the original web page (’515 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against the digital distribution platforms of Valve and EA (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28, 51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,272,655 - "Delivering Electronic Content," issued Sep. 18, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’515 Patent, also discloses a system where a web page includes instructions for collecting user information (such as an e-mail address) and transmitting it to a remote server. The remote server uses this information to select and deliver electronic content to the user via e-mail (’655 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against the digital distribution platforms of Valve and EA (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28, 58).

U.S. Patent No. 7,562,150 - "Delivering Electronic Content," issued Jul. 14, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’515 Patent, describes a method of delivering electronic content by providing web-page instructions that cause a user's computer to collect an e-mail address and transmit it to a server, which then processes the request and e-mails the selected content to that address (’150 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against the digital distribution platforms of Valve and EA (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28, 65).

U.S. Patent No. 7,673,059 - "Tracking Electronic Content," issued Mar. 2, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’670 Patent, describes an "envelope" file containing electronic content and executable instructions. These instructions collect and transmit notification information when access is attempted, and access is denied until the notification is successfully sent, thereby enabling tracking of the content's use (’059 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against the content distribution and DRM systems of Adobe, Valve, EA, UbiSoft, Symantec, Intuit, and AVG (Compl. ¶¶ 26-32, 72).

U.S. Patent No. 7,421,741 - "Securing Digital Content System and Method," issued Sep. 2, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for securing digital content within an encrypted "digital container." The system uses a token-based authentication process involving a server to lock the container to a specific user or device, aiming to provide strong encryption security without the complexity of a full public key infrastructure (’741 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint asserts this patent against Adobe's software and services for secure distribution of digital content and DRM (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 79).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of software and services from nine distinct defendants, including: Adobe Content Server and Adobe Digital Publishing Suite; the Steam platform from Valve; the EA Store and EA Download Manager from Electronic Arts; the UbiSoft Online Store and Game Launcher; the Symantec Licensing Portal; Intuit's QuickBooks Payroll software; the AVG family of software products; and Zynga's social gaming network (Compl. ¶¶26-33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that all accused products and services are "directed to secure distribution of digital content and digital rights management" (Compl. ¶¶26-33). They are described as systems that protect, manage, and deliver digital goods—such as e-books, software, and video games—to consumers over the internet (Compl. ¶¶26-33). The complaint notes the significant market presence of some platforms, such as Valve's Steam, which it alleges serves over 30 million players and distributes over 1,500 games (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert specific claims or provide an element-by-element mapping of any claim to the accused instrumentalities. Its infringement theory is presented at a high level. Plaintiff alleges that its predecessors were "pioneers" in securing, delivering, and tracking digital content (Compl. ¶23) and that Defendants' various software and services, which are directed to these same functions, infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶26-33, 37, 44). No specific technical implementation details of the accused products are provided to support these allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A central legal question may be whether the complaint's generalized allegations that Defendants' DRM systems infringe unspecified claims satisfy federal pleading standards. The absence of specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim elements may become a point of dispute.
    • Architectural Mismatch: The lead patents describe particular technical architectures, such as a token-based authorization system (’541 Patent) and a self-reporting "envelope" file (’670 Patent). A core technical question will be whether the diverse accused systems—ranging from game distribution platforms to payroll software—actually operate using these specific patented methods or if they employ fundamentally different, non-infringing technologies for security and content delivery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not assert specific claims against any of the patents-in-suit, which precludes the identification of key claim terms for construction at this stage of the litigation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for these claims includes allegations that Defendants provide instructions to their customers on how to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 46, 53). Knowledge is alleged "at least since the filing of this Complaint," supporting a claim for post-suit indirect infringement, and also on the basis that Defendants "knew or should have known" their actions would cause infringement, suggesting a basis for pre-suit infringement as well (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 45, 52).
  • Willful Infringement: A specific count for willful infringement is directed at Defendant Adobe (Compl. ¶¶83-84). The complaint alleges that Adobe had "actual notice" of the patents and acted "knowingly or with reckless disregard" despite an "objectively high likelihood" that its actions constituted infringement (Compl. ¶83).

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of pleading adequacy: are the complaint's broad allegations that various DRM platforms infringe unspecified patent claims sufficient to proceed, or will they be challenged for lacking the specific factual content required to state a plausible claim for relief?
  • A central technical question will be one of architectural congruence: do the accused platforms—ranging from game services like Steam to enterprise software portals—actually implement the specific token-based authorization (’541 Patent) and executable-envelope tracking (’670 Patent) architectures claimed in the lead patents, or do they rely on fundamentally distinct technological frameworks for content protection and delivery?
  • The case also raises a question of scope and evolution: can the claims of patents originating from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which address foundational concepts in DRM, be construed to cover the diverse and technologically evolved systems for digital content distribution in widespread use today?