DCT

5:25-cv-01842

Cooperative Entertainment Inc v. Alibaba Cloud US LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01842, N.D. Cal., 02/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of California and having committed acts of alleged infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for peer-to-peer network content distribution infringe a patent related to dynamically creating and managing such networks to deliver large data files.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns hybrid content delivery systems that offload traffic from traditional Content Distribution Networks (CDNs) by enabling end-users (peers) who are consuming the same content to share data segments directly with one another.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint notes prior settlement licenses with other entities and argues that these licenses did not trigger a duty to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they did not permit the production of a patented article, an assertion aimed at preserving the ability to claim pre-suit damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-09-10 '452 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-30 '452 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 - Systems and Methods for Dynamic Networked Peer-To-Peer Content Distribution

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452, issued August 30, 2016. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the high cost and bandwidth limitations of relying solely on traditional Content Distribution Networks (CDNs) for delivering large data files, such as streaming video, to many users simultaneously. The background section notes that "The prior art fails to provide video streaming over P2P networks outside the structure and control of CDNs." (’452 Patent, col. 3:34-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a central server identifies a group of users ("peers") who are all consuming the same content. Instead of each peer downloading all data exclusively from a CDN, the system enables the peers to form a "dynamic network" to share content segments directly with each other. This network is optimized by grouping peers based on network proximity, which can be determined using techniques like trace routes, to facilitate efficient, low-latency sharing. (’452 Patent, col. 5:20-41; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This hybrid P2P-CDN approach is designed to reduce the load on centralized servers, lower bandwidth costs for the content provider, and increase the redundancy and efficiency of content delivery. (’452 Patent, col. 5:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-15. (Compl. ¶9). The independent claims are 1 and 5.
  • Independent System Claim 1:
    • At least one content delivery server computer.
    • At least one peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network including a multiplicity of 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 and/or CDNs.
    • The server is operable to store viewer information, check content requests, use the trace route to segment requested content, find peers, and return client-block pairs.
    • Distribution of P2P content is based on content segmentation, which is in turn based on techniques including CDN address resolution and trace route to the CDN.
  • Independent Method Claim 5:
    • Providing a content delivery server and a P2P dynamic network of peer nodes consuming the same content within a predetermined time.
    • The server receiving a content request from a client.
    • The server segmenting the requested content based on techniques including CDN address resolution and dynamic feedback from peers.
    • Automatically identifying at least one peer node having a segment of the content in close network proximity to the client.
    • The peer node most proximal to the client sharing the content segment.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that facilitate peer-to-peer network content distribution" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant. (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant provides services for P2P network content distribution and instructs its customers on how to use them. (Compl. ¶11). No specific technical details regarding the operation of Defendant's services are provided in the body of the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's P2P content distribution services infringe claims 1-15 of the '452 Patent. (Compl. ¶9). It states that detailed support for these allegations can be found in a chart attached as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶10). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed claim-by-claim analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's systems perform the claimed methods of creating dynamic P2P networks among users to distribute content. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dynamic network is based on at least one trace route" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of the claimed system. The dispute will likely center on whether "trace route" refers to the specific network diagnostic command or more broadly to any method of mapping network topology to determine proximity between peers. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the claim to older, specific implementations or allow it to cover a wider range of modern, sophisticated P2P architectures.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent lists "trace route to CDN" as one of several techniques for managing distribution, alongside "dynamic feedback from peers reporting traffic rates" and "round-robin, other server side scheduling/resource allocation techniques," which may suggest "trace route" is an example of a broader category of network analysis tools. (’452 Patent, col. 5:50-55).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the network to be "based on at least one trace route" and the server to be operable to "use the trace route to segment requested content," suggesting it is a specific and integral component of the claimed invention, not merely an optional or interchangeable one. (’452 Patent, col. 10:20-42).

  • The Term: "peer nodes consume the same content within a predetermined time" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the fundamental condition for "peerness"—the commonality that allows a dynamic network to form. Its construction will determine how similar the content and how close in time the consumption must be for different users to be considered peers under the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently refers more generally to "common content" and "content commonality," which could support an interpretation that does not require identical files or perfectly synchronized viewing. (’452 Patent, col. 4:45-48).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description emphasizes "live streaming synchronized viewing processes" and "simultaneous viewing," which could support a narrower construction requiring near-real-time consumption of the exact same content stream. (’452 Patent, col. 7:48-49, 8:11-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services in a way that infringes the ’452 Patent. (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming there are "no substantial non-infringing uses" for the accused services. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’452 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which provides a basis for post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). The prayer for relief also seeks a declaration of pre-suit willfulness, and a footnote reserves the right to amend the complaint to add such claims if pre-suit knowledge is discovered. (Compl. ¶ V.e; ¶12, n.1).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Given the complaint’s lack of detail on the accused instrumentality, the case will depend on discovery to reveal the specific architecture and operational logic of Alibaba's P2P services. The central factual dispute will be whether that revealed evidence can be mapped to the specific limitations recited in the asserted claims.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: The interpretation of the term "based on at least one trace route" will be pivotal. Whether this is construed narrowly as requiring a specific diagnostic command, or broadly to cover any algorithm for determining network proximity, will likely determine if Defendant’s modern P2P content delivery architecture falls within the patent’s scope.
  • A significant procedural and damages question will revolve around patent marking: The court will likely need to address Plaintiff's proactive arguments regarding its status as a non-practicing entity and its prior settlement agreements. The determination of whether those past licenses triggered a marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287 will be critical to establishing the start date for any potential damages.