DCT
1:18-cv-01446
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; and Comcast Corporation (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eric B. Fenster, LLC; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01446, D. Colo., 09/21/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are registered to do business in Colorado, have regular and established places of business in the district, and have committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Xfinity video streaming services and related infrastructure infringe patents directed to adaptive data compression technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves dynamically selecting different data compression algorithms to balance compression efficiency and system throughput, a key challenge in video streaming and data storage.
- Key Procedural History: Post-filing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have significantly impacted the patents-in-suit. The asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (Claim 15) was disclaimed. All claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, including the asserted Claim 1, were cancelled. The asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 (Claim 40) was not among the claims found patentable in its IPR, suggesting it may have been found unpatentable. These subsequent events raise fundamental questions about the viability of the infringement allegations.
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 |
| 2018-09-21 | 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, "Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression," issued June 10, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the performance bottleneck created by the disparity between fast computer processors and slower mass storage devices, where data storage and retrieval bandwidth limits overall system performance (ʼ046 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a controller that monitors the "throughput" of a data compression system, for instance by tracking the number of pending data access requests to a storage device. If the throughput falls below a set threshold, indicating a bottleneck, the controller selects a compression routine with a faster execution speed to increase throughput, even if it results in a lower compression ratio (ʼ046 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 13:40-51).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for dynamically optimizing the trade-off between compression speed and compression efficiency to alleviate I/O bottlenecks in real-time (ʼ046 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 40 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of Claim 40 are:
- A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data.
- A plurality of compression routines with at least two different compression algorithms.
- A controller for tracking throughput and selecting a compression routine based on that throughput.
- The tracking of throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device.
- When throughput falls below a predetermined threshold, the controller 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. ¶32).
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, "Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution," issued January 13, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares its specification with the ’046 Patent, addresses the challenge of selecting an optimal compression algorithm from many available options, balancing the trade-offs between compression speed and the resulting compression ratio for different types of data (ʼ535 Patent, col. 2:36-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a system first determines a "parameter" of a data block (e.g., file type, desired bitrate). Based on this parameter, it selects an appropriate "asymmetric compressor" from a plurality of available compressors. The data block is then compressed with the selected compressor and stored (ʼ535 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:55-67).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for content-aware compression, where the compression strategy is tailored to the data's characteristics to achieve an optimal balance of speed and efficiency for that specific content type (ʼ535 Patent, col. 2:41-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 15 (Compl. ¶43).
- 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 a plurality of compressors based on the determined parameter or attribute.
- Compressing the data block portion 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 (Compl. ¶62).
U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 - "Video data compression systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477, "Video data compression systems," issued September 19, 2017.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’477 Patent, which also shares its specification with the lead patents, claims a system with multiple different asymmetric data compression encoders. A processor is configured to determine data parameters, such as the throughput of a communications channel, and select one or more of the encoders based on those parameters. The patent specifies that a first encoder is configured to compress data at a higher rate than a second encoder (’477 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Comcast's video delivery infrastructure, which uses H.264 video compression to select different compression profiles based on parameters like available network bandwidth, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 83).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Comcast's Xfinity services, including the X1 cable box platform, Xfinity Stream service, Xfinity On Demand, and Xfinity On Campus, as well as the supporting infrastructure such as the Comcast Content Delivery Network (CDN) (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these services utilize the H.264 video compression standard and its Scalable Video Coding (SVC) extension for adaptive bitrate streaming (Compl. ¶¶14, 17). This technology allegedly allows the system to monitor a viewer's available bandwidth and automatically adjust the video stream by selecting from different compression techniques (e.g., Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding or "CABAC" for higher quality, Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding or "CAVLC" for lower quality) to match network conditions (Compl. ¶¶21, 24, 28). A screenshot in the complaint depicts the Xfinity Stream service automatically selecting video playback quality based on network conditions (Compl. p. 19). Another visual cites an Xfinity support page stating its video player "uses adaptive bit rate streams to deliver the highest quality video given the bandwidth available" (Compl. p. 20; ¶31). These services constitute a core part of Comcast's consumer video offerings.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,386,046 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 40) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system, comprising: a data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input | The Accused Instrumentalities use the H.264 standard to perform video compression and decompression. | ¶16 | col. 13:39-41 |
| 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 H.264 standard used by the accused system includes multiple compression routines and algorithms, such as the distinct entropy encoders CAVLC and CABAC. | ¶19, 21 | col. 13:52-54 |
| a controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a compression routine based on the throughput | A controller in the accused system allegedly decides which compression technique (e.g., CABAC or CAVLC) to use based on available network bandwidth (throughput). | ¶24 | col. 23:25-29 |
| wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device | The complaint alleges the system monitors "current or anticipated throughput" and "available bandwidth," but does not explicitly allege tracking of pending access requests to a storage device. | ¶24, 28 | 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 | When low bandwidth is detected, the accused system selects a lower quality stream (e.g., using CAVLC), which the complaint equates to a faster compression routine that increases throughput. | ¶24 | col. 24:4-9 |
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 accused system determines parameters such as bitrate, resolution, or Group of Pictures (GOP) structure for a video data block. | ¶48, 50 | col. 14:55-57 |
| selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute | Based on the determined parameter (which corresponds to an H.264 profile), the system selects between at least two asymmetric compressors, alleged to be CAVLC and CABAC. | ¶50 | col. 14:58-61 |
| 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 compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) compresses the video data to create compressed data blocks. | ¶52 | col. 14:62-64 |
| storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks | The compressed video data blocks are stored in buffers, hard disks, or on Comcast's Content Delivery Network for on-demand streaming. | ¶54, 60 | col. 14:65-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’046 Patent is whether the accused act of selecting a pre-compressed, lower-bitrate video stream to adapt to network bandwidth falls within the claim language of commanding an engine to use a "faster rate of compression" to increase system throughput, where the patent specification focuses on alleviating local storage I/O bottlenecks.
- Technical Questions: For the ’046 Patent, the complaint does not appear to provide evidence that the accused systems track "a number of pending access requests to a storage device" as explicitly required by Claim 40. Instead, it alleges tracking of network bandwidth, raising a question of technical mismatch. For the ’535 Patent, a key question is whether the H.264 standard's selection of entropy coders like CAVLC or CABAC based on a "profile" level constitutes "selecting one or more asymmetric compressors" based on a "determined parameter" of the data block itself.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "throughput" (’046 Patent, Claim 40)
Context and Importance: This term is central because the invention is triggered when "throughput falls below a predetermined throughput threshold." The complaint equates this with network bandwidth for video streaming (Compl. ¶24). The patent, however, repeatedly frames the problem in terms of storage and retrieval speeds (ʼ046 Patent, Abstract). The construction of this term may determine whether the patent's scope can extend from the local storage context of its embodiments to the accused network streaming environment.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title refers to "Bandwidth Sensitive" compression, and the term "throughput" is not explicitly defined. This may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass data transfer rates over a network.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 40 itself defines "tracking throughput" as "tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device." The abstract similarly describes monitoring throughput related to "data storage and retrieval of a data compression system" (’046 Patent, Abstract). This language may support a narrower construction limited to I/O operations with a local storage device.
The Term: "asymmetric compressors" (’535 Patent, Claim 15)
Context and Importance: The claim requires selecting from a plurality of "asymmetric compressors." The complaint's infringement theory rests on classifying the H.264 standard's CAVLC and CABAC entropy encoders as such compressors (Compl. ¶50). Practitioners may focus on this term because the definition will be critical to whether these specific H.264 features meet the claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition where an algorithm is asymmetric if "the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly" (’535 Patent, col. 9:63-66). This broad definition could arguably encompass any pair of encoding/decoding algorithms with demonstrably different processing times.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides "dictionary-based compression schemes such as Lempel-Ziv" as the primary example of an asymmetric algorithm (’535 Patent, col. 10:4-6). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed in light of these examples and limited to that class of algorithm, potentially excluding the entropy coders identified in the complaint.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendants providing services, technical support, and user guides that allegedly instruct customers to use the accused streaming functionalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶36, 66, 98). It further alleges that Defendants had knowledge and specific intent to induce infringement by continuing to promote and sell services utilizing the H.264 standard's adaptive streaming features after being notified of the patents via the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶37, 67, 99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations appear to be based on post-suit conduct, with the complaint alleging Defendants have had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶35, 65, 97).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of procedural viability: can the infringement counts for the ’535 and ’477 patents proceed, given that the asserted claims were subsequently disclaimed or cancelled in Inter Partes Review proceedings?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "throughput," rooted in the ’046 Patent’s disclosure of alleviating local storage I/O bottlenecks, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused systems’ adaptation to available network "bandwidth"?
- A final evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional equivalence: does the accused system's selection of different pre-encoded streams based on H.264 profiles constitute the claimed acts of selecting between different compression "routines" or "asymmetric compressors" in real-time to manage system performance as described in the patents?