DCT
1:19-cv-00147
Sound View Innovations LLC v. CW Network LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sound View Innovations, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The CW Network, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00147, D. Del., 01/25/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and video streaming services infringe patents related to modular data processing and the use of content delivery networks for streaming multimedia.
- Technical Context: The technologies concern foundational methods for web application architecture, specifically Document Object Model (DOM) manipulation, and for modern video distribution via Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent four notice letters to Defendant regarding the patents-in-suit between March 2017 and October 2018, which Defendant allegedly did not answer; these allegations form the basis for a willfulness claim. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 underwent an Inter Partes Review (IPR), resulting in the cancellation of several claims, including claim 14, the only claim from that patent asserted in the complaint. U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 underwent an ex parte reexamination, which confirmed the patentability of asserted claim 16.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-10-17 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 |
| 1998-09-08 | U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 Issued |
| 1999-12-06 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 |
| 2004-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 Issued |
| 2017-03-31 | Plaintiff allegedly sent first notice letter to Defendant ('213 patent) |
| 2018-01-18 | Plaintiff allegedly sent second notice letter ('213 & '062 patents) |
| 2018-06-11 | Plaintiff allegedly sent third notice letter ('213 patent) |
| 2018-10-17 | Plaintiff allegedly sent fourth notice letter ('213 patent) |
| 2019-01-25 | Complaint Filed |
| 2022-02-25 | IPR Certificate issued for '062 Patent, cancelling asserted claim 14 |
| 2023-11-13 | Reexamination Certificate issued for '213 Patent, confirming asserted claim 16 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 - "Data Analysis System Using Virtual Databases"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art data analysis systems as being inflexible "closed systems" where software tools, or "operators," were designed for single, specific applications. It notes there was no convenient way to combine different operators to create new applications or to interface with external programs (Compl. ¶¶16-17; ’062 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular data processing architecture using reusable software operators (e.g., initial, query, terminal operators) that communicate via a standardized data format called a "virtual database." This "plug-compatible" design allows a user to create a custom data analysis "pipeline" by combining various operators to achieve a desired outcome, with the output of one operator serving as the input for the next (’062 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-61; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach offered greater flexibility and reusability compared to the monolithic, purpose-built software applications that were prevalent at the time (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶46).
- Essential elements of claim 14:
- A method for processing information comprising the steps of:
- providing a plurality of software operators each configured to receive a virtual database having a first schema, for processing information contained in said virtual database, and for outputting a virtual database having said first schema; and
- combining at least two of said software operators to create an application.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶45).
U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 - "Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, streaming multimedia directly from a content provider to clients over the internet suffered from significant drawbacks, including high server load that increased with each new user, network congestion, and high start-up latency for the end-user. Existing web caching systems were not designed for large, time-sensitive media files (Compl. ¶¶24-25; ’213 Patent, col. 1:53-2:54).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system of "helper servers" (HSs) distributed within a network that act as intelligent caching and streaming agents. These helper servers reduce the burden on the origin server by storing portions of streaming media (SM) objects closer to users. The invention describes methods for request aggregation, buffer management, and data rate control to deliver streams more efficiently and reduce latency (’213 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-11; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This architecture laid a conceptual groundwork for modern Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), which improve streaming quality and scalability by decentralizing content distribution (Compl. ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶¶70-73).
- Essential elements of claim 16:
- A method of reducing latency in a network having a content server, helpers (HSs), and clients, comprising:
- allocating a buffer at one of the HSs to cache at least a portion of a requested SM object;
- downloading said portion of the SM object to the requesting client, while concurrently retrieving a remaining portion of the SM object from one of another HS and said content server; and
- adjusting a data transfer rate at the HS for transferring data to the client.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two sets of accused services:
- "The CW DOM Services," which refers to The CW's platforms, web pages, and servers, including cwtv.com, accused of infringing the ’062 Patent (Compl. ¶40).
- "The CW '213 Services," which refers to the streaming services on cwtv.com, accused of infringing the ’213 Patent (Compl. ¶51).
Functionality and Market Context
- For the ’062 patent, the complaint alleges that The CW’s website uses the Document Object Model (DOM) API to structure its web pages and the jQuery library to manipulate that structure. The complaint posits that jQuery methods (e.g.,
.addClass(),.hide()) are the claimed "software operators" and the DOM is the claimed "virtual database" (Compl. ¶¶40, 43, 46). - For the ’213 patent, the complaint alleges that The CW uses Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) provided by Akamai, Level 3, and Limelight to deliver its streaming video content. These CDNs are alleged to function as the claimed "helper servers." The CW is alleged to direct and control these CDNs to perform the claimed method steps, including caching video segments in buffers at edge servers, pre-fetching content, and performing adaptive bitrate streaming to adjust for network conditions (Compl. ¶¶50-51, 55, 61).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
5,806,062 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 ".addClass( )," ".removeClass( )," ".hide( )," etc. | ¶46a | col. 4:50-56 |
| ...each configured to receive a virtual database having a first schema, for processing information contained in said virtual database... | The jQuery methods are allegedly configured to receive DOM nodes or web pages (the "virtual database") with an HTML or XML "schema." | ¶46a | col. 3:24-29 |
| ...and for outputting a virtual database having said first schema; and | Applying a jQuery method to a DOM node processes it and results in a modified DOM that retains the same underlying HTML/XML schema. | ¶46a | col. 4:54-56 |
| combining at least two of said software operators to create an application | Combining jQuery methods to build and operate the functionality of The CW's website ("The CW DOM Services"). | ¶46b | col. 2:8-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether a "virtual database," as described in the ’062 Patent with its specific structure of sections, records, and fields processed in a pipeline, can be construed to read on the dynamic, in-memory, and hierarchical Document Object Model (DOM) of a web page.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may question whether the event-driven, often non-linear execution of JavaScript functions (like those in jQuery) on a client's browser constitutes "combining... operators to create an application" in the sequential, data-flow manner depicted in the ’062 Patent (e.g., Fig. 1).
6,708,213 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| allocating a buffer at one of said plurality of HSs to cache at least a portion of said requested SM object | The CW allegedly directs its CDN partners (e.g., Akamai) to allocate local buffers on edge servers to store portions of a video stream as HLS or MPEG-DASH segments. | ¶71b | col. 5:55-59 |
| downloading said portion of said requested SM object to said requesting client, while concurrently retrieving a remaining portion of said requested SM object from one of another HS and said content server | An edge server allegedly sends cached video segments to a user while simultaneously pre-fetching subsequent segments from a datacenter cache or another server ("pre-fetching"). | ¶71c | col. 8:50-60 |
| and adjusting a data transfer rate at said one of said plurality of HSs for transferring data from said one of said plurality of helper servers to said one of said plurality of clients | The CDN allegedly provides alternate video segments encoded at different bitrates to adapt to the client's current network bandwidth, thereby adjusting the data rate. | ¶71d | col. 8:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Legal Questions: A central issue will be one of joint infringement. The complaint alleges that The CW "directs and/or controls" the actions of third-party CDNs (Compl. ¶¶71-73). The court will have to determine if The CW's actions, such as contracting with and configuring the CDNs, meet the legal standard for direction or control sufficient to hold The CW liable for all steps of the claimed method.
- Scope Questions: Claim 16 requires "concurrently retrieving a remaining portion... from one of another HS and said content server." The use of the conjunction "and" raises the question of whether infringement requires simultaneous retrieval from two distinct upstream sources (another HS plus the origin server), or if retrieval from either source suffices. The complaint's phrasing, "...from one of another HS and said content server," may suggest a disjunctive interpretation that could be at odds with the claim language (Compl. ¶71c).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’062 Patent: "virtual database"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’062 patent depends entirely on whether the accused Document Object Model (DOM) falls within the scope of this term. Its construction is dispositive for this patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a virtual database broadly as "a sequence of characters organized into one or more sections" where each section has an "associated schema" (’062 Patent, col. 3:24-29). This general language could be argued to encompass any structured data representation, including a DOM.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently depict the virtual database as a flat, record-oriented data structure passed between operators in a processing pipeline (’062 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 7). This could support a narrower construction that excludes the dynamic, hierarchical, and in-memory nature of a DOM.
Term from the ’213 Patent: "concurrently retrieving... from one of another HS and said content server"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific, complex data-retrieval action. The interpretation of "and" is critical, as it dictates the number and type of simultaneous data streams required to meet the claim element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that, in the context of a distributed system, "and" should be interpreted functionally to mean retrieving from the set of available upstream sources, which includes other HSs and the content server, without mandating two simultaneous streams. The specification's goal is to retrieve missing data, and it discusses various sources, including other HSs and the content server, from which an HS can fetch data ('213 Patent, col. 5:48-53).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue for the plain conjunctive meaning of "and," requiring that to infringe, an HS must be downloading to a client while simultaneously receiving data from both another HS and the content server. The claim explicitly lists both sources connected by "and," suggesting two distinct sources are part of the required action.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that The CW induces infringement of the ’213 patent. The basis for this allegation is that The CW knowingly and intentionally causes its CDN partners to perform the claimed method by contracting with them, configuring their services, and creating documentation for "The CW '213 Services" (Compl. ¶¶75-76).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’213 patent, asserting that The CW had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement based on a series of unanswered notice letters beginning in March 2017 (Compl. ¶¶29-37, 81-82).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key legal question will be one of direction or control: Given that the allegedly infringing actions for the '213 Patent are performed by third-party CDN providers, the case will likely turn on whether Sound View can prove that The CW’s contractual terms and use of CDN configuration tools are sufficient to establish that it directs or controls the CDNs' performance of every step of the asserted claims.
- A critical claim construction question for the '213 Patent will be one of conjunctive scope: Can the limitation "retrieving... from one of another HS and said content server" be satisfied by retrieval from one or the other source, or does the plain language of the claim require simultaneous data streams from two distinct upstream sources (another helper server plus the origin server)?
- An underlying issue for the '062 Patent was one of definitional scope: The core of that dispute centered on whether the term "virtual database", rooted in a file-based data pipeline context, could be construed to cover the dynamic, in-memory Document Object Model of a web application. The post-filing cancellation of the asserted claim in an IPR proceeding has rendered this dispute largely moot for this litigation.