Raindrops Licensing LLC v. Deezer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Raindrops Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Deezer Inc (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Global Law & IP, PC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01024, D. Del., 07/30/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s music streaming service infringes a patent related to methods for creating customized personal radio broadcasts by overlapping audio elements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns server-side methods for dynamically assembling personalized audio streams, such as mixing a DJ introduction over the beginning of a song for a seamless, customized internet radio experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,609,096 - System and method for overlapping audio elements in a customized personal radio broadcast

• Issued August 19, 2003 (’096 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of traditional radio, which broadcasts a single stream to all listeners, and early internet radio systems, which lacked the ability to create a truly customized audio program with carefully controlled variety based on individual user preferences, demographics, and listening history (’096 Patent, col. 1:21-34, 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for creating a personalized radio broadcast by pre-processing and combining separate audio elements. Specifically, it teaches dividing a first audio element (e.g., a song) into components (e.g., an intro, body, and tail), decompressing one component, decompressing a second audio element (e.g., a DJ introduction), digitally mixing them together, and then re-compressing the result into a new, combined audio element. This allows for effects like a DJ talking over the start of a song, tailored for each individual user (’096 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-15; Fig. 13).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a way to computationally create a listening experience that mimics the production value of traditional broadcast radio (e.g., DJ-led transitions) while delivering content uniquely personalized for each user simultaneously (’096 Patent, col. 2:12-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’096 Patent but does not specify them in the body of the complaint, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶11, ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method described in the patent's abstract.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • dividing a first audio element into a plurality of audio element components;
  • selecting one of said audio element components;
  • decompressing the selected audio element component;
  • selecting a second audio element;
  • decompressing the second audio element;
  • mixing the decompressed audio element component with the decompressed second audio element to form a mixed audio element component; and
  • compressing the mixed audio element component to form a compressed overlapping audio element component.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified as products from Defendant Deezer Inc (Compl. ¶11). Given the Defendant's business, this refers to the Deezer digital music streaming service and associated applications.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products that infringe the ’096 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused Deezer service. It makes only general allegations that the products "practice the technology claimed by the ’096 Patent" (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on Plaintiff's specific allegations is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's products, presumably the Deezer streaming service, directly infringe the ’096 Patent by performing the claimed methods for creating customized audio broadcasts (Compl. ¶11, ¶19). This infringement is alleged to occur literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11). The underlying technical theory, inferred from the patent's subject matter, is that the Deezer service combines or overlaps audio elements (e.g., cross-fading between tracks) in a manner that allegedly meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether modern audio streaming techniques, such as client-side cross-fading between full song files based on pre-set cue points, fall within the scope of the patent's claims, which describe a server-side process of dividing a file into "components" (e.g., HEAD, BODY, TAIL), mixing them with another file, and re-compressing the result into a new file (’096 Patent, col. 18:30-46).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence can Plaintiff provide that the accused Deezer service performs the specific sequence of decompressing, mixing, and re-compressing distinct audio files on a server to create a new, mixed audio element for streaming, as opposed to employing other known methods for transitioning between tracks? The complaint itself provides no such evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis. However, based on the technology and likely disputes, certain terms from Claim 1 will be critical.

The Term: "dividing a first audio element into a plurality of audio element components"

• Context and Importance: This term is the first step of the claimed method. Its interpretation will determine what types of audio processing are covered. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether modern techniques like setting a cross-fade duration or identifying a cue point in a digital file constitute "dividing" it into distinct "components" as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not specify how the division must occur, potentially supporting a construction that covers any form of digital segmentation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of this process, where a song is divided into a "HEAD," a "BODY," and a "TAIL" (’096 Patent, col. 18:30-34, Fig. 13). A defendant may argue this embodiment limits the scope of the term to this type of explicit, structural segmentation.

The Term: "mixing the decompressed audio element component with the decompressed second audio element"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core combination step. The dispute will likely center on whether a simple, automated cross-fade between two songs constitutes "mixing" in the sense taught by the patent, which emphasizes combining different types of content, like a DJ introduction with a song intro (’096 Patent, Abstract).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "mixing" is a general audio engineering term and could be argued to encompass any digital combination of two audio sources, including a fade.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention as a "customized personal radio broadcast" (’096 Patent, Title, Abstract). A defendant may argue that the term "mixing" should be construed in this context to require the combination of disparate content types (e.g., speech and music) to create a radio-style presentation, rather than just a transition between two similar pieces of music.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused products are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement (Compl. ¶15). The alleged basis for knowledge is post-suit, "at least since the date of the filing of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶13).

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

1. A Question of Technical Operation: The primary question will be evidentiary: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Deezer service, as it actually operates, performs the specific server-side method claimed in the ’096 Patent? The case will depend on whether Deezer's architecture involves dividing audio files into components, decompressing them, mixing them with other decompressed elements, and re-compressing the output into a new file for streaming.

2. A Question of Claim Scope: A dispositive legal issue will be claim construction. Can the patent's claim language, which describes dividing a file into "components" and "mixing" them, be interpreted broadly enough to read on modern streaming features like timed cross-fades between complete song files, or is its scope limited by the specification's more specific "DJ intro over song head" radio-style embodiments?