DCT
5:20-cv-07273
Cooperative Entertainment Inc v. Kollective Technology Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Kollective Technology, Inc. (Delaware, with a principal place of business in Oregon)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of David A. Makman; WAWRZYN LLC
- Case Identification: 5:20-cv-07273, N.D. Cal., 11/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of California, conducts continuous and systematic business in the district, and the infringement claims are alleged to arise from this activity.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise content delivery network (ECDN) products and services infringe a patent related to methods for creating and managing dynamic peer-to-peer networks for content distribution.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns peer-to-peer (P2P) video streaming, which aims to reduce network congestion and cost by having users (peers) share content segments directly with one another, offloading traffic from centralized Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that during the patent’s prosecution, the patentee distinguished the invention from prior art by arguing that the invention uses network testing tools like traceroute to segment the actual content being delivered, not merely to test network pathways in general.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-09-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 Priority Date |
| 2016-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 Issue Date |
| c. 2017-10 | Approximate date of Kollective white paper on accused technology |
| 2023-11-14 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452, "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC NETWORKED PEER-TO-PEER CONTENT DISTRIBUTION", issued August 30, 2016 (the "’452 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with conventional content delivery, where sharing large files over computer networks is expensive and consumes significant network capacity (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5). The patent’s background states that prior art failed to provide for video streaming over P2P networks that operate "outside the structure and control of CDNs" (’452 Patent, col. 3:35-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes systems and methods that create dynamic, temporary P2P networks among end-users who are all consuming the same content. A central server identifies these users and facilitates connections between them, allowing them to share content segments directly with each other instead of each user pulling all content from a CDN (’452 Patent, col. 4:52-60). The system uses network metrics, such as trace routes, to inform how this P2P distribution is managed (’452 Patent, col. 5:50-54). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this architecture, showing a server coordinating between a primary client and other peer clients to deliver content blocks.
- Technical Importance: This approach is designed to save time, improve redundancy, and reduce or eliminate the costs associated with delivering content solely via a traditional CDN by leveraging the network capacity of the end-users themselves (’452 Patent, col. 5:38-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 5 (a method), as well as dependent claims 2, 3, and 13 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 29, 38, 45, 46).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) includes these essential elements:
- At least one content delivery server computer.
- At least one P2P dynamic network with multiple peer nodes that consume the same content within a predetermined time.
- The P2P dynamic network is based on at least one trace route.
- The peer nodes are distributed outside controlled networks like CDNs.
- The server is operable to store viewer information, check requests, use the trace route to segment content, find peers, and return client-block pairs.
- Distribution of P2P content is based on content segmentation, which is in turn based on CDN address resolution, trace route, dynamic peer feedback, and other resource allocation techniques.
- Independent Claim 5 (Method) includes these essential steps:
- Providing at least one content delivery server computer.
- Providing at least one P2P dynamic network with multiple peer nodes consuming the same content, where the network is based on a trace route and the nodes are outside a CDN.
- The server receiving a content request from a client.
- The server segmenting the content based on techniques including trace route and dynamic peer feedback.
- Automatically identifying a peer node with a segment of the content that is in close network proximity to the client.
- The most proximal peer node sharing the segment.
- The complaint suggests the right to assert additional claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Kollective SD ECDN" as an accused instrumentality, which is also referred to as the "Kollective app" when used in conjunction with other software like Microsoft Teams (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 28, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is described as a "set of cloud-hosted control and origin servers and a small software agent deployed on employee devices" (Compl. ¶31). These components form an "adaptive, distributed content delivery and caching system" that creates a "mesh" network among the agents (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 40). The system is alleged to use "pings and traceroutes" to gather information about the network topology and determine the quality of links between agents (Compl. ¶32). The stated goal is to shift content delivery from "north-south" traffic (to/from the wider internet) to "east-west" traffic (between peers on a local network), thereby leveraging the existing storage and bandwidth on end-user devices for corporate applications like a CEO’s company-wide broadcast (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 33).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’452 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1 - System)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for virtualized computing peer-based content sharing | Kollective SD ECDN is alleged to be a "conceptual hub that distributes digital content outside of the CDN" and is therefore a "system for virtualized computing peer-based content sharing." | ¶35 | col. 10:25-26 |
| at least one content delivery server computer constructed and configured for electrical connection and communication via at least one communications network | The accused system consists of "a set of cloud-hosted control and origin servers." | ¶40 | col. 10:27-29 |
| at least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including a multiplicity of peer nodes, wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes consume the same content within a predetermined time | Kollective allegedly deploys its "Kollective app" to client devices, which form a dynamic network to consume content like a corporate broadcast. | ¶39 | col. 10:30-34 |
| wherein the at least one P2P dynamic network is based on at least one trace route | The accused system's software "agents in the mesh are constantly aware of their network surroundings. Utilizing pings and traceroutes, they gather key information about the surrounding network." | ¶44 | col. 10:36-37 |
| wherein the at least one content delivery server computer is operable to...use the trace route to segment requested content | The complaint alleges that the accused system "relies on conventional protocols that segment video files" and separately that it uses traceroutes for network awareness. | ¶43, ¶44 | col. 10:42-45 |
| wherein distribution of P2P content delivery...is based on content segmentation; wherein content segmentation is based on CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and P2P server manager, dynamic feedback from peers... | The complaint alleges the accused system's distribution is based on content segmentation and that its network agents use pings and traceroutes to monitor the network and adapt to changes. | ¶44 | col. 10:46-54 |
’452 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 5 - Method)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing at least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including a multiplicity of peer nodes...wherein the at least one P2P dynamic network is based on at least one trace route | Kollective allegedly forms a dynamic P2P network using software agents on employee devices. These agents use "pings and traceroutes" to monitor their network surroundings. | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 11:1-11 |
| the at least one content delivery server computer segmenting requested content based on CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and the P2P server manager... | The complaint alleges the accused system uses "conventional protocols that segment video files" and separately uses traceroutes and other monitoring to manage the network. | ¶35 | col. 11:14-20 |
| automatically identifying at least one peer node having at least one segment of the requested content in close network proximity to the client | The accused system allegedly uses a "hop count method" to approximate whether an agent can peer from the LAN and identify peers in close proximity. | ¶37 | col. 11:22-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint asserts that the term "virtualized" means "creating another layer or environment" and is met by the accused product being a "conceptual hub" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 30). The definition and scope of "virtualized" may become a central point of dispute. A further question is whether the accused system's use of "pings and traceroutes" to "gather key information" (Compl. ¶32) satisfies the claim requirement that the P2P network be "based on at least one trace route."
- Technical Questions: A critical technical question is whether the complaint provides evidence that the accused product performs the functions in the causal sequence required by the claims. For example, Claim 1 requires the server to "use the trace route to segment requested content." The complaint alleges the system uses traceroutes for network awareness (Compl. ¶44) and that it "relies on conventional protocols" for segmentation (Compl. ¶43), but it does not explicitly connect the two actions. This raises the question of whether there is a mismatch between the claimed method and the actual operation of the accused system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "based on at least one trace route"
Context and Importance: This limitation appears in both asserted independent claims and was highlighted during prosecution as a point of novelty (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11). The infringement case may depend on whether the accused system's use of traceroute for general network monitoring (Compl. ¶32) is sufficient to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could be shaped by the prosecution history estoppel doctrine.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "trace route to CDN and the P2P server manager" as one of several factors in a list for managing P2P content distribution, alongside "dynamic feedback from peers" and "round-robin" techniques (’452 Patent, col. 5:50-58). This could suggest traceroute is an input to a broader management process, potentially supporting a construction that does not require it to be the sole or primary determinant of the network structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself highlights the patentee's argument to the U.S. Patent Office that the invention was novel because it used "trace route to segment requested content," distinguishing it from prior art that used traceroute merely to "test pathways" (Compl. ¶¶ 8-11). A defendant could argue this history limits the term to an interpretation where traceroute data is actively and directly used to define the P2P network connections or segment the content for distribution.
The Term: "use the trace route to segment requested content"
Context and Importance: This functional limitation in system claim 1 is highly specific. The plaintiff's ability to prove infringement will require showing that the accused system not only uses traceroute and performs segmentation, but that it uses the former to accomplish the latter.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a detailed technical description of how a trace route is used to segment content. A plaintiff may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any system where traceroute results inform the size or selection of content segments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent includes the step "Use trace route to segment" as a server-side function, distinct from "Find peers/neighbors." This separation may suggest a narrow interpretation where the "segmentation" is a discrete technical step directly driven by traceroute output, not merely a network-mapping activity that indirectly influences later content delivery. The patent's abstract describes "dynamic networks...based upon a trace route or other dynamic network segmentation strategy," potentially linking the two concepts tightly (’452 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus exclusively on direct infringement by the defendant (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement and does not request enhanced damages in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶¶ 10-16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and prosecution history: can the limitation "based on at least one trace route," which was used to overcome prior art, be interpreted broadly enough to read on a system that uses traceroute for general network monitoring, or is it restricted to a system where traceroute data directly dictates the P2P network's structure?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causality: does the plaintiff have evidence to show that the accused Kollective system actually performs the specific function of "us[ing] the trace route to segment requested content" as required by claim 1, or does the system use traceroute for network mapping and, in a separate and unrelated process, segment content using conventional methods? The complaint's own allegations create ambiguity on this point, which will likely be a focus of discovery and expert testimony.