DDC Research Tech LLC v. Leawo Software Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DDC Research Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Leawo Software Co., Ltd (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01050, D. Del., 07/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation and does not reside in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “Leawo DVD Ripper” software infringes a patent related to methods for converting multi-file DVD-video data into a single, structured data entity.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the conversion of video file formats, specifically making the complex, multi-file structure of a DVD accessible as a single, downloadable file while preserving navigational data, a key challenge in the transition from physical media to digital distribution.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events 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's background section describes the difficulty of distributing traditional DVD content over the internet. The standard DVD format, with its multiple files and directory structure, is described as "not very well suited for a comfort download" (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 2:60-62). Conversely, simply downloading a raw video stream would require the user to have special software to reformat the data to be compatible with a standard DVD player (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 1:56-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to convert the multi-file DVD structure into a single, self-contained data entity, such as an MPEG-4 file. This new file "regenerates" the original media files, preserving the separation between media "payload blocks" (the actual video/audio) and "control blocks" (navigational data, menus, etc.) (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 3:20-31). Critically, the invention generates a "payload data schedule" within this single file, which contains information pointing to the start of each payload block. This schedule allows a simple player to skip the control blocks and play the content directly, while a more advanced player can use the embedded control blocks to reconstruct the full, interactive DVD experience (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, Abstract; col. 4:10-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to merge the benefits of physical media (rich content like menus and subtitles) with the convenience of digital distribution (a single, easily downloadable file), by embedding DVD-like structures within a modern container format like MPEG-4 (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 18:47-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An apparatus for converting a first representation (e.g., a multi-file DVD) into a second representation (e.g., a single MPEG-4 file).
  • The first representation contains media file payload blocks separated by media file control blocks.
  • The apparatus includes a "data entity builder" that generates the second representation.
  • The builder "regenerates" the media files so that a control block is located between two payload blocks in the new file.
  • The builder also generates a "payload data schedule" that indicates the start of each regenerated payload block.
  • The conversion is specifically from a media content stored on a DVD to an MPEG-4 conforming data entity.
  • The payload data schedule is included in an "moov" atom of the MPEG-4 file.
  • The regenerated media file is included in an "mdat" atom of the MPEG-4 file.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Leawo DVD Ripper" software (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused 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).
• It is alleged to take a DVD ("first representation") and generate a single MPEG-4 file ("second representation") (Compl. ¶17).
• The complaint further alleges that this process creates a "payload data schedule" containing track identifiers and timescale information, places this schedule within a "moov atom," and places the media data within an "mdat atom" in the resulting MPEG-4 file (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
• The complaint alleges Defendant markets and sells the product in the United States via "interactive web pages with promotional material" (Compl. ¶7).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'733 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether standard components of the MPEG-4 file format, such as the "moov" and "mdat" atoms and their internal indexing tables, can be considered to be the specific "payload data schedule" and "regenerated... control block" structures as taught by the patent. The patent teaches these elements in the specific context of preserving and navigating a converted DVD structure.
• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the "Leawo DVD Ripper" actually generates an output file with the specific structure required by the claims. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the output file contains a "regenerated media file control block" that is distinct from the "regenerated media file payload blocks," and that this control block corresponds to control information from the source DVD, as opposed to being generic metadata native to the MPEG-4 format?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "payload data schedule"

Context and Importance

This term is central to the invention's method for enabling playback of the converted file. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the data structure generated by the Accused Product (alleged to be "track identifiers and timescale") meets the definition of a "payload data schedule." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether standard MPEG-4 index atoms fall within the scope of the claim.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the schedule has "schedule information indicating... a start of payload information" (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 22:1-3). The specification also refers to this information in general terms, such as "relative or absolut[e] addresses of storage media" (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 8:8-9), which could support a broader reading.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the schedule's function to navigating a file that mimics a DVD's structure. It is used so a decoder "skips the regenerated media file control part" (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 4:15-17). This suggests the schedule's purpose is not merely to index data, but specifically to index payload blocks for the purpose of avoiding interspersed control blocks derived from a DVD source.

The Term: "regenerated media file control block"

Context and Importance

The claim requires this specific block to be located "between two regenerated media file payload blocks." Proving infringement requires identifying such a block in the accused file and distinguishing it from the payload.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines this block as "including control information for associated media file payload blocks" (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 3:25-27), a potentially broad functional definition.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples that are rooted in the DVD format, such as the "VTS_01_0.VOB control block" shown in FIG. 13 (U.S. Patent No. 8,320,733, col. 19:8-9). The use of the word "regenerated" implies that the block in the new file must correspond in some way to a control block from the original DVD source, rather than being a generic metadata block native to the MPEG-4 format.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement. The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant "sells, offers to sell and advertises the Accused Product through websites or digital distribution platforms that are available in the United States, specifically intending that its customers use it" (Compl. ¶26). This alleges that end-users are the direct infringers and that Defendant provides the tool and intends for it to be used in an infringing manner.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of "willful infringement." It does allege that Defendant has had "knowledge of infringement of the '733 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶25), which may support a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge or willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the MPEG-4 file generated by the Accused Product contain data structures that map directly onto the patent's claimed elements? Specifically, the case will likely turn on whether the accused file contains a "regenerated media file control block" that is functionally and structurally distinct from the "payload blocks," and whether its indexing data constitutes the claimed "payload data schedule" for skipping those specific control blocks.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "payload data schedule," which is taught in the patent as a solution for navigating a converted DVD structure, be construed to cover standard indexing atoms within the MPEG-4 file format? The outcome of this claim construction issue will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.