DCT

1:18-cv-01048

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Broadcom Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01048, D. Colo., 05/04/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant Broadcom maintains regular and established places of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Set-top Box Solutions infringe three patents related to methods and systems for adaptive data compression.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves systems that dynamically select different data compression algorithms based on real-time system performance metrics, such as throughput, to optimize the balance between compression speed and efficiency for streaming media.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit litigation or administrative challenges. However, subsequent to the complaint's filing, all three patents-in-suit have been the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims in the ’535 and ’477 patents. Several claims of the ’046 patent were found patentable, but the asserted claim 40 was not among them.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’046, ’535, and ’477 Patents
2008-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 Issued
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 Issued
2017-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 Issued
2018-05-04 Complaint Filing Date
2020-02-10 IPR Certificate Issued for ’535 Patent (Claims 15-30 Disclaimed)
2021-04-30 IPR Certificate Issued for ’535 Patent (Claims 1-14 Cancelled)
2021-08-17 IPR Certificate Issued for ’477 Patent (All Claims Cancelled)
2023-01-13 IPR Certificate Issued for ’046 Patent (Asserted Claim 40 not Confirmed)

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. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the performance bottleneck created by the disparity between high-speed processors and slower mass storage devices like magnetic disks. It notes that selecting a compression algorithm involves a trade-off between compression speed and compression ratio, and a single static choice is suboptimal for dynamic computing environments. (’046 Patent, col. 1:16-2:54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system with a controller that actively monitors system "throughput," such as the data storage and retrieval bandwidth of a compression system. If the controller detects that throughput has fallen below a set threshold, indicating a bottleneck, it commands the system to switch to a compression routine with a faster compression rate to alleviate the bottleneck, potentially at the cost of a lower compression ratio. (’046 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). This allows the system to adapt its compression strategy in real-time based on actual performance.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for dynamic, real-time optimization of a computer system's performance by adapting to changing workloads to balance storage efficiency with data access speed. (’046 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 40. (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of system claim 40 include:
    • A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data.
    • A plurality of different compression routines selectively utilized by the system.
    • A controller for tracking throughput and selecting a routine based on that throughput, where throughput is tracked by monitoring a number of pending access requests to a storage device.
    • Wherein, when the controller determines throughput falls below a threshold, it commands the system to use a routine with a faster compression rate to increase throughput.
  • The complaint states Plaintiff may assert other claims of the patent. (Compl. ¶20).

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. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as the ’046 patent—performance bottlenecks in data storage and retrieval—but applies the concept specifically to the context of video and audio data, which has unique characteristics. (’535 Patent, col. 1:19 - col. 2:62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that first determines a "parameter" of a data block, such as bitrate or resolution for a video file. Based on this parameter, the system selects one or more "asymmetric compressors" from a plurality of available options to compress the data block before storing it. (’535 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-14). This allows the compression strategy to be tailored to the specific characteristics of the media content being processed.
  • Technical Importance: The solution provides a method for adaptively compressing media streams, allowing a system to select the most appropriate compression scheme based on the content itself, such as choosing a more computationally intensive but efficient algorithm for high-definition video. (’535 Patent, col. 4:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15. (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of method claim 15 include:
    • Determining a parameter of at least a portion of a data block.
    • Selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from a plurality of compressors based on the determined parameter.
    • Compressing the portion of the data block with the selected compressor(s).
    • Storing at least a portion of the resulting compressed data block(s).
  • The complaint states Plaintiff may assert other claims of the patent. (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 - "Video data compression systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, titled “Video data compression systems,” issued September 19, 2017. (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’477 patent discloses a system comprising a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders. A processor is configured to determine one or more data parameters, including one related to the throughput of a communications channel, and then select an appropriate encoder based on those parameters to compress video or image data. (’477 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶48).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 1. (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Broadcom’s Set-top Box Solutions of infringing by implementing the H.264 standard and Scalable Video Coding, which allegedly includes a processor that selects between different asymmetric compression encoders based on determined parameters like communication channel throughput. (Compl. ¶49-52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Broadcom's Set-top Box Solutions, which are system-on-a-chip (SOC) products. The complaint identifies models BCM2727, BCM11181, and BCM7412 as illustrative examples. (Compl. ¶11, ¶29, ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products incorporate and utilize the H.264 video compression standard. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This standard allegedly includes Scalable Video Coding (SVC) technology, which provides for adaptation to available channel bandwidth. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges that this is accomplished by selecting among different H.264 "profiles" and associated entropy encoders, such as Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC) and Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC), based on parameters like bitrate and resolution. (Compl. ¶17, ¶34, ¶52). A table included in the complaint identifies CABAC as a "high efficiency option" that "Adjusts probabilities based on actual data." (Compl. p. 11, ¶17). These SOCs are alleged to be key components in set-top boxes for receiving and decoding digital video. (Compl. ¶11).

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 The accused products are SOCs that utilize the H.264 compression standard to encode and decode video data. ¶14 col. 9:35-40
a plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system, wherein a first...includes a first compression algorithm and a second...includes a second compression algorithm The accused products utilize H.264, which allegedly includes different compression routines such as CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders. ¶15 col. 12:41-45
a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput, wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device The controller in the accused products allegedly decides which compression routine to use based on "current or anticipated throughput," such as available channel bandwidth, by utilizing Scalable Video Coding. ¶19 col. 12:55-61
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 low bandwidth is present, the accused products allegedly select a lower quality stream using a particular compression technique to adapt to the lower throughput. ¶19 col. 13:1-10

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 allegedly determine parameters of a video data block, such as bitrate, resolution, or Group of Pictures (GOP) structure. ¶32, ¶34 col. 4:2-3
selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute Based on the determined parameters, the system allegedly selects a corresponding H.264 profile (e.g., Baseline, Main, or High), which in turn dictates the selection of an asymmetric compressor such as the CAVLC or CABAC entropy encoder. ¶34 col. 4:4-7
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 After selection, the designated asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) compresses the video data to create compressed data blocks. ¶36 col. 4:8-12
storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks The accused products are alleged to store the compressed data blocks in buffers, hard disk, or other forms of memory or storage. ¶37 col. 4:13-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’046 patent is whether the claim term "throughput," which the claim defines in the context of "pending access requests to a storage device," can be construed to read on the complaint's allegations of monitoring "channel bandwidth" for a communication stream. This suggests a potential mismatch between the patent's focus on storage I/O bottlenecks and the accused functionality related to network adaptation.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’535 patent is whether the accused products' alleged process of selecting a pre-defined H.264 "profile," which in turn dictates a specific entropy encoder, is functionally the same as the claimed step of "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors...based upon the determined parameter." Further, the factual basis for classifying CAVLC and CABAC as "asymmetric compressors" under the patent's definition will likely be a point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’046 Patent:
    • The Term: "tracking throughput"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegation against the ’046 patent. The claim specifies that this is done by "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The complaint's theory appears to equate this with monitoring network bandwidth. Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement case depends on whether the patent's specific definition of throughput can be broadened to cover the alleged functionality.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract refers to monitoring the "throughput (bandwidth) of a system" generally, which could be argued to encompass more than just disk I/O. (’046 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a specific definition tied to "pending access requests to a storage device." The detailed description consistently frames the problem in terms of "data storage and retrieval bandwidth limitations" and bottlenecks at the "storage medium." (’046 Patent, col. 2:55-57; Fig. 1).
  • For the ’535 Patent:
    • The Term: "asymmetric compressors"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory relies on the H.264 standard's CAVLC and CABAC encoders meeting this definition. The defendant will likely contest this classification. The construction of this term is therefore critical to determining whether the accused products practice a key step of the asserted method claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating a "symmetrical" algorithm is one where compression and decompression times are "substantially similar," implying an asymmetric one is any algorithm where they are not. (’535 Patent, col. 9:8-11).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, naming dictionary-based Lempel-Ziv as asymmetric and table-based Huffman as symmetric. (’535 Patent, col. 9:5-10). This may support an argument that the term is limited to specific classes of algorithms rather than being a purely functional definition based on execution time.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Broadcom induces infringement by providing customers with products and supporting materials, such as user guides and technical support, that instruct them to use the accused products in an infringing manner (i.e., by utilizing the H.264 standard). (Compl. ¶24, ¶42, ¶60). It further alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products' implementation of Scalable Video Coding is especially adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. (Compl. ¶25, ¶43, ¶61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents gained "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter." (Compl. ¶23, ¶41, ¶59). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  • A dispositive threshold issue will be the impact of post-filing administrative proceedings: given that Inter Partes Reviews have resulted in the cancellation or disclaimer of all asserted claims of the ’535 and ’477 patents, and the asserted claim of the ’046 patent was not among those confirmed as patentable, the court will first need to determine what, if any, aspects of the plaintiff's original case remain viable.
  • For any surviving claims from the ’046 patent, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "throughput," which the patent explicitly defines in the context of "pending access requests to a storage device," be construed to cover the complaint's allegations of monitoring network "channel bandwidth"?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused products' alleged implementation of the H.264 standard—which involves selecting a pre-defined "profile" that in turn dictates which standardized entropy encoder to use—constitute the patented method of dynamically "selecting one or more...compressors" from a plurality of options based on a determined data parameter?