DCT
1:18-cv-00069
Sisvel Societa Italiana per Lo Sviluppo Dellelettronica Spa v. Rhapsody Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sisvel Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo dell'Elettronica Spa (Italy)
- Defendant: Rhapsody Intl Inc (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00069, D. Del., 01/08/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Napster multimedia streaming platform infringes three patents related to creating personalized media experiences by generating user profiles, filtering content, and recommending media from multiple sources.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of digital media recommendation engines, which are critical for personalizing user experiences on streaming platforms by analyzing user data and behavior.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was put on notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated May 10, 2017. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 7734680 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00471). In a certificate issued July 22, 2021, Claim 16, the sole claim of the ’680 patent asserted in this complaint, was cancelled.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,734,680 Priority Date |
| 2001-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7035863 Priority Date |
| 2003-06-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8490123 Priority Date |
| 2006-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 7,035,863 Issued |
| 2010-06-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,734,680 Issued |
| 2013-07-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,490,123 Issued |
| 2017-05-11 | Defendant allegedly received notice of patents-in-suit |
| 2018-01-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,734,680 - "Method and Apparatus for Realizing Personalized Information from Multiple Information Sources," Issued June 8, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where users interested in a topic must consult multiple, separate information sources (e.g., web browsers, electronic program guides, music collections) that are not integrated, making it difficult to get a comprehensive, personalized view of available media ('680 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "meta-browser" that creates a "unified browsing space," presented as a virtual library with different "floors" for different media types like television, music, and movies ('680 Patent, col. 2:54-67). This system automatically populates the library with personalized content recommendations drawn from multiple sources based on a user's profile, which is built using both explicit and implicit filtering ('680 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶10).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to solve the problem of media fragmentation by creating a single, intuitive interface that aggregates and personalizes content from disparate sources, a foundational concept for modern streaming services ('680 Patent, col. 1:38-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of Claim 16, a computer program product, include:
- A "populater" for populating a virtual library with different virtual media collections from different media sources, in accordance with a user profile.
- A "browser" for browsing the virtual library.
- A "search engine" for searching the virtual library.
- A "filter" that performs both "explicit filtering" (based on user interaction) and "implicit filtering" (drawing from collaborative data).
- A "prioritizer" for prioritizing filtered results.
- An "updater" for updating the user profile, where the update is "reflected in a ratio" in response to a user's choice.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,035,863 - "Method, System, and Program Product for Populating a User Profile Based on Existing User Profiles," Issued April 25, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of creating a new user profile from scratch. Without a mechanism to leverage the profiles of existing, similar users, providing personalized recommendations to a new user is a slow and impractical process ('863 Patent, col. 1:35-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this "cold start" problem by creating a system to populate a new user's profile based on a community of existing profiles. The system designates "base characteristics" for a new user, associates that new profile with a "Vornoi cluster region" of similar existing profiles, and then populates the new profile with "defined characteristics" copied from the profiles within that cluster ('863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-11). The method is depicted in the flowchart of Figure 7.
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the rapid generation of a rich, useful profile for a new user by inferring preferences from a like-minded group, significantly improving the initial user experience on a recommendation-based platform ('863 Patent, col. 1:46-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 11 and 12, with claim 11 being independent (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of Claim 11, a computer implemented system, include:
- A "designation system" for designating base characteristics for a new user profile.
- An "association system" for associating the new user profile with a cluster region of existing user profiles based on the base characteristics.
- A "population system" for populating the new user profile with defined characteristics from the existing user profiles.
- The complaint asserts dependent claim 12, which adds a recommendation system based on the populated profile (Compl. ¶44).
U.S. Patent No. 8,490,123 - "Method and Device for Generating a User Profile on the Basis of Playlists," Issued July 16, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for generating a more reliable user profile by analyzing user-created playlists ('123 Patent, Abstract). The invention addresses the problem that a single playlist offers only a partial view of a user's tastes by automatically analyzing multiple playlists (including those of the user and others) and deriving playlist features, such as "occurrence frequency" or "content relationship," to build a more comprehensive profile (Compl. ¶57; '123 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 18 are asserted, with claim 1 being independent (Compl. ¶61).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Napster's recommendation engine and profile generators, which allegedly analyze various aspects of playlists, including automatically importing playlists, making them available to other users, and analyzing playlist content and genre distribution to generate recommendations and update user profiles (Compl. ¶61, ¶66, ¶70-71).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Napster multimedia streaming platform and services" (Compl. ¶16).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentalities as a service that provides users with access to a large library of media. Key functionalities alleged to be infringing include an onboarding process for new users to select initial preferences, the creation of a personalized "virtual library," personalized search results, and features for creating, importing, and sharing playlists (Compl. ¶16, ¶38, ¶61). A screenshot depicts the new user onboarding process, which asks users to select favorite genres and artists to start (Compl. p. 13). Another screenshot shows a "Music From Listeners Like Me" feature, which presents users with profiles of other listeners having a high "match" percentage, suggesting a collaborative filtering or user-clustering functionality (Compl. p. 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,734,680 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a populater for populating a virtual library with a plurality of different virtual media collections... wherein the virtual library is populated with different types of media obtained from different media sources | Napster is alleged to populate a virtual library for the user containing different collections of media. | ¶19 | col. 2:37-47 |
| a browser for browsing the virtual library by moving between the plurality of different media collections under user control | The Napster user interface allegedly allows users to browse their virtual library. A screenshot shows a user interface with different media categories and playlists. | ¶17, p. 6 | col. 6:6-9 |
| a search engine for searching the virtual library under user control | The Napster interface allegedly includes a search function. | ¶17 | col. 8:62-9:1 |
| a filter for filtering the results of the searching step... wherein the filtering comprises explicit and implicit filtering, wherein the explicit filtering provides filtering of information from said plurality of different media collections and the implicit filtering draws from collaborative data... | Napster allegedly filters search results based on the user's profile (implicit filtering) and allows users to interact with and navigate those results (explicit filtering). The complaint provides a visual example of two different users receiving different results for the same search query. | ¶20-21, p. 7 | col. 6:61-7:2 |
| a prioritizer for prioritizing results of the filtering step | The complaint alleges Napster filters search results, which are then presented to the user, implying a prioritization of those results. | ¶17, ¶20 | col. 8:62-9:1 |
| an updater for updating the user profile... wherein the updating is reflected in a ratio in responding to a user's programming choice or specific request | Napster recommendation algorithms are alleged to measure correlation coefficients, which are expressed as a ratio, to update a user's profile based on their choices. | ¶22 | col. 7:1-4 |
7,035,863 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a designation system for designating base characteristics for a new user profile | Napster's new user onboarding process allegedly allows users to designate base characteristics by selecting favorite genres and artists. A screenshot shows the "HELLO, WELCOME TO NAPSTER" onboarding screen. | ¶41, p. 13 | col. 5:38-52 |
| an association system for associating the new user profile with a cluster region of existing user profiles based on the base characteristics | Napster's API allegedly includes functionality to find recommended members based on a "similarity score," which the complaint alleges associates a user with a cluster region of existing profiles. | ¶42, p. 14 | col. 5:38-52 |
| a population system for populating the new user profile with defined characteristics from the existing user profiles | Napster allegedly uses information from similar users to populate a new user's profile, for example through its "Music from listeners like me" feature, which provides recommendations from users with a high similarity match. | ¶43, p. 15 | col. 5:38-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: For the ’863 patent, a central question may be whether Napster’s system of ranking users by a “similarity score” constitutes an “association... with a cluster region” as taught by the patent, which describes the invention in the context of "Vornoi cluster regions" (’863 Patent, col. 2:15).
- Technical Questions: For the ’680 patent, a key technical question is whether the complaint provides sufficient evidence that the accused profile "updater" functions using a "ratio." The complaint points to general concepts of correlation coefficients from an external technical handbook rather than direct evidence from the accused product's code or operation (Compl. ¶22).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '680 Patent:
- The Term: "ratio" (from Claim 16)
- Context and Importance: This term is a specific functional limitation on the "updater" element. Proving that the user profile update mechanism operates "in a ratio" is critical for the infringement read. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's support for it relies on an analogy to correlation coefficients described in an external source, which may not be sufficient to prove the function of the accused product itself (Compl. ¶22).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides limited guidance, stating only that the system "uses the ratio in responding to the user's current programming choice or specific requests" ('680 Patent, col. 7:2-4). A plaintiff may argue this language supports any proportional or relational mathematical update.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that, absent a specific definition in the patent, the term should be limited to a clear, discrete mathematical calculation implemented in the accused code, not just a high-level conceptual similarity to statistical formulas.
For the '863 Patent:
- The Term: "cluster region" (from Claim 11)
- Context and Importance: The entire inventive concept of the ’863 patent revolves around associating a new user with a group of existing users. The definition of "cluster region" will determine whether Napster's method of finding "similar" users infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The asserted claim itself uses the general term "cluster region." The specification states that profiles are grouped into "Vornoi cluster regions" ('863 Patent, col. 1:16), but a plaintiff might argue this is just one exemplary embodiment, not a limiting definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes "Vornoi cluster regions" throughout the summary and detailed description ('863 Patent, col. 2:15, 2:50, 3:37). A defendant may argue that the patentee defined the invention by this specific type of geometric clustering and that a simple ranked list of similar users does not meet that definition.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe all three patents. The allegations are based on Defendant providing the Napster platform along with "instruction materials, training, and services" that allegedly guide partners and end-users to use the service in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the patents since at least May 11, 2017 (Compl. ¶25-26, ¶48-49, ¶88-89).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The basis for this claim is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a notice letter on May 11, 2017, which allegedly provided actual knowledge of the patents and the infringing activities (Compl. ¶28, ¶51, ¶91).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the '863 patent will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cluster region," rooted in the patent's specific disclosure of "Vornoi" diagrams, be construed to cover the accused system's method of identifying and ranking users based on a "similarity score"?
- A key evidentiary question for the '680 patent will be one of technical proof: does the complaint's reliance on external technical literature suffice to allege that Napster's profile "updater" actually implements the specific "ratio" function required by Claim 16, or will direct evidence of the accused system's operation be required?
- A central, overarching question will be one of claim mapping: given the multi-step, systematic nature of the asserted claims, a court will need to determine if the various user interface elements and API functions shown in the complaint's screenshots operate together as a single, cohesive system that practices each and every limitation of the asserted claims in the required order.