DCT
1:20-cv-00392
Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems LLC v. Deezer Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Deezer, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
- Case Identification: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Deezer, Inc., 1:20-cv-00392, D. Del., 05/19/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s music streaming platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for storing and delivering media content in a cloud-based environment.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the architecture of on-demand digital media services, specifically how they process user requests to either stream content immediately or store it for later access.
- Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement at least as of the service of the complaint, which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 Priority Date |
| 2014-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 Issue Date |
| 2020-05-19 | Complaint Filing Date (First Amended Complaint) |
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 (Issued Oct. 7, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in prior on-demand media systems. These include inflexible, flat-rate subscription models where users pay for storage of content they have no interest in, and separate flat-rate fees per video regardless of its length, potentially overcharging for shorter content (’221 Patent, col. 1:48-67). Another problem noted is the delay a consumer might face when requesting that a provider make a specific program available for streaming (’221 Patent, col. 2:3-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a server-based system that receives a request from a consumer device, authenticates the user, and then determines whether the user wants to store content or stream it (’221 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). If the request is for storage, the system can determine media characteristics (like runtime) and a length of time for storage to calculate a cost (’221 Patent, Fig. 4). If the request is for content delivery, the system locates the stored content and transmits it to the user (’221 Patent, col. 6:31-44). This architecture is designed to create a more tailored and usage-based media storage and delivery service (Compl. ¶19).
- Technical Importance: The claimed technical approach seeks to shift media delivery from a one-size-fits-all broadcast or subscription model to an on-demand system where costs and services are tailored to individual consumer requests for both storage and streaming (’221 Patent, col. 2:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶22, 24).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 7 are:
- Receiving a request message with media data (indicating requested content) and a consumer device identifier.
- Determining if the device identifier corresponds to a registered device.
- If registered, determining if the message is a "storage request message" or a "content request message."
- If it is a storage request, determining if the content is "available for storage."
- If it is a content request, initiating delivery of the content.
- The complaint notes the patent contains two independent claims (1 and 7) and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶11, 22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Deezer streaming platform, and any similar products" (the "Product") (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Deezer platform as a media content storage and delivery service (Compl. ¶24). Its relevant functionalities, as alleged, include allowing users to stream recorded music and to store media content, for example via a "cloud-based queue list" that makes a user's music selections and preferences accessible across multiple devices (Compl. ¶25; p. 6). One screenshot describes how a user's "queue list is now stored on the cloud, making it easier to enjoy non-stop music across all your connected devices" (Compl. p. 6). The platform also allegedly allows users to upload their own MP3s for cloud storage, subject to certain limits (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’221 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a request message including media data indicating requested media content and a consumer device identifier corresponding to the consumer device; | Deezer's servers receive requests from users to store or stream music; these requests inherently identify the requested content and the user account, which serves as the device/consumer identifier (e.g., via login credentials). A screenshot shows the Deezer login interface for user authentication (Compl. p. 8). | ¶26 | col. 10:46-51 |
| determining whether the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device; | Deezer's system necessarily determines if the user's credentials correspond to a registered user account before granting access to services. | ¶27 | col. 10:52-55 |
| if it is determined that the consumer device identifier corresponds to the registered consumer device, then: determining, whether the request message is one of a storage request message and a content request message; | After a successful login, Deezer's system determines if a user's request is for storage (e.g., uploading an MP3 or adding to a cloud queue) or for content delivery (e.g., streaming a track). A screenshot explains Deezer's feature for uploading personal MP3s (Compl. p. 10). | ¶28 | col. 11:4-8 |
| if the request message is the storage request message, then determining whether the requested media content is available for storage; | The Product verifies if content can be stored by, for example, checking if a user is below their account's storage limit (e.g., a 2,000 MP3 track limit) or has the correct subscription level. A screenshot details these "Uploading limits" (Compl. p. 10). | ¶29 | col. 11:9-11 |
| if the request message is the content request message, then initiating delivery of the requested media content to the consumer device; | If a user requests to play a track, the Deezer platform initiates delivery of that music content to the user's device for streaming. A screenshot highlights premium features including "Any track, anytime" and "Offline listening" (Compl. p. 13). | ¶30 | col. 11:12-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "storage request message." The complaint appears to equate adding a song to a cloud-based queue or uploading an MP3 with the patent’s "storage request." The court may need to determine if this routine streaming feature qualifies as the specific type of request contemplated by the patent, which describes storing content for a defined "length of time" (col. 11:1-3).
- Technical Questions: The analysis of whether content is "available for storage" raises a technical question. The complaint alleges this is met by checking user-specific account limits (e.g., subscription tier, number of uploaded tracks) (Compl. ¶29). A question for the court is whether this claim limitation requires a check on the user's account status, or rather a check on the content's availability to the service provider itself, as suggested by the patent's description of downloading content from a broadcast server (col. 5:62-67).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "storage request message"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory relies on differentiating between requests to "store" and requests to "stream." The viability of the infringement case for modern streaming services may depend on whether routine actions like adding a song to a cloud-based playlist can be construed as a formal "storage request message."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to strictly limit the form of the request, stating it "may include media data indicating the consumer device is requesting that remote server 16 store specific media content for an amount of time" (col. 5:26-29). This could be argued to encompass any user action that results in content being persistently associated with a user's account in the cloud.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links a storage request to a "length of time" and a potential "cost amount" based on that time and the content's characteristics (col. 8:1-4; col. 8:21-25). This may support a narrower construction requiring a request for timed, paid storage, rather than simply adding to a permanent queue list.
The Term: "available for storage"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory maps this limitation to the accused product checking user-specific storage quotas or subscription rights (Compl. ¶29). Whether this interpretation is correct will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean availability of the content to the service, rather than availability of storage space to the user, the infringement read may be challenged.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1, an independent claim with similar limitations, includes determining "whether there are restrictions associated with the requested media content" (col. 11:8-10). This could be argued to include user-level restrictions like subscription status.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where the server "verifies the requested media content is available based at least in part on the media content characteristics" and then may "download the verified media content" from a broadcast server (col. 5:53-67). This context suggests "available for storage" relates to the server’s ability to acquire the content itself, not the user's permission to store it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement and focuses its allegations on Defendant's direct infringement through its systems and services (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "knowledge of its infringement of the `221 Patent, at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's structured concepts of a "storage request message" and a "content request message" be construed to read on the integrated functions of a modern music streaming platform, where adding a song to a cloud-based queue is an integral part of the streaming experience itself?
- A second key issue will be one of technical interpretation: does the claim limitation "determining whether the requested media content is available for storage" refer to the service checking its own ability to source the content, as some embodiments suggest, or does it refer to checking a user’s account-level permissions and storage quotas, as the complaint alleges? The answer will likely dictate the outcome of the infringement analysis for that element.