Oritz & Associates Consulting LLC v. Panasonic Corp Of North America

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Panasonic Corporation of North America (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Wawrzyn LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01921, D. Del., 10/09/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a Delaware corporation, conducts continuous and systematic business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "mirroring feature" in Defendant’s Viera line of televisions infringes a patent related to methods for brokering video data between a handheld wireless device and a separate data rendering device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for discovering and securely transmitting content from a mobile device to a nearby display, such as a television or projector, over a wireless network.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims a very early priority date from a 2000 provisional application, predating many modern screen-mirroring standards. The patent was issued subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299 - "Systems, Methods and Apparatuses for Brokering Data Between Wireless Devices, Servers and Data Rendering Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,147,299, “Systems, Methods and Apparatuses for Brokering Data Between Wireless Devices, Servers and Data Rendering Devices,” issued September 29, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem from the year 2000, where users of early wireless devices had limited or nonexistent options for rendering data like documents and video on larger, more capable devices like printers or monitors ('299 Patent, col. 4:18-29). Users were restricted by small device screens and "inconveniently located rendering" resources ('299 Patent, col. 4:26-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a wireless device (WD) sends a request, including its own location, to a "wireless data communication network" to find a nearby data rendering device (DRD) like a video monitor ('299 Patent, col. 13:7-13). The network identifies an available DRD and provides its location information back to the WD. The user can then select the DRD and, after an authorization step, the system facilitates the transfer and rendering of video data on the chosen device ('299 Patent, col. 13:22-34; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to provide "information on the go" by bridging the operational gap between nascent handheld devices and fixed, networked hardware before the widespread adoption of modern, integrated casting protocols ('299 Patent, col. 4:31-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('299 Patent, col. 13:1-34).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method of brokering video data between handheld wireless devices and data rendering devices (e.g., video monitors).
  • Receiving a request from a wireless device (WD) in a wireless data communication network to locate a data rendering device (DRD), with the request including the WD's location information.
  • The network identifying the physical location, operational readiness, and rendering capabilities of a DRD based on the WD's location.
  • The network providing the WD with location information for an accessible DRD.
  • Receiving a selection of the DRD from the WD, along with an "authorization code" entered at a user interface on the WD or DRD.
  • Verifying the authorization code, which causes the DRD to retrieve and render the video data.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Panasonic televisions, specifically the "Viera line of televisions," which perform a "mirroring feature" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused "mirroring feature" enables a user to display, or "mirror," the screen of a wireless device (e.g., an Android smartphone) on a Viera television (Compl. ¶¶9.a, 13). The complaint alleges this functionality requires both the television and the smartphone to be connected to the same wireless network (Compl. ¶9.b). The user's phone then searches for and identifies the television on the network, and after the user accepts a connection request on the TV, the phone's display is rendered on the television screen (Compl. ¶¶9.c, 9.d, 13). The complaint identifies the Viera television as a "smart tv" that can access and use data networks (Compl. ¶9.b).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’299 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused feature operates over "data networks" (Compl. ¶9.b). A central question may be whether the claimed "wireless data communication network," which the patent describes as an active intermediary with servers ('299 Patent, Fig. 9), can be interpreted to cover a local Wi-Fi network where devices may discover each other directly.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "entry of authorization code." The complaint points to a "Yes/No" confirmation prompt on the television screen as the basis for this element (Compl. ¶9.d). This raises the question of whether a simple binary confirmation constitutes an "authorization code," especially when the patent specification provides examples such as "passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security" ('299 Patent, col. 5:22-24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wireless data communication network"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on whether a local Wi-Fi network, which facilitates communication between the accused phone and TV, satisfies this limitation. The patent's 2000 priority date means its specification is grounded in the context of emerging cellular data networks (e.g., GPRS) and centralized network resources like HLRs, not modern peer-to-peer discovery protocols.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term itself is not explicitly limited to a specific type of network (e.g., cellular). An argument could be made that any network facilitating wireless data transfer falls within its plain meaning.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the network as an active entity that includes servers (HLRs, VLRs) and performs functions like determining a user's location to find a nearby DRD ('299 Patent, col. 2:48-65; col. 7:4-13). Figure 9 explicitly depicts a "Server" receiving the request for a DRD location, suggesting the "network" is more than a passive data transport layer ('299 Patent, Fig. 9, element 91).
• The Term: "authorization code"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint equates it with a simple "Yes/No" approval prompt (Compl. ¶9.d). The patent's validity and the infringement analysis could depend on whether this interpretation is sustainable.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue that any user input that provides authorization, including selecting "Yes" on a user interface, effectively functions as a code to permit the subsequent action. The claim requires "entry... at a user interface," which a button press accomplishes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific examples, including "passwords/passcodes, biometrics and/or communications security (COMSEC)" ('299 Patent, col. 5:22-24). The patent flowcharts also depict a distinct step to "Enter Passcode at DRD" ('299 Patent, Fig. 8, element 83). This evidence may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, secret, or unique identifier rather than a generic confirmation.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "wireless data communication network," rooted in the patent's descriptions of server-centric cellular architectures from the early 2000s, be construed to cover the local Wi-Fi network on which the accused products allegedly operate?
• A dispositive claim construction question will be whether the accused system's "Yes/No" connection prompt constitutes the "entry of [an] authorization code" as required by Claim 1, or if the patent's intrinsic evidence limits that term to more specific inputs like a password or biometric data.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational architecture: does the accused "mirroring feature," which appears to rely on local device discovery, perform the specific, network-mediated sequence of locating and selection steps recited in Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical process?