DCT
1:18-cv-01175
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Intel Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Intel Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01175, D. Colo., 05/15/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Intel maintaining regular and established places of business within the District of Colorado.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s processors featuring QuickSync Video technology infringe three U.S. patents related to adaptive data compression.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamically selecting different data compression algorithms based on system performance metrics, such as bandwidth, to optimize for either speed or compression efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-02-13 | 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 |
| 2018-05-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 - Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the performance bottleneck created by mass storage devices, such as magnetic disks, which have significantly slower data storage and retrieval bandwidth compared to modern processors (’046 Patent, col. 2:46-54). This creates a challenge in selecting a compression algorithm, as a trade-off exists between algorithms that offer high compression ratios but are slow, and those that are fast but less efficient (’046 Patent, col. 2:39-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a controller that monitors system throughput. If the controller detects that throughput falls below a predetermined threshold, indicating a bottleneck, it commands the data compression system to switch to a compression routine with a faster rate of compression to alleviate the bottleneck and increase overall throughput (’046 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:42-53). This allows the system to dynamically prioritize speed over compression efficiency when necessary.
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a computing system to optimize its data compression strategy in real-time based on actual performance conditions, rather than using a static, one-size-fits-all compression method (’046 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 40 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of claim 40 are:
- A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data.
- A plurality of compression routines, each including a different compression algorithm.
- 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 tracked throughput.
- When the controller determines throughput falls below a threshold, it commands the system to use a routine providing a faster rate of compression to increase throughput.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’046 Patent (Compl. ¶20).
U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 - Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’046 Patent, this patent addresses the performance limitations imposed by storage device bandwidth, particularly in the context of video and audio data (’535 Patent, col. 2:56-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a parameter of a data block (e.g., bitrate, resolution) is first determined. Based on this parameter, one or more asymmetric compressors are selected from a plurality of available compressors. The selected compressor is then used to compress the data block, which is subsequently stored (’535 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes using different access profiles to select the optimal compressor type based on data characteristics (’535 Patent, col. 14:24-44).
- Technical Importance: This method enables a system to apply specialized, asymmetric compression routines tailored to the specific characteristics of the data being processed, which may offer better overall performance than a single, static compression approach (’535 Patent, col. 14:35-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶30).
- The essential elements of claim 15 are:
- A method comprising: 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 asymmetric compressor(s) to create compressed data blocks.
- Storing at least a portion of the compressed data blocks.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 - Video data compression systems
- Technology Synopsis: The ’477 Patent describes a system with multiple different asymmetric data compression encoders. A processor determines data parameters, including the throughput of a communications channel, and selects an appropriate encoder based on those parameters. The system is configured such that one encoder can compress data at a higher rate than another, enabling adaptation to channel conditions (Compl. ¶48).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Intel processors with QuickSync Video of infringement, alleging they utilize the H.264 standard and its Scalable Video Coding (SVC) features to select different compression techniques based on available bandwidth (Compl. ¶47, ¶49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Intel processors that implement Intel’s QuickSync Video technology, providing a non-limiting list that includes the Intel Core i9-8950HK, i7-8850H, i7-8750H, i5-8500B, and i3-8300T processors (Compl. ¶11, ¶29, ¶47).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that QuickSync Video is a “dedicated media processing hardware core” that utilizes the H.264 video compression standard (Compl. ¶11). The functionality is alleged to include Scalable Video Coding (SVC), which enables adaptation to channel bandwidth by encoding a video bitstream that contains multiple subset bitstreams representing, for example, lower resolutions or frame rates (Compl. ¶19; Compl. p. 6). The accused products allegedly implement this by selecting between different H.264 "profiles" (e.g., "baseline," "main," "high") and their associated entropy encoders, such as Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (“CAVLC”) and Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”), based on parameters like bitrate or resolution (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The complaint includes a table comparing features of different H.264 profiles, such as the availability of CAVLC and CABAC entropy coding (Compl. p. 10).
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 utilize the H.264 compression standard to encode, decode, and transcode video data. | ¶14 | col. 13:35-40 |
| 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 allegedly utilize different compression routines available within the H.264 standard, such as the CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders, which are alleged to be distinct algorithms. | ¶15, ¶17 | col. 12:5-8 |
| 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 | A controller in the accused products allegedly decides which compression technique (e.g., CABAC or CAVLC) to use based on "current or anticipated throughput" by utilizing H.264’s Scalable Video Coding feature to adapt to channel bandwidth. | ¶19 | col. 8:12-15 |
| and 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 a low bandwidth is present, the accused products allegedly select a lower quality stream using a specific compression technique; when high bandwidth is present, they select a higher quality stream using a different technique. | ¶19 | col. 8:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for claim construction may be the definition of "throughput". Claim 40 explicitly requires "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device," while the complaint’s allegations focus on tracking "channel bandwidth" or "bitrate" (Compl. ¶19). The court may need to determine if the latter satisfies the specific definition provided in the claim.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that selecting a "lower quality stream" corresponds to using a routine with a "faster rate of compression" (Compl. ¶19). The factual analysis may turn on whether the accused H.264 profile selections (e.g., switching between profiles that use CABAC and CAVLC) result in a demonstrable change in the speed of the compression operation itself, as required by the claim, rather than just a change in the output bitrate or quality.
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 for video data blocks, such as bitrate, resolution, or Group of Pictures (GOP) structure, as defined by the H.264 standard's "profiles" and "levels." | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 2:1-2 |
| selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute | Based on the determined parameter, the system allegedly selects an H.264 profile (e.g., "baseline," "main") and its corresponding entropy encoder (CAVLC or CABAC), which are alleged to be asymmetric compressors. | ¶34 | col. 2:3-5 |
| 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 encoder (CAVLC or CABAC) compresses the video data to generate compressed data blocks, which can be organized in a GOP structure. A table in the complaint summarizes alleged differences between VLC and CABAC. | ¶36; Compl. p. 24 | col. 2:5-8 |
| storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks | The accused products are alleged to store the resulting compressed data blocks in memory, such as buffers or a hard disk. | ¶37 | col. 2:8-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A threshold issue for the court may be the enforceability of asserted claim 15. An Inter Partes Review Certificate included with the patent file indicates that claims 15-30 of the ’535 Patent have been disclaimed.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the H.264 standard's CAVLC and CABAC encoders are "asymmetric compressors" (Compl. ¶34). The case may require a technical analysis of how these encoders operate in the accused products to determine if they meet the patent's definition of "asymmetric," which may become a key point of claim construction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "throughput" (’046 Patent, Claim 40)
Context and Importance: This term is the direct input to the claimed controller’s decision-making process. The infringement case for the ’046 patent hinges on whether the accused system’s monitoring of "channel bandwidth" or "bitrate" (Compl. ¶19) falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract refers to compressing data based on "an actual or expected throughput (bandwidth)," which may suggest the terms are used interchangeably (’046 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 40 contains its own lexicography, stating "wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." This explicit definition within the claim language, supported by specification passages discussing storage and retrieval (’046 Patent, col. 8:12-15), provides strong intrinsic evidence for a narrower construction limited to storage device activity.
The Term: "asymmetric compressors" (’535 Patent, Claim 15)
Context and Importance: This is a fundamental characteristic of the compressors selected in the claimed method. The complaint alleges that the H.264 standard's CAVLC and CABAC encoders are asymmetric (Compl. ¶34). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation depends on these specific encoders meeting the patent's definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an asymmetrical algorithm as one in which "the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly" (’535 Patent, col. 10:63-66). This could be interpreted to cover any non-trivial performance difference between encoding and decoding.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives dictionary-based schemes like Lempel-Ziv as an example of an asymmetric algorithm and table-based schemes like Huffman as an example of a symmetric one (’535 Patent, col. 11:4-11). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed in light of these examples and that the operational differences between CAVLC and CABAC are not "significant" in that context.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Intel provides documentation, training, and technical support that instruct and encourage users to operate the accused processors in a manner that infringes the patents, particularly by promoting the use of the H.264 standard and its adaptive features (Compl. ¶24, ¶42, ¶60). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are especially adapted for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25, ¶43, ¶61).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Intel's alleged knowledge of the patents and infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶23, ¶41, ¶59). This suggests the claim is primarily for post-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "throughput", which Claim 40 of the ’046 patent explicitly defines in the context of "pending access requests to a storage device," be construed to cover the alleged monitoring of "channel bandwidth" in a video streaming context?
- A threshold legal question will be one of claim viability: what is the legal effect of post-issuance proceedings on the asserted claims? The provided patent documents indicate that claim 15 of the ’535 patent has been disclaimed and claim 1 of the ’477 patent has been cancelled, raising a fundamental question about whether these claims can be asserted in this litigation.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional characterization: does the selection between the H.264 standard’s CAVLC and CABAC encoders constitute a choice between "asymmetric compressors" with significantly different execution times (’535 patent) or a choice of a routine with a "faster rate of compression" (’046 patent) as those terms are defined and used within the patents?