DCT

1:17-cv-00719

Post Media Systems LLC v. Deezer SA

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00719, D. Del., 06/12/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Deezer Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s music streaming services infringe five patents related to systems and methods for creating, managing, sharing, and playing back dynamic media lists over a computer network.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of digital media distribution, specifically the creation and dynamic updating of playlists in a client-server environment, which is a foundational feature of modern audio and video streaming platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the sole inventor, Alan Bartholomew, assigned the patents-in-suit to Plaintiff Post Media Systems LLC for the purpose of obtaining compensation for the inventions. No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings concerning the patents are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-10 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-06-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 Issues
2008-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 Issues
2011-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,015,263 Issues
2014-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 Issues
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 Issues
2017-06-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the process of creating, preparing, and disseminating media files over the Internet as a "tedious and inefficient process" for the typical user, requiring specialized knowledge and the use of multiple, distinct computer programs for tasks like recording, signal processing, encoding, and uploading (Compl. Ex. 1, ’310 Patent, col. 1:21-31). It also identifies a lack of a mechanism for placing media files into a "dynamic environment," such as a list that changes according to user-defined criteria or behaviors (’310 Patent, col. 2:9-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on a client-side plug-in that integrates the steps of media creation, processing, and encoding, allowing a user to upload a finished media file to a server with minimal clicks (’310 Patent, col. 3:1-25). On the server, these media files are organized into dynamic, ordered lists using a logical entity called a "mediagram." These lists can be shared with other users and are designed to "altered dynamically" based on user input, with changes to the underlying media attributes being propagated automatically by the server (’310 Patent, col. 26:55-63, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify the workflow for what is now commonly known as podcasting and playlist sharing, consolidating a multi-step, expert-level process into an integrated tool accessible to a general user (’310 Patent, col. 2:46-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first computer system configured to create a "mediagram" specified by a user, where the mediagram includes references to audio data and an "atomic unit" with media attributes.
    • The first computer system is configured to publish the mediagram to a server.
    • The server is configured to receive and store the mediagram, which is then referenced in an "ordered list" on the server.
    • The server causes the ordered list to be displayed on a peer computer, allowing another user to select an item for playback.
    • The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically" as a result of user input.
    • Media attributes in the mediagram are changed on the server, and the server is configured to "propagate changes to the mediagram automatically."
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-28 (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 - "System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’310 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem: the cumbersome and complex process required for individuals to create and share media content online (’175 Patent, col. 2:1-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’175 Patent describes a similar client-server system for sharing media but places greater emphasis on the retrieval of media and the structure of the media list. The claims introduce the concept of ordering the list based on a "popularity ranking" (’175 Patent, col. 23:14-15, Claim 1). The invention also focuses on the "atomic unit" as a "logical entity that is not further divisible," reinforcing the concept of a self-contained media object with associated attributes (’175 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention adds the concept of algorithmically ranking content based on popularity metrics, a foundational principle for content discovery and recommendation in large-scale digital media services (’175 Patent, col. 19:30-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 92, 94, 98).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first computer system configured to create a mediagram comprising an "atomic unit" which is a "logical entity that is not further divisible."
    • A server configured to receive and store the mediagram.
    • The mediagram is referenced in an ordered list on the server, where its position is based upon a "popularity ranking."
    • The server presents the ordered list to a client computer to enable a user to select an item for retrieval.
    • The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically as a result of input."
    • The client computer is configured to retrieve the mediagram and its referenced audio data for playback.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶96).

U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for distributing and synchronizing media lists between a first computer (e.g., a server) and a second computer (e.g., a client). The invention focuses on the management of "dynamic lists," which can be arranged in a navigable hierarchy, and a mechanism for the second computer to receive notifications of changes to media data and automatically download the updated content (Compl. Ex. 3, ’832 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Deezer's services of infringement based on their ability to create, share, and synchronize dynamic playlists across different user devices, where changes are propagated to users who have access to the lists (Compl. ¶114-116).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system where a first computer manages dynamic, hierarchical media lists and enables access by a second computer. One asserted claim focuses on the first computer receiving a notification of modified media content and automatically downloading the updated version (Compl. Ex. 4, ’181 Patent, Claim 19). Another asserted claim describes a system where a computer receives an ordered list from an external device, and the order of items in that list is automatically modified when the content of a different ordered list changes (’181 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶149).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target Deezer's platform functionality for creating and synchronizing playlists across devices, where user actions like rating content and changes to one playlist can influence the content or ordering of other lists (Compl. ¶149, 171).

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,263 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a client-centric system for interacting with media lists hosted on a server. The claimed system, embodied in a first computer, performs a sequence of steps including: providing media references to a server, receiving an ordered list from the server, handling user selections to download media, automatically downloading updated media upon notification, and also recording, encoding, and transferring the user's own audio data to the server (Compl. Ex. 5, ’263 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶200).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets the Deezer applications that allow users to manage playlists containing both streamed content and their own uploaded media files, and to have these playlists synchronize when content is changed or updated (Compl. ¶200, 202).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are identified as "at least Deezer Premium, Elite, and cricket wireless/Bose customers services and systems implementing that service (e.g. online, Apps and websites and on devices)" (Compl. ¶20, 91).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities comprise a digital media service that allows users to create, share, and play back media from ordered lists, commonly known as playlists (Compl. ¶21, 80). The complaint points to specific features, such as "collaborative" playlists, which allow multiple users to modify a single list (Compl. ¶22, 93). The allegations suggest a system where users can access these lists across a variety of devices, and where changes to a list are synchronized across those devices and shared with other users (Compl. ¶21, 115). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of accused functionality to each claim element; the following charts summarize the infringement theory based on the complaint's general description of the accused services.

'310 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first computer system configured to connect to a server via a communication network... User devices (e.g., PCs, mobile phones) running the Deezer application or website, which connect to Deezer’s servers. ¶20 col. 7:40-44
said first computer system is configured to create a mediagram specified by a creator user... A user creating a playlist and adding a track to it, which the complaint alleges constitutes creating a "mediagram." ¶21 col. 9:50-54
wherein said mediagram comprises...an atomic unit having at least one reference to...audio data and a set of media attributes A track entry in a playlist, which references a specific audio file and includes associated metadata (e.g., title, artist). ¶21 col. 17:20-31
said first computer system is configured to publish said mediagram to said server... The user's action of creating or modifying a playlist, which sends the updated list information to Deezer's servers. ¶21 col. 10:46-49
said server is configured to receive and store said mediagram... Deezer’s servers receiving and storing the user’s playlist data in a database. ¶21 col. 15:64-68
wherein said mediagram is referenced in an ordered list on said server... The stored playlist on Deezer's servers, which contains an ordered list of track references. ¶21 col. 17:49-54
said server is configured to cause said ordered list...to be displayed on said at least one another peer computer system... Deezer’s servers sending playlist data to be displayed on another user's device when a playlist is shared or accessed. ¶21 col. 16:26-36
wherein said ordered list and contents of said ordered list are altered dynamically as a result of input... A user adding, removing, or reordering tracks in a playlist, or a collaborative playlist being modified by multiple users. ¶21 col. 18:1-13
said set of media attributes...is changed on said server and said server is configured to propagate changes...automatically A change in a track's metadata (e.g., updated album art) being reflected in all playlists containing that track across the service. ¶21 col. 17:55-62

'175 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first computer system configured to create a mediagram...wherein the mediagram includes an atomic unit...that is not further divisible A user adding a track to a playlist via a Deezer application, which the complaint alleges creates an indivisible logical entity. ¶92 col. 17:20-31
said server configured to receive and store the mediagram... Deezer's servers storing the user's playlist data. ¶92 col. 15:64-68
the mediagram referenced in an ordered list in the server; where position of the mediagram within the ordered list is based upon a popularity ranking Playlists or song charts generated by Deezer (e.g., "Top Hits") where the track order is determined by metrics such as play counts or user engagement. ¶92 col. 20:30-55
said server configured to present the ordered list...to at least one client computer to enable a user...to select a list item for retrieval... Deezer's servers delivering a playlist to a user's device, allowing the user to select and play a track from that list. ¶92 col. 16:26-36
the ordered list and contents of the ordered list are altered dynamically as a result of input provided to the ordered list... The dynamic updating of a chart or playlist as popularity metrics change over time, or as users manually edit a collaborative playlist. ¶92 col. 18:1-13
the at least one client computer configured to retrieve the mediagram from the server...and...to retrieve the audio data... A user's device retrieving the playlist information and then streaming the corresponding audio file from Deezer's servers upon selection. ¶92 col. 10:42-45
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the patent-specific neologisms "mediagram" and "atomic unit" can be construed to cover modern data structures for playlist entries used by streaming services. The defense may argue these terms are limited to the specific client-side plug-in architecture described in the patent specification, whereas a track in a Deezer playlist is a simple database reference.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’310 Patent, a factual question is what constitutes automatic "propagation" of changes to media attributes. Does a server-side database update that is reflected the next time a client fetches the data meet this limitation, or does the claim require a more active push of information from the server? For the ’175 Patent, a key question is whether Deezer's methods for ordering editorially-curated charts or user-generated playlists meet the claim requirement of being "based upon a popularity ranking," which will depend on the technical evidence of how those lists are actually generated.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mediagram"

  • Context and Importance: This term, coined by the inventor, is foundational to the independent claims of multiple patents-in-suit. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether a modern playlist entry—essentially a pointer to a media file with associated metadata—falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition appears to be tied to the specific software architecture disclosed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "mediagram" as a "logical entity" that combines "any type of list with attributes associated to it" (’310 Patent, col. 17:20-25). This language may support an argument that any data object linking content references with metadata qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the mediagram as an "atomic unit that can be linked to directly via a pointer" and is created through a specific process involving a client-side plug-in (’310 Patent, col. 17:26-28). This may support a narrower construction limited to the particular implementation described.

  • The Term: "popularity ranking"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a central limitation in claim 1 of the ’175 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Deezer’s various methods for ordering content lists (e.g., based on play counts, editorial choices, or user saves) constitute a "popularity ranking" as contemplated by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that popularity data can be obtained by tracking user actions such as "click-throughs," "inclusions of a media file...in another account holder's list," and "subscriptions to a list" (’175 Patent, col. 20:30-46). This could be interpreted broadly to cover any ranking derived from user engagement metrics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the position of the mediagram within the list to be "based upon" this ranking (’175 Patent, col. 23:14-15). This could be construed to require a direct, algorithmic determination of item order based on a calculated score, potentially excluding lists that are manually curated by editors or primarily ordered by date.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Defendants provide "instruction materials, training, and services" that encourage and enable users to perform the allegedly infringing actions (Compl. ¶¶ 79-80, 102-103).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness, but bases the allegation of knowledge of the patents on the date of the complaint's filing (e.g., "Each Defendant was made aware of the '310 patent and its infringement thereof at least as early as the filing of this Complaint") (Compl. ¶78). This suggests the claim is for post-suit willfulness rather than pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mediagram," an applicant-coined term rooted in the context of a 2000-era client-side plug-in architecture, be construed to cover the server-side database entries that represent tracks in a modern, cloud-based streaming music playlist?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the general operation of the accused streaming service perform the specific, multi-part functions required by the claims? For instance, does the service utilize a "popularity ranking" to determine item position in a list, and does it "propagate changes" to media attributes "automatically" in the manner claimed by the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A central challenge for the Plaintiff will be one of pleading and proof: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused Deezer platform, which operates on a different technological paradigm than the one described in the 2000-era patents, meets each and every limitation of the asserted claims?