DDC Research Tech LLC v. Opencloner Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DDC Research Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: OpenCloner, Inc. (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01049, D. Del., 07/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), on the basis that the defendant is a foreign entity not residing in any U.S. judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s DVD-Cloner Platinum software infringes a patent related to methods for converting structured video data, such as from a DVD, into a different format, such as MPEG-4, for digital distribution and playback.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of reformatting video content from a complex, multi-file structure (like DVD-Video) into a single-file format (like MPEG-4) that is more suitable for internet downloading, while enabling playback on devices that may not support the original format's intricacies.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733 - "Method of Preparing DVD-Video Formatted Data, Method for Reconstructing DVD-Video Data and DVD-Video Data Structure"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, "Method of Preparing DVD-Video Formatted Data, Method for Reconstructing DVD-Video Data and DVD-Video Data Structure," issued November 27, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the incompatibility between the standard DVD-Video format and file formats optimized for internet delivery, such as MPEG-4 (’733 Patent, col. 2:11-25). The DVD format typically involves multiple files where video/audio "payload" data is interspersed with control information (e.g., navigation packs, headers), a structure that legacy MPEG-4 decoders are not designed to parse (’733 Patent, col. 2:35-44). This makes it difficult to provide a simple, single-file download of a DVD’s content that is broadly compatible (’733 Patent, col. 2:59-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating a new, single "data entity" (e.g., an MPEG-4 container file) that includes "regenerated" versions of the original media files, preserving their internal structure of payload blocks and control blocks (’733 Patent, col. 3:28-33). Crucially, the system also generates a "payload data schedule," which acts as a map or index that points to the start of each actual media payload block within the regenerated files (’733 Patent, col. 3:33-40). As illustrated in the media processor diagram, this schedule allows a decoder to read the schedule and systematically skip the intervening control parts to access a continuous stream of payload data, thereby enabling playback on a device that would otherwise be incompatible (’733 Patent, Fig. 11b).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a bridge between two distinct data-structuring philosophies, allowing content created for the feature-rich DVD ecosystem to be repackaged for the burgeoning internet video distribution market without losing the underlying data needed for those features. (’733 Patent, col. 16:10-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An apparatus with a "data entity builder" for converting a first media representation (like a DVD) into a second (like an MPEG-4 entity).
  • The builder "regenerates" the original media files so that control blocks remain located between payload blocks in the new format.
  • The builder also generates a "payload data schedule" containing information that indicates the "start of payload information" for each regenerated payload block.
  • The payload data schedule is located in a "moov atom."
  • The regenerated media file is located in an "mdat atom."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "DVD-Cloner Platinum" software (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the product is software that "allows customers to convert a media in DVD format that comprises a plurality of media files to media in an MPEG-4 format that comprises a single MPEG-4 media file" (Compl. ¶15). The software is allegedly marketed and offered for sale to U.S. consumers through interactive web pages (Compl. ¶7-8). The complaint alleges this conversion process includes generating a single MPEG-4 file containing regenerated media files, control blocks, and a data schedule located in specific structural "atoms" of the file (Compl. ¶17-21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'733 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges the accused product generates a "payload data schedule" that includes "track identifiers and timescale" (Compl. ¶19). A central technical question will be what evidence supports that this schedule performs the specific function of "indicating, for each regenerated media file payload block, a start of payload information" as required by the claim. The patent's specification primarily describes this schedule as a list of start addresses (’733 Patent, Fig. 12), raising the question of whether the alleged "timescale" information is functionally equivalent.
  • Scope Question: The claim requires the builder to "regenerate" the media files. The dispute may focus on whether the "conversion" performed by the accused product meets this limitation. The complaint alleges the output MPEG-4 file contains control blocks between payload blocks (Compl. ¶18), but the nature of this "regeneration" or "conversion"—whether it is a direct copy, a structural remap, or a full re-encoding—will likely be a point of analysis and subject to discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "payload data schedule"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core novel element of the invention—the map that enables a non-native player to navigate the file. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the data structure generated by the accused product, which the complaint alleges contains "track identifiers and timescale" (Compl. ¶19), falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring "schedule information indicating... a start of payload information" (’733 Patent, col. 22:3-5), which could arguably encompass various forms of timing or indexing data beyond just byte offsets.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary embodiment illustrates the schedule as a table listing the explicit "Start address" of each payload block (’733 Patent, Fig. 12; col. 19:12-18). A party could argue the term should be limited to this more specific implementation of direct address mapping.

• The Term: "regenerate"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the action performed on the original media files. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple file copy-and-paste operation infringes, or if a more complex transformation is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the goal is often to preserve the original structure, stating that "in a preferred embodiment... the at least one regenerated media file has the same file structure as the first representation media file" (’733 Patent, col. 18:31-34). This could support a reading where "regenerate" includes simple copying.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also contemplates modification, such as when "the payload part... can be substituted by an encoded media file payload relating to the same movie scene but being generated using a different... encoder" (’733 Patent, col. 18:37-41). Furthermore, dependent claim 10 adds the limitation "to change an encoding format," which, by the doctrine of claim differentiation, suggests the independent claim's term "regenerate" does not necessarily require a change in encoding.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, asserting that Defendant sells and advertises the Accused Product through its website with the specific intent that its U.S. customers will use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶25), which would support a claim for enhanced damages based only on post-filing conduct.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused product's generated schedule, described in the complaint as containing "track identifiers and timescale," provide the specific "start of payload information" for each data block as taught by the '733 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical function and granularity of the information provided?
• The case will also likely involve a core issue of definitional scope: can the term "regenerate," in the context of creating an "MPEG-4 conforming data entity" from a DVD source, be construed to read on the specific "conversion" process performed by the accused software? The resolution will depend on whether the term requires only a structural repackaging of the original data or a more substantive transformation.