DCT

1:17-cv-02869

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-02869, D. Colo., 03/26/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Apple is registered to do business in Colorado, has regular and established places of business within the district, and has transacted business and committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s streaming services and devices, which utilize H.264 and HEVC video compression standards, infringe six patents related to adaptive data compression and video coding methodologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for efficiently compressing and decompressing digital video, a foundational component of modern internet-based video streaming services.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated via an Amended Complaint. Subsequent to its filing, the asserted patents have been subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The provided patent documents include IPR certificates indicating that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,929,442; 8,934,535; 9,578,298; and 9,769,477 have been cancelled or disclaimed. The patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 was confirmed, though the status of the asserted claim 40 is not specified in the IPR certificate provided. These post-filing events may substantially narrow or render moot many of the allegations in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’046, ’442, ’535, ’477 Patents
2008-03-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’462 Patent
2008-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 Issues
2009-06-08 Alleged launch of Safari 4.0
2009-06-17 Alleged launch of iOS 3.0
2010-06-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’298 Patent
2014-01-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462 Issues
2015-01-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442 Issues
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 Issues
2017-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298 Issues
2017-09-19 Alleged launch of iOS 11
2017-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 Issues
2017-09-25 Alleged launch of macOS High Sierra
2018-03-26 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046: Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046, "Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression," issued June 10, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the performance gap between fast computer processors and slower mass storage devices, which creates a data storage and retrieval bottleneck (’046 Patent, col. 2:45-51). It also notes the challenge of selecting an optimal compression algorithm, as those that compress well are often slow, and those that are fast often compress poorly (’046 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that actively monitors system throughput and, when a bottleneck is detected, dynamically selects a different compression routine from a plurality of available routines to alleviate the bottleneck (’046 Patent, Abstract). A controller tracks performance and generates control signals to switch between algorithms, such as from a slower, high-ratio algorithm to a faster, lower-ratio algorithm, to prioritize speed when the system is under load (’046 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:56-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for dynamically optimizing the trade-off between compression speed and compression ratio to improve overall system performance in environments with fluctuating workloads and I/O constraints (’046 Patent, col. 1:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 40 (Compl. ¶15).
  • The essential elements of Claim 40 are:
    • A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data.
    • A plurality of different compression routines available to the system.
    • A controller that tracks throughput by tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device.
    • The controller generates a control signal to select a compression routine based on the measured throughput.
    • When the controller determines throughput falls below a threshold, it commands the system to use a routine with a faster rate of compression to increase throughput.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462: Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462, "Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding," issued January 21, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In hybrid video coding standards like H.264/AVC, the patent’s background explains that coding single, non-zero quantized coefficients within a data block can be inefficient, requiring a high data rate for only a marginal improvement in visual quality (’462 Patent, col. 2:15-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for optimizing this trade-off by calculating and comparing two separate "efficiencies" for a subblock of video data: a first efficiency for the subblock with its quantized values, and a second "zero efficiency" for that same subblock if all its values were set to zero (’462 Patent, Abstract). The method then selects whichever option yields the higher efficiency for further processing, thereby making a decision based on a rate-distortion analysis to either keep the data or discard it by zeroing it out (’462 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:35-51).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a more sophisticated quantization decision-making process for hybrid video codecs, aiming to improve compression efficiency by selectively eliminating data that is costly to encode relative to its contribution to image quality (’462 Patent, col. 4:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A method for coding a video signal using hybrid coding, comprising reducing temporal redundancy via motion-compensated prediction to establish a prediction error signal.
    • Performing quantization on the prediction error signal to obtain quantized values within a plurality of subblocks.
    • Calculating a first quantization efficiency for the quantized values of at least one subblock.
    • Setting the quantized values of that subblock to all zeroes.
    • Calculating a second quantization efficiency for the subblock while its values are zero.
    • Selecting the higher of the first and second efficiencies.
    • Selecting, for further processing, either the subblock with its original quantized values or the subblock with its values set to zero, depending on which efficiency was selected as higher.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶47).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442, "System and methods for video and audio data distribution," issued January 6, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to an apparatus for decompressing data. The technology involves receiving a compressed data block that was originally compressed by an encoder that selected a compression algorithm from a plurality of options (including at least one asymmetric algorithm) based on the throughput of a communication channel and other data parameters (’442 Patent, col. 1:12-23, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Apple's devices and services that utilize H.264 and HLS technology to decompress video streams that were adaptively compressed based on network conditions (Compl. ¶¶58-61).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535, "Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution," issued January 13, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method of data compression where a parameter of a data block (e.g., bitrate, resolution) is determined, and based on this parameter, one or more asymmetric compressors are selected from a plurality of compressors to compress and then store the data block (’535 Patent, col. 1:12-23, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Apple's streaming products that use the H.264 standard's "Profiles" and "Levels" as parameters to select between different asymmetric compression techniques (e.g., CABAC or CAVLC) based on anticipated bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶77-82).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298, "Method for Decoding 2D-Compatible Stereoscopic Video Flows," issued February 21, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for processing a stereoscopic (3D) video stream to make it compatible with a 2D display. The method involves receiving a composite video frame containing both left and right eye images, reading metadata that defines the area occupied by one of those images, and decoding only that specific portion of the frame to generate a 2D output (’298 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Apple products that implement the HEVC (H.265) standard, which the complaint alleges includes support for decoding stereoscopic video in a 2D-compatible manner by using metadata to identify and decode specific regions of a composite frame (Compl. ¶¶95-101).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, "Video data compression systems," issued September 19, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system containing a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders. A processor in the system determines data parameters, including one related to communications channel throughput, and selects one or more of the asymmetric encoders based on those parameters to perform compression (’477 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Apple's streaming products and services that use HLS technology to measure network throughput and select between different asymmetric H.264 encoders (e.g., CAVLC, CABAC) to compress video data accordingly (Compl. ¶¶113-119).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities fall into two primary categories:
    1. Products utilizing the H.264 video compression standard and Apple's HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) technology. These include Apple's streaming services like the iTunes Store and Apple Music, as well as devices running iOS 3.0 and later or Safari 4.0 and later (Compl. ¶14).
    2. Products implementing the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265) standard. These include devices running macOS High Sierra, iOS 11, and associated software like iMovie and Quicktime (Compl. ¶32, ¶93).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that Apple's HLS technology functions as an adaptive bitrate streaming protocol. Specifically, the client software "observes the effective bandwidth while playing a stream" and uses "heuristics...based on recent trends in measured network throughput" to dynamically switch between higher- and lower-quality video streams (Compl. ¶16, ¶22). This adaptive switching is the central functionality accused of infringing the patents related to throughput-sensitive compression.
    • The complaint further alleges that the use of different "profiles" and entropy encoders (CAVLC, CABAC) within the H.264 standard constitutes the use of a "plurality of compression routines" as claimed in several patents (Compl. ¶18). The table included in the complaint illustrates the different feature sets of H.264 profiles, such as the availability of CABAC Entropy Coding in the "Main" and "High" profiles but not "Baseline" (Compl. ¶20, p. 9).
    • For the HEVC-based products, the complaint alleges that the implementation of rate-distortion optimized quantization (RDOQ) performs the efficiency comparison claimed in the ’462 Patent (Compl. ¶42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’046 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 40) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input Apple's streaming products and services and devices which utilize the H.264 compression standard. ¶17 col. 3:58-60
a plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system, wherein a first one...includes a first compression algorithm and a second one...includes a second compression algorithm The H.264 standard provides multiple "profiles" (e.g., Baseline, Main, High) and entropy encoders (e.g., CAVLC, CABAC), which constitute different compression algorithms and routines. ¶18 col. 4:55-61
a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput Apple's HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) client software uses heuristics based on "recent trends in measured network throughput" to switch between alternate streams. ¶22 col. 3:61-63
wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device The HLS client "observes the effective bandwidth while playing a stream" to determine if available bandwidth changes. ¶22 col. 5:2-4
wherein when the controller determines that the throughput falls below a predetermined throughput threshold, the controller commands the data compression engine to use one of the plurality of compression routines to provide a faster rate of compression so as to increase the throughput When current bandwidth appears insufficient, the HLS client switches to a lower quality stream, which the complaint alleges constitutes selecting a particular compression technique that provides a faster rate of compression. ¶22 col. 8:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A principal dispute may arise over the claim element "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The complaint alleges this is met by Apple’s HLS protocol measuring network throughput (Compl. ¶22). The court will have to determine if monitoring network conditions is equivalent to monitoring I/O requests for a "storage device" as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that when HLS switches to a "lower quality" stream, the controller "commands" the use of a routine with a "faster rate of compression" (Compl. ¶22). A technical question is whether HLS dynamically commands re-compression at a faster rate, or if it simply selects from a set of pre-compressed video files that were already encoded at different quality levels and bitrates.

’462 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method for coding a video signal using hybrid coding, comprising: reducing temporal redundancy by block based motion compensated prediction in order to establish a prediction error signal Apple products perform HEVC encoding, which employs hybrid coding with block-based motion compensated prediction to generate a prediction error signal. ¶37 col. 1:12-16
performing quantization on... the prediction error signal... to obtain quantized values... wherein the prediction error signal includes a plurality of subblocks each including a plurality of quantized values HEVC encoding includes performing quantization on the prediction error signal, which is organized in subblocks (e.g., 4x4). ¶¶38-39 col. 1:16-23
calculating a first quantization efficiency for the quantized values of at least one subblock...; setting the quantized values... to all zeroes; calculating a second quantization efficiency... while all... values are zeroes; selecting which... is a higher efficiency; and selecting, for further proceeding... The complaint alleges this multi-step comparison is performed by the Rate-Distortion Optimized Quantization (RDOQ) feature in the HEVC standard, citing HEVC reference software that calculates and compares a totalCost (first efficiency) and d64BestCost (second efficiency) to decide whether to keep or zero-out coefficients. ¶¶42-46 col. 1:23-38
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The complaint's infringement theory relies on an analogy between the claimed method and the operation of HEVC reference software (Compl. ¶42). A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that Apple's commercial HEVC implementations practice this specific rate-distortion optimization method in a manner that reads on the claim limitations. The complaint provides code snippets from reference software, such as one showing the calculation of d64BestCost (Compl. ¶43, p. 24), which supports the allegation that such a comparison is a known technique in HEVC.
    • Scope Question: Does the patent's term "quantization efficiency" have a scope that can be construed to cover the "rate-distortion cost" calculations allegedly performed by the accused HEVC encoders? The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition or formula for "efficiency."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’046 Patent, Claim 40: "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint equates it with measuring network throughput, which is the core function of the accused HLS technology (Compl. ¶22). The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on whether this claim language, which facially refers to I/O operations on a local "storage device," can be broadened to encompass network conditions.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states the invention is for compressing data based on the "throughput (bandwidth) of a system," and the background discusses bottlenecks in "data processing, storage, and transmittal" (’046 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-38). This may support an argument that the "system" is not limited to a local machine and that a network is a form of "transmittal" pathway whose throughput can be tracked.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim limitation itself specifies a "storage device." The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently refer to a "storage medium" (Fig. 1, element 14) and "mass storage devices" in the context of local data storage and retrieval, which suggests the term is limited to physical hardware like a disk drive (’046 Patent, col. 9:36-40).

  • Term from ’462 Patent, Claim 1: "quantization efficiency"

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not explicitly defined with a formula in the patent, yet the infringement allegation depends on mapping it directly to the "rate-distortion cost" calculations in the HEVC standard (Compl. ¶42). The outcome of the case could depend on whether this term is construed broadly as a general cost-benefit metric or narrowly in a way that distinguishes it from the accused methodology.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract frames the invention as a choice between two options based on the "higher efficiency" to optimize the trade-off between data rate and distortion. This suggests "efficiency" is a broad concept related to rate-distortion optimization, potentially encompassing the cost calculations cited in the complaint. (’462 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses calculating efficiency for quantized values versus an all-zero state but does not provide a precise mathematical definition (’462 Patent, col. 4:5-10). A defendant may argue that without a clear definition, the term is indefinite, or that the specific cost functions used in the HEVC standard are technically distinct from what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood "quantization efficiency" to mean at the time of the invention.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis alleged is that Apple provides developer documentation, user guides, and technical support that instruct and encourage customers and developers to use HLS and HEVC in ways that allegedly practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶27, ¶51, ¶70, ¶88, ¶106, ¶124). Apple’s specific recommendation to use HLS for delivering video over cellular networks is cited as an act demonstrating intent to induce (Compl. ¶27, p.14-15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for each patent, it alleges that Apple has had knowledge of the patent and its infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶26, ¶50, ¶69, ¶87, ¶105, ¶123). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

  • A threshold question for the continuation of this case is one of claim viability: given that post-filing Inter Partes Reviews have resulted in the cancellation or disclaimer of the asserted claims in at least four of the six patents-in-suit, the court must first determine which, if any, of the infringement allegations raised in the 2018 complaint remain justiciable.
  • For any surviving claims in the ’046 patent family, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim language rooted in the context of local data processing, such as "tracking... pending access requests to a storage device," be construed to cover the accused functionality of measuring "network throughput" in a streaming protocol?
  • For any surviving claims from the ’462 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that Apple's commercial HEVC products perform the specific, multi-step comparative analysis of two distinct "quantization efficiencies" as required by the claim, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's requirements and the actual operation of the accused technology?