DCT
1:17-cv-00720
Post Media Systems LLC v. Natural Cut SAS
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Post Media Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Natural Cut SAS d/b/a Jango.com (France) and DKCM, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00720, D. Del., 06/12/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant [DKCM, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/dkcm-inc) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Jango.com online music streaming service infringes five patents related to systems and methods for creating, managing, and sharing media playlists over a computer network.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of internet-based media streaming and dynamic playlist management, a core feature of modern digital entertainment and content delivery platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Alan Bartholomew as the sole inventor of the patents-in-suit. No prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patents is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-11-10 | Patent Priority Date ('310, '175, '263, '832, '181 Patents) |
| 2006-06-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 Issued |
| 2008-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 Issued |
| 2011-09-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,015,263 Issued |
| 2014-05-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 Issued |
| 2015-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 Issued |
| 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 "’310 Patent"), issued June 27, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the process of creating, managing, and disseminating media files over the internet as “tedious and inefficient for the typical user,” requiring specialized knowledge of multiple, distinct computer programs for tasks like recording, signal processing, encoding, and uploading (ʼ310 Patent, col. 1:21-33). It further identifies a lack of a mechanism for placing media files into a “dynamic environment,” such as a list that changes according to user-established criteria or behaviors (ʼ310 Patent, col. 2:10-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a user can employ a client-side application or "plug-in" to streamline the creation, processing, and uploading of media files (ʼ310 Patent, Abstract). These files, termed “mediagrams,” are then published to a server where they can be organized into ordered lists and shared with other users. A key aspect of the solution is that these ordered lists are dynamic, meaning their contents and ordering can change automatically in response to user input or changes in the underlying media attributes (ʼ310 Patent, col. 18:1-8; FIG. 9).
- Technical Importance: This technical approach aimed to simplify the workflow for web-based media sharing, integrating multiple complex steps into a more cohesive, user-friendly process suitable for users who are not experts in media production (ʼ310 Patent, col. 2:45-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, along with dependent claims 2-17, 22-24, and 28 (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system for sharing media for playback, with the following essential elements:
- A first computer system connects to a server that stores references to audio data.
- The first computer system is configured to create a "mediagram" specified by a user, which includes an "atomic unit" having a reference to audio data and media attributes.
- The first computer system publishes the mediagram to the server, which receives and stores it.
- The mediagram is referenced in an "ordered list" on the server.
- The server displays the ordered list on at least one other peer computer system, enabling a user to select an item for playback.
- The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically as a result of input provided to the ordered list."
- The set of media attributes in the mediagram is changed on the server, and the server is configured to "propagate changes to the mediagram automatically."
U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 - System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network
(the "’175 Patent"), issued December 30, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’310 Patent, the ’175 Patent addresses the same technical problem of inefficient and complex online media creation and sharing, including the lack of a "simple mechanism for depositing the media files into a dynamic environment" (’175 Patent, col. 2:20-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention described is a system for sharing media for retrieval, centered on the concept of a "mediagram" created on a first computer system and stored on a server. The solution's focus is on organizing these mediagrams in an ordered list where the position of each item is "based upon a popularity ranking" (’175 Patent, col. 23:14-16). Other client computers can then retrieve the media for playback, and the list itself is described as altering dynamically based on user input (’175 Patent, col. 23:22-24).
- Technical Importance: The technology addresses the need for organizing and surfacing shared media content based on user engagement, a foundational principle for content discovery in modern streaming services and social media platforms (’175 Patent, col. 20:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶77).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system for sharing media for retrieval with the following essential elements:
- A first computer system creates a "mediagram" that includes an "atomic unit" defined as a logical entity that is "not further divisible."
- A server receives and stores the mediagram.
- The mediagram is referenced in an ordered list on the server, with its position "based upon a popularity ranking."
- The server presents the ordered list to at least one client computer to enable selection of an item for retrieval.
- The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically as a result of input."
- The client computer retrieves the mediagram and its associated audio data for playback.
- Independent Claim 4 recites a system with largely parallel elements to claim 1, specifying a "first client computer" that creates and publishes the mediagram and "at least one other client computer" that selects an item for retrieval (Compl. ¶80).
U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 - System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback
(the "’832 Patent"), issued May 13, 2014 (Compl. ¶88).
Technology Synopsis
The ’832 Patent claims a system where a first computer creates and manages "dynamic lists" of media content for distribution to a remote second computer. The technology focuses on the ability of the second computer to download media from these lists and, crucially, to receive a notification that the media data has changed and then download the updated version in response (Compl. ¶96). The patent also describes the lists as existing within a navigable "hierarchy" (Compl. ¶96).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1 and 17, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶95).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Jango.com's system for creating, distributing, and updating media playlists infringes the ’832 Patent (Compl. ¶95, 97).
U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 - System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback
(the "’181 Patent"), issued February 17, 2015 (Compl. ¶121).
Technology Synopsis
The ’181 Patent claims a system for managing and distributing "dynamic lists" of media. Its teachings include a computer configured to receive a notification that media content has been modified and then download the modified content (Compl. ¶129). The system is also described as being configured to compute popularity data based on user behavior to create a second, ranked dynamic list (Compl. ¶131).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 19 and dependent claims 20 and 25 (Compl. ¶128).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Jango.com's systems for managing, distributing, and updating dynamic media playlists, including its features for ranking content based on popularity data (Compl. ¶128-130).
U.S. Patent No. 8,015,263 - System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback
(the "’263 Patent"), issued September 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶142).
Technology Synopsis
The ’263 Patent claims a system where a first computer provides references to media data to a server, receives back an ordered list, displays it, and downloads media in response to a user's selection. A key taught feature is the system's ability to obtain notification of changes to the media data and "automatically downloading and storing the media data and the audio data" in response to the notification (Compl. ¶150).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶149).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Jango.com's systems for providing, displaying, and updating ordered media lists for user selection and playback (Compl. ¶149, 151).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the Jango.com online services, including Jango Radio, Jangomusicnetwork, Jango Soundpedia, and Radio Airplay, as implemented through websites and device applications (Compl. ¶20, 77).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused Jango.com service as an online music streaming platform that allows users to create and listen to custom radio stations (Compl. ¶21-22). These stations are alleged to function as ordered lists of media that are created by users, stored on Defendants' servers, and presented to other users for playback. The complaint alleges these lists are dynamically altered based on user inputs, criteria, and behaviors (Compl. ¶21, 23, 25, 78). The complaint does not provide specific details on the market positioning of the accused services but identifies them as being used, marketed, and provided to end users across the United States (Compl. ¶63, 81). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'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 | A user's device (e.g., PC or mobile device) connecting to Jango.com's servers via the internet. | ¶21 | col. 16:55-59 |
| wherein said server comprises references to audio data stored on said server, where said audio data is from a plurality of sources... | Jango's servers host a library of or references to music tracks from various artists and labels for streaming. | ¶21 | col. 17:25-29 |
| wherein said first computer system is configured to create a mediagram specified by a creator user... | A user creates a custom radio station by, for example, selecting an artist or song. | ¶21 | col. 17:31-34 |
| wherein said mediagram comprises...an atomic unit having at least one reference to said audio data and a set of media attributes | A song within a user's station allegedly constitutes an atomic unit, containing a reference to the audio file and its associated metadata (e.g., title, artist). | ¶21 | col. 17:35-39 |
| wherein said first computer system is configured to publish said mediagram to said server... | The user's device communicates the station creation/modification data to Jango's servers. | ¶21 | col. 17:40-43 |
| wherein said server is configured to receive and store said mediagram... | Jango's servers save the user-created station data. | ¶21 | col. 17:44-47 |
| wherein said mediagram is referenced in an ordered list on said server | The user's custom station exists as a playlist or an ordered list of songs on Jango's servers. | ¶21 | col. 17:48-49 |
| wherein said server is configured to cause said ordered list...to be displayed on...at least one another peer computer system...to select a list item for playback | The Jango service presents the station playlist to a user for listening and interaction. | ¶21 | col. 17:54-59 |
| wherein said ordered list and contents of said ordered list are altered dynamically as a result of input provided... | The song queue of a Jango station changes in response to user actions such as liking or disliking a track. | ¶21 | col. 18:1-3 |
| wherein said set of media attributes...is changed on said server and said server is configured to propagate changes to said mediagram automatically | A change to a song's metadata or popularity data on the server is allegedly reflected automatically in playlists containing that song. | ¶21 | col. 18:4-8 |
'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's device is used to create a custom station, with each song entry and its metadata allegedly forming an indivisible atomic unit. | ¶78 | col. 23:5-12 |
| the server configured to receive and store the mediagram | Jango's servers store the user-created station data. | ¶78 | col. 23:12-13 |
| 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 | The station's playlist is allegedly ordered based on a popularity ranking derived from user interactions or other metrics. | ¶78 | col. 23:14-16 |
| the server configured to present the ordered list...to at least one client computer to enable a user...to select a list item for retrieval | The Jango service presents the station playlist to a user, allowing song selection for playback. | ¶78 | col. 23:17-21 |
| the ordered list and contents of the ordered list are altered dynamically as a result of input provided to the ordered list | The station's song queue allegedly changes in real-time based on user input, such as thumbs-up/thumbs-down ratings. | ¶78 | col. 23:22-24 |
| the at least one client computer configured to retrieve the mediagram from the server...and...to retrieve the audio data | A user's device requests and receives the playlist data and then the audio stream for the selected song from Jango's servers. | ¶78 | col. 23:25-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the term "mediagram," described in the patent as a user-created and published entity, can be construed to read on a playlist generated by the accused service in response to a user's selection of an artist. Further, the interpretation of "atomic unit" and the added limitation "not further divisible" in the ’175 Patent raises the question of whether a song entry in the accused service's database meets this structural requirement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence of how the accused Jango service's algorithms function. A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the position of items in a Jango playlist is "based upon a popularity ranking" as required by the ’175 Patent. Similarly, the mechanics of how a playlist is "altered dynamically" and how attribute changes are "propagate[d]... automatically" will require factual evidence beyond the general allegations in the complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mediagram"
- Context and Importance: This is a patent-specific term central to the asserted claims of the ’310 and ’175 Patents. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether a playlist or custom station generated by the accused Jango.com service qualifies as the claimed entity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a mediagram broadly as a "logical entity" formed by combining "any type of list with attributes associated to it" ('310 Patent, col. 17:28-31). This language may support an interpretation that covers any playlist data structure containing references to media and associated metadata.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently describes a "creator user" actively performing steps to "create," "record," "encode," and "upload" a mediagram using a specific client-side "plug-in" ('310 Patent, col. 3:1-7, 17:32-34). This context may support a narrower construction requiring a more deliberate, multi-step creation process than merely selecting an artist on a website.
The Term: "atomic unit"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the constituent elements of a "mediagram." The ’175 Patent adds the qualifier that this unit is "a logical entity that is not further divisible" (’175 Patent, claim 1). The construction of this term will be important for determining if a song entry in Jango's system, which may consist of separable data elements (e.g., a link to an audio file, separate metadata fields), meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’310 Patent defines the unit simply as "having at least one reference to said audio data and a set of media attributes" ('310 Patent, claim 1), which could be read broadly on any data object linking a media file with its metadata.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "not further divisible" language introduced in the ’175 Patent suggests a specific data structure that is treated by the system as a single, inseparable object. The prosecution history may be relevant to determine if this was a narrowing amendment intended to distinguish prior art. The specification itself does not provide an explicit definition of what makes the unit indivisible.
The Term: "popularity ranking"
- Context and Importance: This term is a key limitation in the asserted claims of the ’175 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the method used by Jango.com to order songs in a playlist constitutes a "popularity ranking" as understood in the context of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that popularity can be derived from simple user actions, stating that "rating, ranking, and/or popularity" is "based on users interaction with the data" (’175 Patent, col. 17:55-57). It also gives an example of tracking "click-throughs from one list to another" as a way to obtain ranking data (’175 Patent, col. 20:35-37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a system for accumulating "usage data (popularity data)" and then using that data to "rank popularity/usage" (’175 Patent, FIG. 10B). This may suggest a more formal, calculated ranking system rather than a simple chronological or otherwise ordered list that is merely influenced by user actions.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all five patents. The factual basis alleged is that Defendants provide the Jango.com service along with "playlists, instruction materials, training, and services" that allegedly instruct and encourage end users to perform acts that directly infringe the patents' claims (Compl. ¶66, 84, 117, 138, 157).
Willful Infringement
For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Defendants were made aware of the patent and its alleged infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶64, 82, 115, 136, 155). There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge, which suggests the willfulness claim is based on alleged post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent-coined term "mediagram," which is described in the specification in the context of a user employing a "plug-in" to create, process, and publish content, be construed to cover a playlist that is automatically generated by the accused Jango.com service in response to a user's single input, such as an artist's name?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the accused Jango.com service actually order its playlists using a "popularity ranking" and "propagate changes... automatically" in the specific manner required by the claims? The complaint's lack of technical detail suggests the case will depend heavily on discovery into the operational specifics and algorithms of the Jango platform.
- A third question will be one of technological evolution: can the systems described in a patent family with a 2000 priority date, which contemplates user "plug-ins" and explicit "upload" steps, be interpreted to cover the more integrated and seamless functionality of a modern, web-based streaming service?