DCT

1:18-cv-00927

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Wowza Media Systems LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00927, D. Colo., 04/20/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s principal place of business and regular and established places of business within the District of Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s streaming media products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to adaptive data compression and video coding technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to adaptive bitrate streaming, a foundational technology for delivering video over the internet by dynamically adjusting video quality based on network conditions to ensure smooth playback.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-13 Priority Date for ’046, ’535, and ’477 Patents
2007-03-11 Priority Date for ’462 Patent
2008-06-10 ’046 Patent Issued
2010-06-28 Priority Date for ’298 Patent
2014-01-21 ’462 Patent Issued
2015-01-13 ’535 Patent Issued
2017-02-21 ’298 Patent Issued
2017-09-19 ’477 Patent Issued
2018-04-20 Complaint Filing Date

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, titled “Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression,” issued June 10, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a fundamental bottleneck in computer systems where the data storage and retrieval bandwidth of mass storage devices (e.g., hard disks) is significantly slower than the processing speed of modern processors and memory, limiting overall system performance (US7386046B2, col. 1:55-2:9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a controller that monitors the system’s throughput and, when a bottleneck is detected (i.e., throughput falls below a threshold), commands a data compression engine to switch between different compression algorithms to optimize performance. For instance, it can switch from a slower, high-efficiency algorithm to a faster, less-efficient one to increase the data processing rate and eliminate the bottleneck (’046 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:1-8). This dynamic selection is illustrated in the patent’s flowchart, FIG. 2 (’046 Patent, FIG. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for dynamically managing the trade-off between compression efficiency and processing speed to maximize performance in systems with variable workloads and constrained bandwidth (’046 Patent, col. 2:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 40 (Compl. ¶14).
  • The essential elements of claim 40 are:
    • A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input;
    • A plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system, wherein a first routine includes a first compression algorithm and a second routine includes a second compression algorithm; and
    • A controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput, wherein tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device; and wherein when the controller determines that the throughput falls below a predetermined threshold, the controller commands the data compression engine to use one of the plurality of compression routines to provide a faster rate of compression to increase throughput.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535, titled “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution,” issued January 13, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '046 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of optimizing data compression in bandwidth-limited systems (’535 Patent, col. 1:12-2:59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method of data compression that involves selecting from a plurality of asymmetric compressors based on a determined parameter of a data block. An asymmetric compressor is defined as one where the time to compress differs significantly from the time to decompress (’535 Patent, col. 9:62-10:11). The method involves determining a parameter (e.g., data type, expected access frequency), selecting an appropriate asymmetric compressor, compressing the data, and storing it (’535 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for optimizing system performance based not just on real-time throughput, but also on pre-determined characteristics of the data itself, such as selecting a slow, high-ratio compressor for data that is written once but read many times (e.g., an operating system) (’535 Patent, col. 14:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 15 are:
    • 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 other claims (Compl. ¶41).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, titled “Video data compression systems,” issued September 19, 2017.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family as the ’046 and ’535 patents, claims a system with multiple different asymmetric data compression encoders. A processor determines a data parameter related to communication channel throughput and selects an encoder based on that parameter to compress video or image data (Compl. ¶51).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶51).

  • Accused Features: Defendant’s use of H.264 and Apple HLS technology for adaptive bitrate streaming is alleged to infringe. The complaint alleges that different H.264 profiles act as different asymmetric encoders, selected based on network throughput (Compl. ¶52, ¶56).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for improving efficiency in hybrid video coding (such as HEVC/H.265). The method involves calculating the "quantization efficiency" for a subblock of video data and comparing it to the efficiency of setting all values in that subblock to zero, then selecting the more efficient option for further processing (Compl. ¶70).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).

  • Accused Features: Defendant’s products that implement the HEVC (H.265) standard are accused of infringing. The complaint alleges that the HEVC standard’s process for deciding whether to encode coefficients or set a sub-block to zero practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶71-77). The complaint includes a screenshot from the HEVC reference software to illustrate the accused calculation (Compl. ¶80).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298, titled “Method for Decoding 2D-Compatible Stereoscopic Video Flows,” issued February 21, 2017.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for processing stereoscopic (3D) video. It involves receiving a composite video frame containing a pair of images (left and right), receiving metadata that indicates the geometry or packing format of the frame, determining the area occupied by just one of the images based on the metadata, and then decoding only that part of the frame to generate a 2D-compatible output (Compl. ¶94).

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶94).

  • Accused Features: Defendant’s products that implement the HEVC standard for processing stereoscopic video are alleged to infringe. The complaint alleges that the HEVC specification provides for metadata (e.g., frame packing arrangement SEI messages) and decoding processes (e.g., independent tile decoding) that practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶95-100).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Wowza's CLEARCASTER appliance, Wowza Streaming Cloud, Wowza Streaming Engine, and Wowza GoCoder ("Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Instrumentalities are products and services for streaming video and audio content over networks (Compl. ¶13). They utilize standards like H.264, HEVC (H.265), and protocols like Apple’s HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) to enable adaptive bitrate delivery (Compl. ¶15, ¶71). A core accused feature is the ability to ingest a single video stream and create "multiple outbound renditions with aligned keyframes" at different bitrates and resolutions. This allows a client player to dynamically switch between streams—for example, to a lower quality stream if network bandwidth decreases or to a higher quality stream if bandwidth increases—to provide a continuous viewing experience (Compl. ¶17, ¶14). The complaint presents a table from Wowza's website listing the video and audio formats its Transcoder product supports, including H.264 and H.265 (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 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 Wowza’s streaming products that utilize the H.264 compression standard. ¶16 col. 12:4-6
a plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system... The different “profiles” and “levels” within the H.264 standard, which utilize different algorithmic features such as CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders. ¶17, ¶19 col. 12:7-12
a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput... The client-side software in Apple HLS, which "observes the effective bandwidth" and uses heuristics based on "measured network throughput" to switch between higher and lower quality streams. ¶14, ¶21 col. 12:13-26
wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device The complaint alleges this limitation is met by the HLS client software tracking "measured network throughput." ¶14, ¶21 col. 24:1-3
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 The HLS client switching to a "lower quality" stream when bandwidth is insufficient, which the complaint alleges corresponds to selecting a compression technique with a faster compression rate to increase throughput. ¶14, ¶15 col. 24:4-9

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 system determines parameters such as bitrate and resolution for a video data block. A table from Wikipedia included in the complaint shows various bitrates and resolutions for different H.264 levels (Compl. p. 22). ¶34 col. 1:22-23
selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute Based on the determined bitrate/resolution, the system selects an H.264 profile (e.g., "baseline," "main," or "high"), which in turn dictates the use of either a CAVLC or CABAC entropy encoder. These are alleged to be asymmetric compressors. ¶36 col. 1:24-27
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 The system uses the selected encoder (CAVLC or CABAC) to compress the video data into compressed data blocks, which can be organized into a Group of Pictures (GOP) structure. ¶39 col. 1:27-30
storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks The compressed data blocks are stored in buffers, hard disk, or other forms of memory. ¶40 col. 1:30-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’046 Patent is whether tracking "network throughput," as alleged in the complaint, can be read on the claim limitation "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The patent claim language is specific to a storage device, while the accused functionality relates to network performance, suggesting a potential mismatch in scope.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’535 Patent, a key question will be whether the selection of entropy encoders (CAVLC or CABAC) as part of an H.264 profile constitutes "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors" as understood in the patent. The complaint provides a graph to support the assertion that H.264 compression is asymmetric, showing encoder delay is higher than decoder delay (Compl. p. 26). The factual and legal sufficiency of this characterization may be a point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "throughput" (from ’046 Patent, Claim 40)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’046 Patent hinges on this term. The claim explicitly defines how throughput is tracked: "wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The complaint, however, alleges this element is met by tracking "measured network throughput." Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of its construction could determine infringement, as there is a facial difference between what the claim recites and what the accused product allegedly does.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discusses the invention in the general context of system "bandwidth" limitations and bottlenecks, not exclusively storage device access speeds (US 7,386,046 B2, Abstract; col. 9:15-20). This broader context may support an argument that "throughput" was intended to cover various system performance metrics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a specific, narrowing definition. The phrase "wherein said tracking throughput comprises..." acts as a definitional clause, which may strongly support a construction limiting the term to only tracking pending access requests to a storage device (US 7,386,046 B2, col. 24:1-3).

The Term: "asymmetric compressors" (from ’535 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’535 Patent alleges that CAVLC and CABAC, two entropy coding methods in the H.264 standard, are "asymmetric compressors." The definition of this term is critical to determining whether this characterization is correct under the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parent '046 patent specification defines an "asymmetrical" algorithm as one "in which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly" (’046 Patent, col. 9:62-65). This functional definition could be argued to cover any pair of compression/decompression routines where one is demonstrably slower than the other, regardless of the underlying technology. The complaint provides a graph purporting to show this is true for H.264 codecs generally (Compl. p. 26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '046 patent specification contrasts "asymmetrical" dictionary-based schemes like Lempel-Ziv with "symmetrical" table-based schemes like Huffman (’046 Patent, col. 10:3-11). This may support an argument that the term was intended to refer to distinct classes of algorithms, not merely different entropy coding options within a single overarching standard like H.264.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant’s affirmative acts of providing products and services with instructions, user guides, and documentation that allegedly encourage users to enable and use the accused adaptive bitrate streaming features (Compl. ¶26, ¶45). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Wowza user interface showing settings to enable "Apple HLS" among other playback types, which it cites as evidence of such instruction (Compl. p. 17). Contributory infringement is also alleged, on the basis that the accused HLS functionality is "especially adapted for use in infringement" and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶27, ¶46).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶25, ¶44). This is a standard allegation of post-suit willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "throughput", which the patent claim explicitly defines in the context of "pending access requests to a storage device," be construed to cover the "measured network throughput" of the accused adaptive streaming products? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for the infringement analysis of the ’046 patent family.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: does the H.264 standard's use of different profiles that employ either CAVLC or CABAC entropy encoders constitute the claimed method of "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors"? This will likely involve factual disputes over how these technologies operate and whether they fit the patent’s definition of "asymmetric."
  • A central legal and factual question for the HEVC-related patents (’462 and ’298) will be whether Defendant's implementation of an industry standard (HEVC/H.265) inherently practices the specific methods claimed in the patents, or if the complaint’s allegations mischaracterize the standard’s operation to fit the claim language.