DCT

1:19-cv-00056

Data Scape Ltd v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00056, D. Colo., 01/09/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado based on Defendant's regular and established places of business in the state, including distribution facilities, data centers, and numerous employees.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud storage and digital media services, including Amazon Drive, Amazon Photos, and Amazon Music, infringe a portfolio of patents related to systems for synchronizing and managing data between different devices.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of data synchronization, a foundational technology for cloud-based services that enables users to maintain consistent data across multiple endpoints, such as a personal computer and a server.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant pre-suit procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’537, ’581, ’614, ’112 Patents
2002-06-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’929, ’469 Patents
2007-07-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,239,469
2009-11-10 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537
2010-05-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929
2013-02-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581
2016-06-28 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,380,112
2017-07-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,712,614
2019-01-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," Issued May 18, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of efficiently synchronizing data between two devices, such as a personal computer and a portable player, by avoiding the redundant transfer of data that already exists on both devices (US 7,617,537 Patent, col. 1:44-67, incorporated by the ’929 patent family).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user can select data for transfer on one device (the "second apparatus") and edit management information for that data, even when it is not connected to the other device (the "first apparatus"). When a connection is established, a controller compares the management information on both devices and transfers only the necessary data, preventing duplication and saving time (Compl. ¶11; ’929 Patent, col. 15:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: This approach of offline selection and intelligent, connection-based synchronization is a core principle for modern cloud storage and backup services that must efficiently manage data across intermittently connected devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1, a system claim, include:
    • A first apparatus with a first storage medium.
    • A second apparatus comprising:
      • a second storage medium for management information.
      • a communicator to communicate with the first apparatus.
      • a detector to detect if the apparatuses are connected.
      • an editor to select data for transfer and edit management information regardless of connection status.
      • a controller that, upon connection, compares the edited management information with the management information on the first apparatus and transmits data based on the comparison.

U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," Issued November 10, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of managing and transferring content between two devices where it is inefficient to re-transfer or manage data that is already present on both devices (US 7,617,537 Patent, col. 1:44-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where, upon connection, the system first compares identifiers of the two devices to confirm they correspond. It then compares lists of content data on each device and proceeds to transfer only the data that is registered on the second device's list but not the first, and to delete data from the first device that is on its list but not on the second device's list (’537 Patent, col. 29:1-31).
  • Technical Importance: This method describes a bidirectional synchronization logic—adding new files and deleting removed files—which is a key feature for services that aim to mirror a specific folder or dataset between a local device and a remote server.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1, a method claim, include:
    • Judging whether a first and second apparatus are connected.
    • Comparing an identifier of the first apparatus with an identifier stored in the second.
    • When identifiers correspond, comparing a first list of content data (from the first apparatus) and a second list of content data (from the second apparatus).
    • Transferring data from the second to the first apparatus that is on the second list but not the first.
    • Deleting data from the first apparatus that is on the first list but not the second.

U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued February 26, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication apparatus that maintains multiple lists of content, where each list is uniquely associated with a specific external apparatus. When an external apparatus connects, the communication apparatus extracts the correct list associated with that device and uses it to control the transfer of content (Compl. ¶44). This allows a central device (like a server) to manage tailored synchronization plans for multiple different client devices.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Amazon's services, which manage data synchronization for numerous distinct user devices, infringe by associating unique user/device identifiers with specific lists of content to be synchronized (Compl. ¶52-53).

U.S. Patent No. 9,712,614 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued July 18, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on synchronizing musical content and program lists (playlists) between a primary apparatus and an external reproduction apparatus. The system uses a predetermined identifier to recognize the authorized external device. It then compares program lists and transfers only the musical content that is new to the external device, omitting tracks that are already common to both lists to prevent redundant transfers (Compl. ¶61).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's music services (e.g., Amazon Music Unlimited) of infringing by using device authorization to manage offline playback lists, comparing lists between the server and client device, and transferring only the necessary music files for offline listening (Compl. ¶69-70).

U.S. Patent No. 9,380,112 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued June 28, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus that allows a user to edit a first list of musical content without regard to whether it is connected to a portable apparatus. When a connection is detected, the apparatus compares the edited list with a list on the portable device and transfers selected content based on the comparison. The system also controls playback based on the edited list, which is uniquely identified with the portable apparatus (Compl. ¶77).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Amazon's music services infringe by allowing users to edit playlists on a server, which are then synchronized to an authorized portable device upon connection for controlled playback (Compl. ¶84-85).

U.S. Patent No. 7,239,469 - "Recording Apparatus, Server Apparatus, Recording Method, Program, and Storage Medium," issued July 3, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data recording apparatus that receives data and "first management data" from an external server. It then produces "second management data" based on the first. The system is designed to read data from a "third recording medium" (e.g., another device) and record that data only if its corresponding management data is not already found within the "second management data," thereby avoiding data duplication (Compl. ¶92).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Amazon's services, where a client device receives data and management data from a server, infringe by creating local management data and using it to control data recording from other sources to avoid duplication (Compl. ¶97-98).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities include Amazon's cloud storage and digital media products and services, such as Amazon Drive, Amazon Photos, Amazon Prime Music, and Amazon Music Unlimited, as well as the devices on which they operate, including Fire, Echo, and Kindle devices, and Amazon's servers (Compl. ¶10, ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these services provide users with the ability to store, back up, and synchronize files such as documents, photos, and music across multiple devices (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). For example, the Amazon Photos for Desktop application is alleged to allow users to select specific folders for synchronization between a computer and the Amazon Photos online account (Compl. ¶17, p. 8). The complaint provides a screenshot from an Amazon Drive client showing status indicators for "No internet connection" and "Sync complete," which relates to the system's ability to detect connection status and control data transfer accordingly (Compl. ¶19, p. 10). The complaint also alleges these services tout benefits such as avoiding duplicates and providing offline playback availability for music, which are central to the patented technologies (Compl. ¶14, p. 6; Compl. ¶64, p. 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’929 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first apparatus having a first storage medium... Amazon servers that include storage for user data. ¶17 col. 15:2-3
and a second apparatus, said second apparatus comprising: a second storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred... An Amazon Drive client on a user device (e.g., desktop, tablet) which stores management information, such as SQLite database files that track file status. ¶17 col. 15:7-10
a communicator configured to communicate data with said first apparatus... The Amazon Drive client and server each include components that communicate with each other over a network. ¶18 col. 15:11-12
a detector configured to detect whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected... The Amazon Drive client includes a detector that determines if there is an active internet connection to the Amazon server. The complaint shows a screenshot of the client indicating "No internet connection." ¶19, p. 10 col. 15:13-15
an editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit said management information based on said selection without regard to the connection of said first apparatus... The Amazon Drive client allows a user to select folders for synchronization, thereby editing the management information, regardless of whether an internet connection is active. The complaint provides a screenshot of the "Selective Sync" feature. ¶20, p. 11 col. 15:16-20
and a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data...when said detector detects that said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected... The Amazon Drive client includes a controller that initiates data transfer based on the user's selections only when the detector determines the client and server are connected. ¶21 col. 15:21-24
wherein said controller is configured to compare said management information edited by said editor with management information of data stored in said first storage medium and to transmit data...based on the results of the comparison. The controller compares the local management information (e.g., SQLite databases) with management information on the server to determine which files need to be uploaded or downloaded, transmitting only the differential data. ¶22 col. 15:31-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claim term "apparatus," which the patent often describes as a single physical device like a portable player, can be construed to cover a distributed client-server system as alleged by the complaint. The defense may argue that an "Amazon Drive client" is not a complete "apparatus" as claimed, but merely one component of a larger system.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the "management information" used by Amazon's services, such as the SQLite database files shown in the complaint (Compl. ¶17, p. 9), performs the specific comparison and control functions recited in the claim, or if it operates in a fundamentally different manner.

’537 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
judging whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected; The Amazon Drive client and server each include a detector that determines if they are connected via the internet. ¶35 col. 29:3-4
comparing, upon judging that said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected, an identifier of said first apparatus with an identifier stored in said second apparatus; Once connected, the system compares identifiers associated with the client device and the server account to authorize the connection. ¶36 col. 29:5-8
comparing, when said identifier of said first apparatus corresponds to said identifier stored in said second apparatus, a first list of content data of said first apparatus and a second list of content data of said second apparatus; The system compares lists of content, derived from management data such as SQLite databases, on both the client and the server to identify differences. ¶36 col. 29:9-13
transferring, from the second apparatus to the first apparatus, first content data, which is registered in said second list and is not registered in said first list; A controller transfers content from the server (second apparatus) to the client (first apparatus) when it is present in the server's list but not the client's. ¶37 col. 29:14-18
and deleting, from the first apparatus, second content data, which is registered in said first list and is not registered in said second list. A controller deletes content from the client (first apparatus) when it is present in the client's list but no longer present in the server's list. ¶37 col. 29:19-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is the interpretation of "list of content data." The defense may argue that this term, as used in the patent, implies a specific data structure or format that differs from the management databases allegedly used by Amazon.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the accused products perform both the additive step (transferring new files) and the subtractive step (deleting removed files) as required by the claim's plain language. The complaint's evidence primarily focuses on adding and synchronizing files, and the specific functionality for deleting files based on list comparison is less detailed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’929 Patent

  • The Term: "apparatus"
  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim scope. The infringement theory depends on construing "first apparatus" as an Amazon server and "second apparatus" as a user's client device (e.g., a PC). Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether the claim reads on a distributed client-server architecture or is limited to two discrete, standalone physical devices as depicted in some patent embodiments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit "apparatus" to a single physical housing and use functional language (e.g., "a first apparatus having a first storage medium"), which may support a construction covering logically distinct but communicating systems.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to embodiments like a "portable recording and playback apparatus" and a "music server," often described as distinct hardware units (’537 Patent, Fig. 1). This context may support a narrower construction limited to physical devices.

For the ’537 Patent

  • The Term: "list of content data"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires comparing a "first list" and a "second list." The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the management databases and file manifests used by Amazon's services (Compl. ¶36, p. 20) qualify as the claimed "lists."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to define "list" with structural limitations, suggesting it could be interpreted functionally to mean any collection of data that identifies content for synchronization, potentially including a database table or a file manifest.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes creating and editing "program lists" associated with musical data, which may imply a user-facing playlist rather than a system-level file manifest (’537 Patent, col. 15:15-25). The defense may argue that the accused system's internal databases do not constitute the "lists" contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Amazon for all asserted patents. The basis for inducement includes allegations that Amazon provides user manuals, marketing materials, product support, and software that instruct and encourage users to utilize the accused services in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (e.g., Compl. ¶14, ¶32, ¶47). For example, marketing materials that tout the ability to "Avoid duplicates" and "Back up and restore your files" are cited as evidence of intent to induce infringing use (Compl. p. 6).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" but alleges that Amazon had knowledge of the patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action" and continued its actions with knowledge or "willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶14, ¶32). This forms a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "apparatus," described in patent embodiments as a discrete physical device, be construed broadly enough to encompass the separate client software and server hardware components of Amazon's distributed cloud services? The resolution of this question may determine whether the system claims apply to the accused architecture.
  • A key technical and evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the internal file manifests and databases used by Amazon's services perform the specific, multi-step comparison and control logic recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?
  • A central dispute across the patent portfolio will likely involve uniqueness and association: for patents like the ’581 Patent, the case may turn on whether Amazon's system "uniquely associates" a list with an "external apparatus using a unique identification" in the specific manner claimed, or if it uses a more generic account-based system that falls outside the patent's scope.