DCT
1:18-cv-00917
Virentem Ventures LLC v. YouTube LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virentem Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Enounce (Delaware / California)
- Defendant: YouTube, LLC; Google, LLC (Delaware / California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes; Bunsow De Mory LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00917, D. Del., 09/26/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware as both Defendants are Delaware corporations.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ YouTube platform and related products infringe a portfolio of eleven patents related to variable speed playback of digital media, known as Time-Scale Modification (TSM).
- Technical Context: The technology at issue, variable speed playback, allows users to watch or listen to media content at faster or slower speeds than normal without distorting the audio pitch, a feature now common in video platforms, podcast players, and other digital media services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a Second Amended Complaint. It alleges extensive pre-suit communications between Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, Enounce, Inc., and Google/YouTube, beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2014, during which Enounce allegedly disclosed its patented technology and patent portfolio to Defendants.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-06-03 | U.S. Patent No. 6,598,228 Priority Date |
| 1999-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 7,043,433 Priority Date |
| 2002-02-25 | U.S. Patent No. 6,801,888 Priority Date |
| 2003-06-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,100,188 Priority Date |
| 2004-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,683,903 Priority Date |
| 2004-09-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,299,184 Priority Date |
| 2009-01-01 | Enounce allegedly began communicating with Google regarding technology and patents |
| 2010-01-01 | YouTube launched experimental HTML5 player with variable speed playback |
| 2010-03-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,068,108 Priority Date |
| 2010-04-01 | U.S. Patent No. 8,566,885 Priority Date |
| 2012-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,345,050 Priority Date |
| 2013-07-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,380 Priority Date |
| 2013-10-22 | Enounce CEO allegedly sent email with list of asserted patents to Google personnel |
| 2015-01-01 | YouTube moved to HTML5 as the standard player |
| 2015-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 9,785,400 Priority Date |
| 2017-01-01 | YouTube TV launched |
| 2017-09-01 | YouTube launched Variable Speed Playback for mobile applications |
| 2018-06-21 | Original Complaint filed |
| 2019-09-26 | Second Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,683,903 - “Management Of Presentation Time In A Digital Media Presentation System With Variable Rate Presentation Capability”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,683,903, entitled “Management Of Presentation Time In A Digital Media Presentation System With Variable Rate Presentation Capability,” issued March 23, 2010 (the “’903 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional digital media players use a single "current time" variable to synchronize playback (Compl. ¶19). The patent background explains that when variable rate presentation or Time-Scale Modification (TSM) is introduced, two distinct concepts of time emerge: "data time" (the position in the media file if played at a normal rate) and "presentation time" (the actual real-world time that has elapsed during playback) (’903 Patent, col. 1:47-52, col. 2:14-23). Relying on a single time variable in a TSM-enabled system can lead to synchronization errors and performance degradation (Compl. ¶19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem by managing presentation time and data time as two separate and distinct parameters within the rendering system (’903 Patent, Abstract). By maintaining and providing separate values for presentation time and data time, the system can ensure proper synchronization and functionality when content is played at non-normal speeds (Compl. ¶19; ’903 Patent, col. 2:24-34).
- Technical Importance: This separation of time parameters is a foundational concept for enabling robust variable speed playback features, which have become critical for user engagement and efficiency in consuming long-form digital content (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- maintaining a value of a presentation time parameter tangibly stored in a second computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time elapsed during rendering of a portion of the temporal sequence presentation data;
- providing the value of the presentation time parameter to a first component of the rendering system;
- maintaining a value of a data time parameter tangibly stored in a third computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time required by the rendering system to render the portion of the temporal sequence presentation data at a default presentation rate;
- providing the value of the data time parameter to a second component of the rendering system;
- wherein the value of the presentation time parameter is not equal to the value of the data time parameter.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 22 (Compl. ¶84).
U.S. Patent No. 8,068,108 - “Management Of Presentation Time In A Digital Media Presentation System With Variable Rate Presentation Capability”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,068,108, entitled “Management Of Presentation Time In A Digital Media Presentation System With Variable Rate Presentation Capability,” issued November 29, 2011 (the “’108 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’903 Patent, the ’108 Patent addresses the same technical challenge: the divergence of presentation time and data time in media players with variable speed playback capabilities, which can cause system errors if not managed separately (’108 Patent, col. 2:15-23; Compl. ¶21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for managing media playback by distinctly maintaining values for presentation time and data time (’108 Patent, Abstract). The system provides the data time parameter to a system component, ensuring accurate operation even when the presentation time and data time are not equal due to variable speed playback (’108 Patent, col. 2:25-35).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides an improved technical framework for digital media platforms to implement and manage variable speed playback, a feature that enhances the user experience and allows for more efficient content consumption (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶107).
- Claim 5 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- maintaining a value of a presentation time parameter tangibly stored in a second computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time elapsed during rendering of a portion of the temporal sequence presentation data;
- maintaining a value of a data time parameter tangibly stored in a third computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time required by the rendering system to render the portion of the temporal sequence presentation data at a default presentation rate;
- providing the value of the data time parameter to a first component of the rendering system;
- wherein the value of the presentation time parameter is not equal to the value of the data time parameter.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 1, 3, and 7 (Compl. ¶107).
Multi-Patent Capsules
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,345,050, entitled “Management Of Presentation Time In A Digital Media Presentation System With Variable Rate Presentation Capability,” issued January 1, 2013 (Compl. ¶22).
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation patent in the same family as the ’903 and ’108 Patents, the ’050 Patent describes a device with computer instructions for managing separate presentation time and data time parameters in a media rendering system that uses Time-Scale Modification (TSM) for variable speed playback (Compl. ¶23, ¶133).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 8, 20, 25, 34, 40, and 45 are asserted (Compl. ¶127).
- Accused Features: The accused features include the YouTube and Google products and services that render video content at variable speeds, such as the YouTube player on Google Pixel devices and Chromebooks (Compl. ¶127-128).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,785,400, entitled “Enhancing a Rendering System to Distinguish Presentation Time from Data Time,” issued October 10, 2017 (Compl. ¶24).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method where a rendering system maintains a data time parameter and calculates a corresponding presentation time parameter based on the data time value. This allows the system to manage both time metrics in a variable speed playback environment (Compl. ¶25, ¶153).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶149).
- Accused Features: The accused features include the YouTube and Google products and services that calculate "Watch Time" (presentation time) statistics based on the "data time" of a video and the selected playback speed (Compl. ¶153).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,801,888, entitled “Method and Apparatus to Prepare Listener-Interest-Filtered Work,” issued October 5, 2004 (Compl. ¶26).
- Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to improving TSM systems by determining listener interest based on how a user interacts with media, such as changing playback speed. This data is used to generate a "Speed Contour" or a "Conceptual Speed Association (CSA)" data structure that modifies playback speed for other portions of the work or for other users (Compl. ¶27-28).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶171).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that YouTube’s system of enforcing a 1.0x playback speed for advertisements, while allowing variable speeds for user content, infringes by generating a work in conjunction with a CSA data structure (Compl. ¶172-175).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,299,184, entitled “Method and Apparatus to Prepare Listener-Interest-Filtered Work,” issued November 20, 2007 (Compl. ¶30).
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’888 Patent, this invention also pertains to using a CSA data structure to alter the presentation rate of portions of an audio-visual work. It further claims obtaining this data structure via an online search facility (Compl. ¶31, ¶189-191).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 5 and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶180).
- Accused Features: The accused features include the YouTube platform presenting video with ads at different, controlled speeds and utilizing its search function to obtain and present this content (Compl. ¶181-184, ¶189-192).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,043,433, entitled “Method and Apparatus To Determine and Use Audience Affinity and Aptitude,” issued May 9, 2006 (Compl. ¶32).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for testing audience aptitude by presenting a media work, obtaining user input regarding presentation rates for portions of the work, and correlating those rates with the user's aptitude for the content. This addresses shortcomings of prior art methods like detecting fast-forward patterns on cassette tapes (Compl. ¶34).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 7, and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶199).
- Accused Features: The YouTube platform is accused of infringing by presenting user-created videos with advertisements, obtaining user input on playback speed for the video portion and skip/watch decisions for the ad portion, and correlating this input to aptitude via the "Watch Time" metric (Compl. ¶201-203). Google Nest products are also accused (Compl. ¶199).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,185,380, entitled “Method and Apparatus To Determine and Use Audience Affinity and Aptitude,” issued November 10, 2015 (Compl. ¶35).
- Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’433 Patent, this patent focuses on presenting an audio-visual work by detecting content properties (e.g., motion, a person) and associating a specific presentation rate with those properties. The claims focus on applications in surveillance cameras (Compl. ¶36, ¶210-214).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶208).
- Accused Features: The accused products are the Google Nest surveillance cameras, which allegedly present video clips on a timeline based on detected events like motion or the presence of a person (Compl. ¶209-214).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,598,228, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Time-Scale Modification During Multi-Media Broadcasts,” issued July 22, 2003 (Compl. ¶37).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need to control or restrict playback rates during media broadcasts, for example, to ensure important messages are not missed by users listening at a very fast rate. It describes broadcasting "guidance information" along with the media to direct the playback rate for certain portions of the work (Compl. ¶38).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 4, 5, 9, 31, and 33 are asserted (Compl. ¶219).
- Accused Features: The YouTube platform is accused of infringing by providing guidance information that restricts the playback rate of video ads to 1.0x speed, even when a user has selected a different speed for the main content (Compl. ¶221-223).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,100,188, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Time-Scale Modification During Multi-Media Broadcasts,” issued August 29, 2006 (Compl. ¶39).
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’228 Patent, this patent also describes a method of broadcasting guidance information to a client device to control presentation rates. It specifically claims "insistence information" that specifies a measure of importance for utilizing the presentation rate information (Compl. ¶40, ¶240).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶237).
- Accused Features: The YouTube platform is accused of infringing by broadcasting guidance and "insistence information" indicating that video ads must be played at 1.0x speed, overriding any user-selected playback rate (Compl. ¶239-240).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,566,885, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Time-Scale Modification During Multi-Media Broadcasts,” issued October 22, 2013 (Compl. ¶41).
- Technology Synopsis: Also a continuation in the ’228 patent family, this patent describes a method where a broadcaster transmits information to client devices, which then use guidance information (including "insistence information") to determine presentation rates for broadcasted audio-visual works (Compl. ¶42, ¶255-257).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 11, and 13 are asserted (Compl. ¶254).
- Accused Features: The YouTube platform and servers are accused of broadcasting video and guidance information to client devices to control the playback rate for advertisements (Compl. ¶255-257).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "YouTube and Google Products and Services" (Compl. ¶84). This includes the YouTube platform (via web browsers like Chrome and mobile applications), YouTube TV, Google-manufactured hardware that runs these services (e.g., Pixel phones, Chromebooks), and Google Nest surveillance products (Compl. ¶84, ¶199, ¶208).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The core accused functionality is YouTube's variable speed playback feature, implemented in its HTML5 video player, which allows users to watch videos at rates from 0.25x to 2.0x normal speed (Compl. ¶45).
- The complaint alleges that in implementing this feature, YouTube's systems calculate, store, and utilize two distinct time parameters. "Data time" is allegedly represented by the video's progress bar, showing the time point as if played at a normal 1.0x rate (Compl. ¶55). "Presentation time" is allegedly used for YouTube's "Watch Time" analytics, which measures the actual wall-clock duration of a user's viewing session and is adjusted based on the selected playback speed (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).
- A related feature is the "Copy video URL at current time" function, which generates a link timestamped with the current "data time," regardless of the playback speed (Compl. ¶60, ¶91).
- The complaint alleges that YouTube is one of the largest online video platforms and that "Watch Time" is a critical metric for its business, used to rank videos in search results and recommendations, thereby increasing user engagement and advertising revenue (Compl. ¶57-59).
- For the Nest products, the accused functionality involves filtering and presenting video clips from surveillance cameras based on detecting events such as motion or the presence of a person or unfamiliar face (Compl. ¶210-213).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’903 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method... comprising: maintaining a value of a presentation time parameter tangibly stored in a second computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time elapsed during rendering... | YouTube's system maintains a record of the presentation time elapsed for a video, which is used to calculate "Watch Time" statistics. | ¶86 | col. 2:18-20 |
| providing the value of the presentation time parameter to a first component of the rendering system; | The calculated presentation time value is provided to a component of the rendering system to synchronize content, determine ad placement, and calculate viewing statistics. | ¶87 | col. 4:1-4 |
| maintaining a value of a data time parameter tangibly stored in a third computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time required by the rendering system to render the portion... at a default presentation rate; | YouTube's video player maintains and displays the "data time" at the bottom of the video, representing the playback position at a normal 1.0x rate, regardless of the actual presentation speed. | ¶88 | col. 2:14-18 |
| providing the value of the data time parameter to a second component of the rendering system; | The maintained data time value is provided to a component of the rendering system for display to the user and is also used in the "Copy video URL at current time" feature. | ¶89, ¶91 | col. 4:5-8 |
| wherein the value of the presentation time parameter is not equal to the value of the data time parameter. | When a video is watched at a non-normal speed (e.g., 1.5x), the elapsed presentation time ("Watch Time") is not equal to the elapsed data time shown on the progress bar. | ¶90 | col. 2:21-23 |
’108 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method... comprising: maintaining a value of a presentation time parameter tangibly stored in a second computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time elapsed during rendering... | YouTube's system maintains a record of the presentation time elapsed for a video, which is used to calculate "Watch Time" statistics. | ¶109 | col. 2:18-20 |
| maintaining a value of a data time parameter tangibly stored in a third computer-readable medium and representing an amount of time required by the rendering system to render the portion... at a default presentation rate; | YouTube's video player maintains and displays the "data time" at the bottom of the video, representing the playback position at a normal 1.0x rate, regardless of the actual presentation speed. | ¶110 | col. 2:14-18 |
| providing the value of the data time parameter to a first component of the rendering system; | The maintained data time parameter is provided to a component of the rendering system in order to accurately display it to the user. | ¶111 | col. 4:5-8 |
| wherein the value of the presentation time parameter is not equal to the value of the data time parameter. | When a video is watched at a non-normal speed (e.g., 1.5x), the elapsed presentation time ("Watch Time") is not equal to the elapsed data time shown on the progress bar. | ¶112 | col. 2:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claims recite actions like "providing the value... to a... component of the rendering system." A potential point of contention may be whether YouTube's back-end analytics engine, which calculates "Watch Time," qualifies as a "component of the rendering system" as that term is used in the patents. The dispute could center on whether the "rendering system" is limited to the client-side player or includes the server-side infrastructure involved in delivering and analyzing the media presentation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the Chromium code, on which the Chrome browser is based, "utilizes an audio renderer implementation and algorithm to queue audio data and stretch or shrink audio data" using "two different values for presentation time and data time" (Compl. ¶90, ¶112). A key technical question will be whether discovery confirms this operational detail and whether this functionality maps onto the specific claim elements of maintaining and providing these separate time values to distinct components as required by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rendering system"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of the asserted claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory relies on actions that occur both on the client-side player (displaying data time) and potentially on server-side systems (calculating presentation time for "Watch Time" analytics). The case may turn on whether a jury or court finds that server-side analytics components are part of the claimed "rendering system."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’903 Patent mentions that the invention applies to a "digital rendering system such as a digital media player" (’903 Patent, col. 1:20-21). The description of components like a "Player Core Object" and "Media Content Source Modules" suggests a system with multiple interacting parts that could exist in a distributed client-server environment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed descriptions in the patents primarily illustrate components within a single player architecture (’903 Patent, Fig. 1). Language focusing on the "audio renderer of a computer device" may be used to argue that the "rendering system" is confined to the client-side device performing the playback.
The Term: "maintaining a value"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in claims of both the ’903 and ’108 Patents. Its construction is important because it relates to how the accused system must handle the time parameters. The dispute may question whether "maintaining" requires a persistent, continuously updated variable used directly for rendering operations, or if it can be satisfied by a value that is calculated and stored for a distinct purpose, such as post-viewing analytics.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents' description of problems with traditional systems that "calculate, store and distribute only a single 'current time' variable" suggests that the invention's "maintaining" is an active, ongoing process integral to solving synchronization issues during playback (’903 Patent, col. 2:24-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require only that the value be "tangibly stored in a... computer-readable medium." This language might support an argument that any form of storage, even if temporary or for a purpose not directly tied to real-time rendering, meets the limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement by third parties (Compl. ¶93, ¶101). The alleged inducing acts include providing the YouTube and Chrome applications to users of third-party devices (e.g., from Samsung, LG, Sony) and browsers (e.g., Firefox, Safari), advertising the variable speed playback feature, and instructing users on how to use it, all with the knowledge that such use infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶102-103).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents since at least 2009. It details a history of communications, meetings, and presentations where Plaintiff's predecessor, Enounce, allegedly disclosed its technology and patent portfolio to Google and YouTube personnel, years before YouTube fully implemented the accused variable speed playback features (Compl. ¶72-80). Knowledge is also alleged based on the filing of the original complaint on June 21, 2018 (Compl. ¶93, ¶114).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of system architecture and claim scope: can the term "rendering system," as defined by the patents, be construed to encompass YouTube's distributed client-server architecture, including its back-end analytics systems? The outcome of this question may determine whether YouTube's calculation of "Watch Time" for analytical purposes falls within the scope of claims directed at solving real-time playback and synchronization problems.
- A second central question will be evidentiary and operational: what will discovery reveal about how the accused YouTube and Google systems technically function? The case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can prove that the accused systems "maintain" and "provide" distinct presentation and data time parameters to different "components" for the integrated purpose of rendering, as claimed, or whether Defendants can show these are merely separate data points calculated for independent functions (e.g., user interface vs. business analytics).
- A third key issue will be intent and damages: given the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to 2009, a crucial question for trial will be whether Defendants’ development of the accused features after these communications constitutes willful infringement. A finding of willfulness could expose Defendants to the possibility of enhanced damages.