DCT

1:18-cv-01046

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01046, D. Colo., 05/04/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is registered to do business in the state, has regular and established places of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s video collaboration and conferencing products, which utilize H.264 video compression and HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) technologies, infringe three patents related to adaptive data compression based on system throughput or data parameters.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to dynamically selecting data compression algorithms to optimize performance, a critical function in video streaming where network bandwidth and processing capabilities fluctuate.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents indicate that all three patents-in-suit have been subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed after the complaint. For U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535, the asserted independent claim 15 was disclaimed. For U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, all claims, including the asserted independent claim 1, were cancelled. These post-filing events raise significant questions regarding the continued viability of the infringement counts for the ’535 and ’477 patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’046, ’535, and ’477 Patents
2008-06-10 ’046 Patent Issued
2015-01-13 ’535 Patent Issued
2017-09-19 ’477 Patent Issued
2018-05-04 Complaint Filing Date
2018-06-04 IPR Filed Against ’477 Patent (IPR2018-01187)
2018-11-11 IPR Filed Against ’046 Patent (IPR2019-00209)
2020-02-10 IPR Certificate Issued for ’535 Patent (Claims 15-30 Disclaimed)
2021-08-17 IPR Certificate Issued for ’477 Patent (Claims 1-29 Cancelled)
2023-01-13 IPR Certificate Issued for ’046 Patent (Asserted Claim 40 Survived)

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 - “Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression” (Issued June 10, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the performance bottleneck created by mass storage devices (e.g., hard disks), whose data storage and retrieval speeds have not kept pace with improvements in processor performance (’046 Patent, col. 1:45-54). This creates a trade-off between using a slow, high-ratio compression algorithm to save space and a fast, low-ratio algorithm to maintain system speed.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a controller that actively monitors the "throughput" of a data compression system. When the controller determines that throughput falls below a threshold (indicating a bottleneck), it commands the system to switch to a compression routine with a faster rate of compression to alleviate the bottleneck and increase overall system performance (’046 Patent, col. 12:56-67; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a system to dynamically adapt its data compression strategy based on real-time performance metrics, aiming to achieve an optimal balance between storage efficiency and data access speed (’046 Patent, col. 1:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 40 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Essential elements of Claim 40:
    • A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input.
    • A plurality of compression routines, including at least a first routine with a first compression algorithm and a second routine with a second compression algorithm.
    • 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.
    • Wherein when the controller determines throughput falls below a predetermined threshold, it commands the data compression engine to use a routine providing a faster rate of compression to increase throughput.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 - “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution” (Issued Jan. 13, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, from the same family as the ’046 patent, also addresses the challenge of selecting optimal compression algorithms for a given application, noting the trade-off between speed and efficiency (’535 Patent, col. 1:41-54). It particularly notes the challenge in selecting from a variety of available algorithms.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a system determines a parameter or attribute of a data block (e.g., its data type or usage pattern) and, based on that parameter, selects one or more "asymmetric compressors" from a plurality of available compressors to process the data (’535 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:48-60). An asymmetric compressor is defined as one where the compression and decompression routines differ significantly in execution time (’535 Patent, col. 9:1-6).
  • Technical Importance: The solution provides a systematic way to match data characteristics with the most suitable compression approach, allowing, for example, data that is written once but read many times to be compressed slowly for maximum efficiency and decompressed quickly for performance (’535 Patent, col. 14:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Essential elements of Claim 15:
    • 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 compressor(s) to provide compressed data blocks.
    • Storing at least a portion of the compressed data blocks.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 - “Video data compression systems” (Issued Sep. 19, 2017)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system comprising multiple different asymmetric data compression encoders, where a first encoder has a higher compression rate than a second. A processor determines data parameters, including the throughput of a communications channel, and selects an encoder based on those parameters to compress video or image data blocks (’477 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Avaya’s products, which utilize the H.264 standard and HLS technology, embody the claimed system for selecting between different compression encoders (e.g., CAVLC and CABAC) based on parameters like bitrate and throughput (Compl. ¶49, ¶52, ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Avaya's streaming and video collaboration products and services, including the Avaya Video Collaboration Solution, H100 Series Stations, Avaya Scopia Streaming & Recording, Avaya Scopia XT5000 and XT7100 Room Systems, and Avaya Equinox Conferencing (Compl. ¶11, ¶29, ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products utilize the H.264 video compression standard and HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) protocol (Compl. ¶13). The H.264 standard allegedly provides a plurality of compression routines by using different "profiles" and "levels," which correspond to different sets of algorithmic features and performance classes (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The complaint references an H.264 feature table which shows that different profiles, such as "Baseline" and "High," support different entropy coding schemes like CAVLC and CABAC (Compl. p. 9). HLS technology allegedly supports dynamically switching between different quality streams based on measured network throughput, which the complaint maps to the patented concept of selecting a compression routine based on performance metrics (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,386,046 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 Avaya's streaming products utilize the H.264 compression standard for compressing and decompressing video data. ¶14 col. 12:60-62
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 accused products utilize different H.264 profiles and levels, which provide different compression routines and algorithms, such as the CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders. ¶15, ¶17 col. 13:1-4
a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput The accused products' use of HLS involves a client that uses heuristics based on "recent trends in measured network throughput" to decide when to switch between alternate streams (i.e., select a compression routine). ¶19 col. 13:5-8
wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device The complaint alleges HLS client software "observes the effective bandwidth while playing a stream" and switches quality based on available bandwidth, which it equates to tracking throughput. ¶19 col. 12:28-31
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 the HLS client determines that current bandwidth is insufficient, it switches to a lower-quality stream; when bandwidth is sufficient for a higher-quality stream, it switches up. This is alleged to be the claimed selection of a faster routine to increase throughput. ¶19 col. 12:31-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "throughput." Claim 40 explicitly defines the term as "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The complaint’s allegations, however, focus on HLS technology monitoring "measured network throughput" and "effective bandwidth" (Compl. ¶19), which relate to network conditions rather than storage device requests. This raises the question of whether the accused functionality meets the specific definition of "throughput" required by the claim.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that switching to a "lower-quality stream" in HLS is functionally equivalent to selecting a compression routine that provides a "faster rate of compression"? While potentially related, the two are not necessarily synonymous and may depend on the specific H.264 profiles being used.

8,934,535 Patent 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 accused products, being H.264-compliant, determine parameters such as bitrate, resolution, or GOP structure for a video data block. A table of H.264 levels shows parameters like max video bit rate. ¶32, ¶34; p. 20 col. 13:56-61
selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute Based on the determined parameters (e.g., bitrate), the system determines a corresponding H.264 profile (e.g., "baseline" or "high") and then selects between at least two "asymmetric compressors," identified as the CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders. ¶34 col. 13:62-65
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 selected encoder (CAVLC or CABAC) compresses the video data to provide compressed data blocks, which can be organized into a GOP structure. ¶36 col. 13:66-67
and storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks The accused products store the compressed data blocks in buffers, on a hard disk, or in other forms of memory/storage. ¶37 col. 14:1-2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Do the CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders, as used within the broader H.264 standard, qualify as distinct "asymmetric compressors" from which a selection is made, as claimed? A court may need to determine if selecting an H.264 profile, which in turn dictates the use of a particular entropy encoder, constitutes "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors."
    • Procedural Questions: The assertion of claim 15 is complicated by the fact that it was disclaimed during IPR proceedings that concluded after the complaint was filed (’535 Patent, K1 Cert.). This raises the critical question of whether the infringement count based on this claim remains viable.

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. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim provides a narrow, explicit definition—"tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device"—while the complaint’s allegations are based on the accused HLS protocol monitoring general network bandwidth. The case may turn on whether the accused functionality can be shown to meet the claim's specific definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract refers more generally to compressing data based on "an actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system," which could be argued to encompass more than just storage requests (’046 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 40 contains a "wherein said tracking throughput comprises" clause, which acts as a definitional limitation. This language strongly suggests the patentee intended to define the term for the purpose of the claim, limiting its scope to the specific function of tracking pending storage access requests (’046 Patent, col. 28:28-31).

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

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is crucial for determining whether the accused H.264 functionality of using different profiles that employ either CAVLC or CABAC encoders meets the claim limitation. The complaint asserts that these two encoders are the claimed "asymmetric compressors" (Compl. ¶34).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification broadly defines "asymmetrical" and "symmetrical" algorithms based on whether their compression and decompression routines have execution times that "differ significantly" or are "substantially similar," respectively (’535 Patent, col. 9:1-11). This functional definition could support including any pair of encoders that meet this timing criterion.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses selecting from a "plurality of compression routines" and generating control signals to "enable/disable different compression algorithms" (’535 Patent, col. 13:39-45). This could suggest that the "compressors" must be distinct, selectable modules rather than integral features of a pre-selected encoding profile within a larger standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Avaya induces infringement by providing technical support, training, demonstrations, brochures, and user guides that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in their normal, infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶42, ¶60). It is also alleged that promoting HLS functionality constitutes inducement (Compl. ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count. However, the complaint alleges that Avaya has had knowledge of the patents and their infringement since at least the filing of the lawsuit and that its continued actions support a finding of induced infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶41, ¶59). The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages and a finding of an exceptional case, which are remedies associated with findings of willful infringement (Compl. p. 41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "throughput", which is explicitly defined in Claim 40 of the ’046 patent as tracking "pending access requests to a storage device," read on the accused HLS functionality of monitoring general network bandwidth and connection speed?
  • A critical procedural issue will be the impact of post-filing IPR proceedings: given that the asserted claims of the ’535 and ’477 patents were subsequently disclaimed or cancelled, can the infringement counts based on those specific claims survive, or are they now moot?
  • A key technical question will be one of functional equivalence: does the selection of an H.264 profile, which in turn determines the use of a specific entropy encoder like CAVLC or CABAC, constitute the act of "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors" as required by Claim 15 of the ’535 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the selection is performed?