Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems LLC v. EPIX Entertainment LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Epix Entertainment LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01156, D. Del., 08/02/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware company and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media content storage and delivery system, which provides for offline viewing of movies and shows, infringes a patent related to storing broadcast content in a cloud-based environment.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for providing on-demand media content, specifically the architecture that enables users to select and store content on remote servers for later viewing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 - "System and Method for Storing Broadcast Content in a Cloud-based Computing Environment"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221, "System and Method for Storing Broadcast Content in a Cloud-based Computing Environment," issued October 7, 2014 (the "’221 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and high cost for media providers who must store all or substantially all of their broadcast shows on servers to support on-demand streaming, including content that consumers may have no interest in viewing (’221 Patent, col. 1:36-44). This cost is often passed on to consumers through inflexible, flat-rate subscription fees (’221 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can send a "storage request message" to a remote server, asking it to store specific media content that may not currently be on that server (’221 Patent, col. 5:21-30). The system's processor is configured to differentiate between this type of request and a "content request message," which is a request to stream or download content already stored on the server (’221 Patent, col. 10:56-61). This allows for on-demand provisioning of server storage space tailored to individual user requests, as depicted in the process flowchart of Figure 2 (’221 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described approach suggests a shift from a "store-everything" model to an on-demand, user-directed "cloud DVR" model, potentially reducing data storage costs for providers (’221 Patent, col. 2:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A first server comprising a first receiver and a first processor.
  • The receiver is configured to receive a request message that includes media data (indicating the content) and a consumer device identifier.
  • The processor determines if the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered device.
  • If registered, the processor determines if the request is a "storage request message" or a "content request message."
  • If it is a "storage request message," the processor determines if the content is "available for storage."
  • If it is a "content request message," the processor initiates delivery of the content to the consumer device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "EPIX system and service," including its "offline viewing functions" and associated back-end server infrastructure (the "Product") (Compl. ¶14-15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Product is a system for media content storage and delivery, allowing users to both stream content online and download content for offline viewing (Compl. ¶15). To enable the offline feature, the Product allegedly uses back-end servers to host and store the multimedia content (Compl. ¶15). A screenshot of a "Tech Times" article included in the complaint describes the feature as an "offline movie viewing capability" for mobile devices, offered to "subscribers of its cable or satellite packages" (Compl. p.5). The complaint alleges that access is limited based on a customer's subscription, requiring a device to be linked to a customer's account (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also includes a screenshot from the EPIX website showing options to "Watch Now" or "+ Add to Queue," which may relate to the accused online and offline functionalities (Compl. p.4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’221 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused EPIX "download" function for offline viewing constitutes a "storage request message" as defined by the patent. The patent appears to contemplate a user requesting that content not currently on the server be retrieved and stored (’221 Patent, col. 5:21-30), whereas the accused system may primarily offer downloads from a pre-existing library of content.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the EPIX processor can "differentiate" a storage request from a content request (Compl. ¶18). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system performs this specific two-path logical determination, as opposed to simply having two separate functions (streaming and downloading) that do not operate based on the specific logic claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "storage request message"

Context and Importance

• This term is critical because the claim's logic hinges on distinguishing a "storage request message" from a "content request message." The infringement case depends on mapping the accused system's "download for offline viewing" function onto this specific term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent seems to describe a request to provision storage for content, while the accused product appears to offer a direct download from an existing library.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a storage request message may simply have a "triggering flag" and "media data identifying the requested media content to be stored" (’221 Patent, col. 5:25-30), which could arguably encompass any user action that initiates a download for storage.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's process flowchart (Fig. 2) and description imply that a "storage request" (Step S106) initiates a process of verifying, downloading, and storing content that is not yet present on the server (Steps S114-S120), a distinct process from requesting already-stored content (Step S124). This could support a narrower definition that requires the request to be for content not yet available on the immediate server.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain separate counts or specific factual allegations for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant's operation of the EPIX system (Compl. ¶13-14).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not allege willful infringement or provide any facts to support a claim of pre- or post-suit knowledge of the ’221 Patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of "definitional scope": Can the term "storage request message", as described in a patent that contemplates a user-initiated process to provision server storage for specific content, be construed to read on the "download" button in the accused EPIX service, which may simply retrieve content from a pre-populated library?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of "functional operation": Does the accused EPIX system actually perform the two-pronged logical determination required by Claim 1—differentiating between a "storage request" and a "content request" to trigger distinct downstream processes—or does it merely offer two separate functionalities (streaming and downloading) that do not map onto the specific architecture claimed by the patent?