DCT

1:17-cv-02097

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-02097, D. Colo., 11/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendants Sling TV and DISH Network L.L.C. are organized under Colorado law, and all Defendants are alleged to conduct business and have regular and established places of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ streaming video products and services infringe two patents related to methods for adaptively selecting data compression algorithms.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data compression for video and audio streaming, a critical component for delivering high-quality content over variable-bandwidth networks like the internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have been cited as prior art during the prosecution of at least 400 patent applications by various technology companies, which may be presented to suggest the patents' relevance and recognition within the technical field.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-03-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’610 and ’535 Patents
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8867610 Issued
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8934535 Issued
2017-11-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 - "System and methods for video and audio data distribution"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the technical problem that the bandwidth and storage capacity of memory and storage devices severely limit the performance of computers, particularly for data-intensive operations like video streaming (U.S. Patent No. US8275897B2, col. 1:24-29, incorporated by reference).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to improve data distribution efficiency by analyzing incoming data and network conditions to select an appropriate compression algorithm from a plurality of options. The selection is based on characteristics of the data (a "parameter or an attribute") and the "throughput of a communication channel" (’610 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the solution is that the available compression algorithms include at least one that is "asymmetric," allowing for a trade-off between compression and decompression speeds (’610 Patent, col. 20:13-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a system to dynamically balance compression efficiency against processing speed to maintain quality of service in environments with fluctuating network bandwidth and diverse content types.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a portion of a data block having video or audio data;
    • selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the data block based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communication channel, where at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms is asymmetric; and
    • compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected compression algorithm.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 - "Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’535 Patent, as part of the same patent family as the ’610 Patent, addresses the same fundamental problem of bandwidth and storage limitations for digital data (U.S. Patent No. 8,275,897 B2, col. 1:24-29, incorporated by reference).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is nearly identical to that of the ’610 Patent, involving the selection of an asymmetric compressor based on data parameters. The method claimed in the ’535 Patent adds a "storing" step, explicitly tying the compression method to data storage applications (’535 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:13-14).
  • Technical Importance: This method directly targets efficiency improvements for systems that must store compressed data for later retrieval, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) or on-demand streaming services.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 15 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Claim 15 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • determining a parameter of at least a portion of a data block;
    • selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute;
    • compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected one or more asymmetric compressors to provide one or more compressed data blocks; and
    • storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities include streaming video products and services from Sling TV (e.g., Sling Orange and Sling Blue services), Sling TV LLC (e.g., Slingbox set-top boxes), Dish Network LLC (e.g., DISH TV service), and Arris (e.g., Arris MS4000 media streamer) (Compl. ¶¶21-24, 42-45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that all accused products and services are compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard (Compl. ¶¶21-24). The functionality at issue is the use of H.264 compression to deliver streaming video, which the complaint alleges involves dynamically allocating bitrates and selecting encoding profiles based on content type and available bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶26, 27, 30). For example, the complaint references a table of H.264 profiles and levels, indicating that different profiles use different entropy coding schemes (CAVLC or CABAC), which are alleged to be the asymmetric compressors (Compl. ¶32, p. 12). The complaint positions these services as central to Defendants' offerings in the competitive U.S. streaming video and satellite television markets.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a portion of a data block having video or audio data The accused systems determine parameters such as the degree of motion in a video scene, content type (e.g., sports vs. news), or statistics observed by a client player to tailor encoding. ¶¶26-28 col. 10:10-15
selecting one or more compression algorithms...based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communication channel... Based on the determined parameters and available network bandwidth (throughput), the systems select an H.264 profile and level, which allegedly corresponds to selecting between different entropy encoders (CAVLC or CABAC). The complaint includes a table showing that H.264's "Main" and "High" profiles utilize CABAC entropy coding, while "Baseline" uses CAVLC (Compl. p. 12). ¶¶29-32 col. 10:16-24
at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric The complaint alleges that the H.264 standard's entropy encoders, Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC) and Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC), are asymmetric compressors because they take longer to compress data than to decompress it. A table in the complaint compares the two approaches (Compl. p. 13). ¶32 col. 10:35-37
compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected compression algorithm... After selecting a profile and level, the system allegedly uses the corresponding asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) to compress the video data. ¶33 col. 10:38-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether selecting a pre-defined H.264 "profile" (e.g., "Main" or "High") constitutes "selecting one or more compression algorithms" as required by the claim. A court may need to determine if this claim language requires a more dynamic, component-level selection process than choosing from a standardized set of profiles.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the accused systems' use of adaptive bitrate streaming functionally maps onto the claim's requirement to select an algorithm based on both a data parameter and channel throughput. The defense may argue that these are independent or conflated functions in the accused systems. The definition of "asymmetric" as presented in the complaint—a temporal difference between compression and decompression—will also be a central point of contention requiring technical evidence and claim construction.

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining a parameter of at least a portion of a data block The infringement allegations for this step are identical to those for the ’610 Patent, citing parameters like motion, content type, or client-observed statistics. ¶¶47-50 col. 18:1-3
selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute The infringement theory is identical to that for the ’610 Patent, alleging that selecting an H.264 profile (e.g., Baseline, Main, High) constitutes selecting between asymmetric compressors CAVLC and CABAC. The complaint includes a table comparing the features of different H.264 profiles to support this allegation (Compl. p. 23). ¶¶51-54 col. 18:4-7
compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected one or more asymmetric compressors... The accused systems allegedly compress the video data using the selected asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) associated with the chosen H.264 profile. ¶55 col. 18:8-12
storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities, particularly those with DVR functionality, store the compressed data blocks in buffers, on a hard disk, or in other memory. ¶56 col. 18:13-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Similar to the ’610 Patent, a key question will be whether selecting a standardized H.264 profile is equivalent to "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors."
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’535 Patent will face the same technical questions as the ’610 Patent regarding the definition of "asymmetric" and the actual mechanism of selection in the accused systems. The addition of the "storing" step is less likely to be a point of major technical dispute, as streaming and DVR services inherently store data, at least temporarily.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "asymmetric" (compressor/compression algorithm)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegations for both patents. The complaint's theory depends on classifying H.264's standard entropy encoders (CAVLC and CABAC) as "asymmetric." Its definition will likely determine whether the H.264 standard falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents do not appear to provide an explicit definition, leaving its meaning open to interpretation based on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves simply require that "at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric," without further limitation (’610 Patent, col. 20:13-15). This lack of a specific definition in the claims or specification could be argued to support adopting a plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass any form of asymmetry, including the temporal compression/decompression imbalance alleged in the complaint.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’897 patent, incorporated by reference, focuses heavily on the distinction between "lossy" and "lossless" compression (U.S. Patent No. 8275897 B2, col. 1:56-62; col. 2:9-16). A defendant may argue that in the context of the invention, "asymmetric" was intended to refer to the asymmetry between original and reconstructed data in lossy compression, not a temporal processing difference.

  • The Term: "selecting one or more compression algorithms"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the core active step of the asserted claims. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused systems' use of standardized H.264 profiles—which bundle various parameters and tools, including an entropy coder—constitutes "selecting" an "algorithm" in the manner claimed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses selecting from a "pool of available encoders" and choosing an "encoding technique" (U.S. Patent No. 8,275,897 B2, col. 10:16-18; col. 10:59-61). Plaintiff may argue this language is broad enough to cover the selection of a high-level profile that dictates which underlying encoding technique is used.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where discrete "encoders E1 . . . En" are available in an "encoder module" and one is chosen based on a comparison of compression ratios (U.S. Patent No. 8,275,897 B2, col. 13:5-12; Fig. 8). A defendant may argue this implies a more granular, direct selection of a specific algorithm component, rather than the selection of a standardized, bundled profile like H.264 "Main" or "High."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendants providing implementation services and technical support, as well as instructing customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., user manuals for Slingbox or promotional materials for DISH Anywhere) (Compl. ¶¶37, 60).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶36, 59). This suggests the claim is primarily based on post-suit conduct.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's interpretation of two central issues:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asymmetric," which is not explicitly defined in the patents, be construed to mean a temporal difference between compression and decompression processing time, as Plaintiff alleges? Or, in the context of the patent, does it carry a different technical meaning, such as the data asymmetry inherent in lossy versus lossless compression?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does selecting a standardized, high-level encoding "profile" in the H.264 standard constitute "selecting one or more compression algorithms" as required by the claims? The court will need to determine whether this action in the accused products is functionally the same as the more granular, component-level selection process described in the patent specification.