DCT
1:12-cv-00715
Suomen Colorize Oy v. Verizon Services Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Suomen Colorize Oy (Finland)
- Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Online LLC, and Verizon Delaware LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:12-cv-00715, D. Del., 06/05/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant entities are incorporated there and conduct business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FiOS TV service and its corresponding Electronic Program Guide infringe a patent related to methods for providing service selection data to a user in a telecommunications network.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture for delivering electronic program guides in complex media networks, specifically how guide data can be separated from the primary content stream to improve efficiency and user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-07-17 | ’398 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-10-02 | ’398 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-01-01 | Date of IEEE article on FiOS cited in the complaint |
| 2012-06-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,277,398 - “METHOD AND TERMINAL FOR PROVIDING SERVICES IN TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK,” issued October 2, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and complexity users face when trying to browse and select services (e.g., TV programs, videos) that are delivered across different types of networks (e.g., internet, cable, broadcast) (’398 Patent, col. 1:21-32). Existing systems required users to perform sequential searches, which was cumbersome and consumed network resources (’398 Patent, col. 1:35-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where "identification and control data" is packaged within multiplexed data frames alongside the actual service content. This control data is extracted and used to form "selection data" (e.g., a service directory or program guide). This lightweight selection data is then transmitted to the user's terminal separately from the much larger service content files. A user browses this directory, makes a selection, and only then is the actual service delivered, based on the information in the control data (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-18). This architecture is intended to create a unified, easy-to-use menu for the user regardless of the service's origin (’398 Patent, col. 2:4-8).
- Technical Importance: This approach is described as advantageous because it allows a customer to choose from services across different networks using a single terminal, without needing to understand the underlying delivery protocols, and reduces unnecessary network load caused by browsing full-service streams (’398 Patent, col. 3:20-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Multiplexing service data into a frame format for transmission, where "identification and control data" for the service is located in a part of the multiplexed frames.
- Forming "selection data" for service selection based on that "identification and control data."
- Transmitting the "selection data separately, without the actual service data of the service multiplex," to a customer terminal for display.
- In response to a user's selection from the display, identifying the selected service using the associated "identification and control data" and providing the customer with the identified service from the service multiplex.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "FiOS system and services," specifically the television component called "FiOS TV" and its Electronic Program Guide ("EPG") (Compl. ¶¶6, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that FiOS is a communications service providing video, voice, and data over a Fiber to the Premises ("FTTP") network (Compl. ¶¶6, 15). The complaint includes a diagram from a Verizon presentation to illustrate the FiOS network architecture. This diagram shows that broadcast video and data are transmitted to the customer on separate wavelengths of light: 1550nm for video and 1490nm for data, voice, and VOD (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that the FiOS EPG is "at least associated with the FTTP downstream data signal carried on the 1490nm wavelength" (Compl. ¶17). The "Fiber to the Premises" diagram from a 2009 presentation is provided as visual evidence of this architecture (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’398 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| multiplexing a plurality of service data in a frame format to form a service multiplex for service transmission, whereby identification and control data of the service data are located in at least one part of the multiplexed frames... | The FiOS system allegedly transmits services to subscribers using "multiplexed frames" that contain "identification and control data." | ¶18 | col. 5:42-50 |
| forming selection data for the selection of the service data on the basis of the identification and control data located in the service multiplex; | The FiOS system's EPG is alleged to be "selection data" that is "formed by using identification and control data of the services." | ¶18 | col. 2:9-12 |
| transmitting the selection data separately, without the actual service data of the service multiplex, to the customer terminal for displaying the selection data; | The FiOS EPG (selection data) is allegedly transmitted on the 1490nm data wavelength, separate from the broadcast video (actual service data) transmitted on the 1550nm wavelength. | ¶¶16, 17 | col. 5:61-64 |
| in response to the user selecting a service displayed on a display unit, identifying the selected service... and providing the customer with the identified service from the service multiplex. | The FiOS TV EPG is an interactive guide that allows users to select services for viewing, which necessarily involves the system identifying and providing the selected service. | ¶15 | col. 2:55-63 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the meaning of transmitting selection data "separately, without the actual service data." The complaint's theory appears to be that using a separate wavelength for the EPG (1490nm) versus the broadcast video (1550nm) satisfies this element. A counterargument may be that because the broadcast video content is still being transmitted to the customer's terminal simultaneously with the EPG data, the transmission is not "without the actual service data" as the claim may require.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that the FiOS EPG is "formed by using identification and control data... located in multiplexed frames" (Compl. ¶18). It provides no specific factual allegations or evidence describing how the EPG data is generated. A central question for discovery will be to determine the actual process by which Verizon creates and populates its EPG data and whether that process maps onto the specific method described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selection data"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether any EPG data qualifies, or if it must be a specific type of data file created in the manner recited by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on the FiOS EPG meeting its definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the "selection data" in functional terms, such as a "program menu" or a "service directory," which could suggest any data structure that serves this purpose falls within the claim scope (’398 Patent, col. 3:11-15; col. 4:10-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself requires the "selection data" to be "formed on the basis of the identification and control data located in the service multiplex." The specification consistently links the creation of the selection data to this specific source, suggesting it is not just any guide data, but guide data derived in a particular way (’398 Patent, col. 2:9-12).
The Term: "separately, without the actual service data"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is critical to the plaintiff's infringement theory, which relies on the separate wavelengths used in the FiOS architecture. The case may turn on whether "separately, without" can be satisfied when the service data is being transmitted simultaneously on a different physical channel.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An interpretation favoring the plaintiff might argue "separately" means via a distinct physical or logical channel (like a different wavelength), and "without" means the selection data is not part of the same data packet or stream as the service data, allowing for simultaneous transmission on different channels.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests an advantage of the invention is that "different services need not be delivered via a network... until the selection has been made, whereby the unnecessary load caused by the searches and service transmissions in the networks decreases" (’398 Patent, col. 3:26-31). This could support a narrower construction requiring that the bulk service data is not transmitted to the user terminal at all until after a selection is made from the separately-delivered selection data.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (either induced or contributory). The single count is for direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "transmitting the selection data separately, without the actual service data" be construed to read on an architecture where the EPG and broadcast video are transmitted simultaneously to a user's premises, but on different optical wavelengths? The interpretation of this limitation will likely be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: the complaint provides no non-conclusory facts explaining how the FiOS EPG is generated. The case will depend on whether discovery shows that Verizon's system in fact "form[s] selection data... on the basis of the identification and control data located in the service multiplex," or if the EPG is created and delivered through an alternative, non-infringing method.