DCT

1:19-cv-00146

Sound View Innovations LLC v. CBS Interactive Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00146, D. Del., 01/25/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital media platforms, including its websites, streaming services, and underlying database and content delivery infrastructure, infringe five patents related to data processing, database management, and media streaming.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover foundational technologies for operating large-scale web services, from backend database versioning and real-time event processing to front-end methods for efficiently streaming media to end-users via content delivery networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit correspondence between the parties beginning on October 10, 2016. Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of infringement of several patents-in-suit and provided claim charts upon request. Defendant is alleged to have eventually responded that it did not require a license, which Plaintiff cites as a basis for its willful infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-10-17 ’062 Patent Priority Date
1997-08-19 ’371 Patent Priority Date
1998-09-08 ’062 Patent Issue Date
1999-03-25 ’133 Patent Priority Date
2000-03-29 ’213 Patent Priority Date
2000-05-15 ’796 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-26 ’371 Patent Issue Date
2002-12-31 ’133 Patent Issue Date
2004-03-16 ’213 Patent Issue Date
2004-06-29 ’796 Patent Issue Date
2016-10-10 Sound View sends letter to CBS notifying of infringement of the ’371, ’133, ’213 and ’796 patents
2017-02-01 Counsel for CBS responds, requesting claim charts
2017-04-04 Sound View provides claim charts for the ’213 and ’796 patents
2017-04-10 Sound View notifies Showtime of infringement of the ’213 and ’796 patents
2018-02-06 Counsel for CBS requests claim charts for the ’133 and ’371 patents
2018-02-20 Sound View provides claim charts for the ’062, ’371, and ’133 patents
2018-04-12 Counsel for CBS claims that CBS did not require a license
2019-01-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 - “Data Analysis System Using Virtual Databases”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062, “Data Analysis System Using Virtual Databases,” issued September 8, 1998 (’062 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior-art data analysis systems as "closed systems" in which software components ("operators") were designed for single applications and could not be conveniently combined to create new applications or communicate with external programs (Compl. ¶¶21-22; ’062 Patent, col. 1:43-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software architecture based on reusable, "plug-compatible" operators that process information in a standardized "virtual database" format (Compl. ¶23). A key feature is that "query operators" receive a virtual database as input and produce another virtual database with the same structure ("schema") as output, allowing them to be chained together to create customized data analysis applications (’062 Patent, col. 3:46-59; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enabled users to construct their own flexible, purpose-built data analysis applications, moving beyond the rigid and expensive custom software common at the time (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Claim 14 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • providing a plurality of software operators, each configured to receive a virtual database having a first schema, process information within it, and output a virtual database having the same first schema; and
    • combining at least two of the software operators to create an application.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,125,371 - “System and Method for Aging Versions of Data in a Main Memory Database”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,125,371, “System and Method for Aging Versions of Data in a Main Memory Database,” issued September 26, 2000 (’371 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In database management, "multi-versioning"—creating multiple versions of data records to reduce conflicts between simultaneous read and update transactions—was inefficient because it continuously consumed main memory with older, unneeded data versions without an effective way to reclaim that space (Compl. ¶31; ’371 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a time stamping controller, a versioning controller, and an "aging controller" (Compl. ¶32). The aging controller monitors "at least one measurable characteristic" of the memory and, in response to that characteristic and the data versions' timestamps, deletes prior versions to increase the database's memory capacity (’371 Patent, col. 2:55–68).
  • Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide the performance benefits of multi-versioning while conserving limited and expensive main memory resources, a critical challenge for in-memory databases (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶109, 110).
  • Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
    • a time stamping controller that assigns a time stamp to transactions;
    • a versioning controller that creates multiple versions of data records affected by update transactions; and
    • an aging controller that monitors a measurable characteristic of the memory and deletes prior versions of data records in response to the time stamp and the measurable characteristic, thereby increasing memory capacity.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,502,133 - “Real-Time Event Processing System with Analysis Engine Using Recovery Information”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,502,133, “Real-Time Event Processing System with Analysis Engine Using Recovery Information,” issued December 31, 2002 (’133 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a real-time event processing system that addresses the high cost and inflexibility of prior custom database systems (Compl. ¶¶38-40). The solution associates a real-time analysis engine with a main-memory database system, and stores recovery information in that memory system to facilitate a "roll-back to a recovery point after a failure" (Compl. ¶¶41-42).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶125).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's use of the Apache Storm framework to perform real-time stream processing for applications such as its web analytics platform (Compl. ¶¶116, 120, 122).

U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 - “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213, “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks,” issued March 16, 2004 (’213 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems in streaming media over networks, such as high start-up latency and unpredictable playback quality, which conventional caching systems for static web objects could not solve (Compl. ¶¶48-49). The invention provides a method for reducing latency using "helper servers" (e.g., Content Delivery Networks) with dynamic data transfer rate control to manage client requests for streaming media (Compl. ¶¶50-51).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 16 (Compl. ¶156).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's use of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) from providers such as Akamai, Fastly, Level 3, and Limelight to deliver on-demand streaming video to users (Compl. ¶¶133, 137).

U.S. Patent No. 6,757,796 - “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts Transmitted Over a Network”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,757,796, “Method and System for Caching Streaming Live Broadcasts Transmitted Over a Network,” issued June 29, 2004 (’796 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of start-up latency in live multimedia broadcasts, which prior multicast technology did not solve (Compl. ¶59). The solution uses helper servers that maintain a "playout history buffer"—a moving window of the last few seconds of the live stream—to service subsequent client requests directly from this buffer, thereby reducing start-up delay (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 27 (Compl. ¶185).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's live streaming services (e.g., CBS All Access, Showtime Anytime) that utilize CDNs to deliver live video streams to users (Compl. ¶173).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a broad range of Defendant's digital media infrastructure and services. This includes front-end web pages (cbs.com, sho.com), streaming services ("CBS All Access," "Showtime Anytime"), and the underlying backend technologies used to operate them (Compl. ¶¶86, 96, 116, 133).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities encompass the full stack of technologies for modern media delivery. For the ’062 Patent, the complaint targets the use of jQuery to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM) on Defendant's websites (Compl. ¶¶89-90, 92). For the ’371 Patent, it targets the use of backend databases, specifically Cassandra and HBase, which are alleged to use timestamping, multi-versioning, and compaction processes to manage data (Compl. ¶¶96-104). For the ’133 Patent, the accused functionality is the use of the Apache Storm framework for real-time processing of event streams, such as in web analytics (Compl. ¶¶116-117, 120). Finally, for the ’213 and ’796 Patents, the complaint focuses on Defendant's use of third-party Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) from Akamai, Fastly, Level 3, and Limelight to deliver both on-demand and live streaming video to its users (Compl. ¶¶133, 173-174). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’062 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a plurality of software operators Providing jQuery methods, such as ".removeClass( )," ".addClass( )," and ".find( )". ¶92.a col. 2:5-9
each configured to receive a virtual database... having a first schema Each jQuery method receives DOM nodes or web pages, which are described as a virtual database having an HTML or XML schema. ¶92.a col. 3:6-14
for processing information contained in said virtual database... and for outputting a virtual database having said first schema A jQuery method is applied to a node in the DOM tree, and the output is a modified DOM tree that retains the same HTML/XML schema. ¶92.a col. 3:52-54
combining at least two of said software operators to create an application The combination of jQuery methods used to construct and serve the CBS web pages. ¶92.b col. 2:18-22

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the term "virtual database," which the patent describes in the context of analyzing C program source code files, can be construed to read on the Document Object Model (DOM) of a modern webpage. Further, a question arises as to whether client-side JavaScript library functions (jQuery) constitute "software operators" that are "combined" to create an application in the manner contemplated by the patent's architecture, which appears to describe chaining operators via pipelines (’062 Patent, Fig. 1).

’371 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a time stamping controller that assigns a time stamp to transactions to be performed on said database CBS's Cassandra and HBase databases assign a timestamp to each write transaction. ¶¶109.a, 110.a col. 2:65-68
a versioning controller that creates multiple versions of ones of said data records affected by said transactions that are update transactions Cassandra creates a new timestamped version of an updated row; HBase creates a new version of a cell upon a "put" operation. ¶¶109.b, 110.b col. 3:1-3
an aging controller that monitors a measurable characteristic of said memory Cassandra's compaction process is triggered by min_threshold or max_threshold parameters. HBase's compaction is triggered by parameters like MaxVersions, store file number, size, or ratio. ¶¶109.c, 110.c col. 3:6-10
and deletes ones of said multiple versions of said ones of said data records in response to said time stamp and said measurable characteristic thereby to increase a capacity of said memory The compaction process in Cassandra and HBase deletes older or excess versions of data based on the triggering parameter and timestamps, thereby reclaiming storage space. ¶¶109.c, 110.c col. 3:10-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused database parameters (e.g., Cassandra's min_threshold, a file count, or HBase's MaxVersions, a version count) meet the claim limitation of a "measurable characteristic of said memory." The complaint itself notes that in the patent's context, this refers to "a current utilization or capacity of memory" (Compl. ¶28), raising the question of whether the accused parameters, which are configuration settings rather than direct measurements of memory usage, satisfy this element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "virtual database" (’062 Patent, Claim 14)

Context and Importance

The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’062 Patent hinges on construing the Document Object Model (DOM) of a webpage as a "virtual database." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a patent conceived for source code analysis can apply to modern web development technologies.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general definition of a virtual database as "a sequence of characters organized into one or more sections" where each section has an associated schema describing the format of its records and fields (’062 Patent, col. 3:6-14). This language could support an interpretation broad enough to cover a structured document like an HTML file as represented by the DOM.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background, summary, and detailed embodiments all focus on the specific problem of analyzing computer programs, particularly C source code (’062 Patent, col. 1:14-23; col. 5:35-43). The figures and examples exclusively show the processing of C code into an entity-relationship format. This context suggests the possibility that the term is limited to the specific file-based, entity-relationship data structures used for source code analysis.

The Term: "measurable characteristic of said memory" (’371 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is critical for the "aging controller" limitation. The infringement allegations identify database configuration parameters (e.g., file counts, version limits) as the "measurable characteristic," and the case may depend on whether these parameters fall within the claim's scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the term to a single definition. The complaint alleges the patent inventors contemplated a broad scope, including "a current utilization or capacity of memory, a trend analysis... or any other applied mathematics- or statistics-based analysis" (Compl. ¶28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section repeatedly frames the problem being solved in terms of conserving "main memory capacity" and avoiding the expenditure of resources regardless of "main memory utilization" (’371 Patent, col. 2:38-52). This context may support a narrower construction where the "characteristic" must be a direct or indirect measure of memory usage itself, not an abstract configuration parameter like the number of files or versions to retain.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that CBS induces infringement of the ’213 and ’796 patents by its CDN partners (Akamai, Fastly, etc.) (Compl. ¶¶161, 189). The allegations for intent and knowledge are based on CBS's contractual relationships with the CDNs, its use of CDN configuration tools (e.g., Akamai's Luna Control Center) to direct their operations, and pre-suit correspondence from Sound View notifying CBS of the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶139, 140, 162, 190). The complaint also pleads direct infringement for these patents under a theory of direction and control (Compl. ¶¶156, 184).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for the ’371, ’133, ’213, and ’796 patents (Compl. ¶¶113, 128, 169, 197). The allegations are grounded in Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge, based on a detailed timeline of correspondence beginning October 10, 2016, in which Plaintiff allegedly identified the patents and provided claim charts, and Defendant allegedly continued its conduct after being notified (Compl. ¶¶62-83).

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

Definitional Scope

A core issue will be whether claim terms rooted in the context of older, specific technologies can be construed to cover modern, general-purpose systems. Can the ’062 Patent’s "virtual database," described for analyzing source code, encompass a webpage's DOM? Can the ’371 Patent’s "measurable characteristic of memory," described for managing main-memory capacity, read on abstract database configuration settings like file or version counts?

Direct vs. Induced Infringement

For the streaming patents (’213 and ’796), a central question will be the nature of CBS's control over its CDN vendors. The case will likely require a deep factual inquiry into whether CBS's contracts and use of configuration tools rise to the level of "direction or control" sufficient for direct infringement, or if its conduct is more appropriately analyzed under the lens of induced infringement.

Evidentiary Basis for Willfulness

Given the extensive pre-suit correspondence detailed in the complaint, a key battleground will be the sufficiency of that notice to establish willful infringement. The focus will likely be on the content of the notices and claim charts provided, and whether they gave CBS knowledge of an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.