DCT

1:22-cv-01193

Mediacom Communications Corp v. CDN Innovations LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01193, D. Del., 09/09/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Mediacom alleges venue is proper because Defendant CDN Innovations is subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware as a result of its patent enforcement campaign targeting Delaware corporations, including Mediacom, and has retained a Delaware law firm for its assertion activities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its internet and cable services do not infringe eight of Defendant’s patents and/or that the asserted claims of those patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents relate to a range of technologies in digital media and networking, including dynamic content formatting for displays, voice recognition for device control, digital rights management for web browsers, video signal processing for user mosaics, and network router security.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was initiated by Mediacom in response to an August 1, 2022 demand letter from CDN’s counsel alleging infringement. The complaint notes that CDN has filed suits against at least nine other entities asserting some of the same patents and alleges CDN acquired the patents from Intellectual Ventures as part of a broader, coordinated assertion campaign.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-08 Earliest Priority Date (’831, ’157, ’227 Patents)
2000-03-28 Earliest Priority Date (’180 Patent)
2000-09-19 Earliest Priority Date (’532 Patent)
2001-02-16 Earliest Priority Date (’714 Patent)
2001-10-30 ’180 Patent Issued
2003-07-18 Earliest Priority Date (’291, ’699 Patents)
2005-03-08 ’532 Patent Issued
2006-10-31 ’831 Patent Issued
2007-01-16 ’714 Patent Issued
2007-05-29 ’157 Patent Issued
2007-11-06 ’291 Patent Issued
2009-07-21 ’699 Patent Issued
2011-09-20 ’227 Patent Issued
2022-08-01 CDN sends demand letter to Mediacom
2022-09-09 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,311,180 - "Method for Mapping and Formatting Information for a Display Device," issued October 30, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the "conformal problem," which is the difficulty of displaying a single source document, like a webpage, effectively on a wide array of different display devices (e.g., desktops, cell phones, PDAs) with varying screen sizes, resolutions, and capabilities (Compl. Ex. B, ’180 Patent, col. 1:41-52). It also identifies the "localizing" problem of adapting content to a user's specific language or viewing preferences (’180 Patent, col. 3:7-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to dynamically generate a display document that conforms to a specific device and user. The method involves recognizing the target display’s limitations (e.g., screen size, available fonts) and the user’s preferences (e.g., language), and then using a "mapping system" to select and arrange content from a source to fit those specific constraints (’180 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to solve a core challenge of the early mobile internet by enabling content to adapt on-the-fly to the proliferation of diverse, non-standardized display devices entering the market (’180 Patent, col. 1:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement and invalidity of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46, ¶51).
  • Claim 1 recites a method for dynamically creating a display document based on display limitations and user viewing preferences, comprising the steps of:
    • providing one or more source contents in a predetermined format;
    • recognizing the display limitations of the display device from a first information source;
    • determining the viewing preferences of the user from a second information source;
    • selecting one or more preferred display contents from the source contents by a mapping system in conformance with the display limitations and the viewing preferences; and
    • generating the display document containing the preferred display contents to be displayed on the display device.

U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 - "Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars," issued March 8, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of correctly recognizing spoken numbers, such as telephone numbers or long security codes, in voice-operated devices, a problem exacerbated by user error and limitations of speech recognition technology (’532 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for creating unique, spoken identifiers that are more memorable and robust against recognition errors. It defines a phrase with a fixed grammatical structure composed of multiple "word slots" (e.g., number-adjective-noun). Each slot is associated with a set of unique words (e.g., "three," "green," "dogs"). An identifier is generated by selecting one word from each set, creating a phrase that is easier to recognize correctly than a long string of digits (’532 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:50-62).
  • Technical Importance: The method provided a more error-tolerant and user-friendly approach for voice-based addressing and identification in communication devices, moving beyond simple digit recognition (’532 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement and invalidity of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58, ¶63).
  • Claim 1 recites a method for selecting and recognizing spoken identifiers, comprising:
    • defining a phrase having a plurality of word slots arranged in a predetermined order and grammatical structure;
    • associating a set of unique words with each word slot; and
    • generating a plurality of unique identifiers by selecting one word from each set for each word slot for each identifier such that a concatenating of the selected words in the predetermined order form the unique identifier.

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,831 - "Limited-use browser and security system," issued October 31, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a digital rights management (DRM) method for web content. It involves a content source downloading "authorization information" to a user's computer, which configures the web browser to disable certain functions (e.g., saving, printing) that affect the downloaded content (’831 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom instrumentalities that control access to information presented on a web browser (Compl. ¶71).

U.S. Patent No. 7,225,157 - "Limited-use browser and security system," issued May 29, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the DRM theme of the ’831 patent, this patent claims a method for receiving compensation for distributing protected content. The method involves providing the user with a web browser configured to disable "non-ephemeral reproduction functions" (e.g., saving to disk) and preventing such reproduction until compensation is received (’157 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom instrumentalities that control access to information presented on a web browser (Compl. ¶82).

U.S. Patent No. 8,024,227 - "Limited-use browser and security system," issued September 20, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system-level implementation of the DRM concepts from the ’831 and ’157 patents. It recites a system with "means for configuring a content viewer to disable non-ephemeral presentation or reproduction," "means for validating consideration," and "means for securely providing the protected material" (’227 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom instrumentalities that control access to information presented on a web browser (Compl. ¶93).

U.S. Patent No. 7,164,714 - "Video transmission and processing system for generating a user mosaic," issued January 16, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a digital signal for creating a television program guide, or mosaic. The signal comprises a plurality of primary video signals (e.g., full-resolution MPEG-2 streams) and corresponding secondary video signals obtained by sub-sampling the primary signals (e.g., MPEG-4 thumbnails). A descriptor links each secondary signal to its corresponding primary signal, enabling the efficient construction of a guide (’714 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom’s "television guidance systems" (Compl. ¶104).

U.S. Patent No. 7,293,291 - "System and method for detecting computer port inactivity," issued November 6, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a security feature for a network router. The router includes detection logic to identify when an end-user computer is inactive and blocking logic to then disable communications from the wide area network (e.g., the internet) to that inactive computer. This is intended to protect "always-on" connections from being hijacked (’291 Patent, Abstract). The logic is claimed as being embedded in an "auto-sensing Ethernet port."
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom products with a "Port Triggering feature" (Compl. ¶114).

U.S. Patent No. 7,565,699 - "System and method for detecting computer port inactivity," issued July 21, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’291 patent, this patent claims a router that detects inactivity on a local connection and responds by blocking incoming data from the wide area network. The claim specifies that the detection and blocking logic are "embedded within a port of the router" (’699 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: Mediacom products with a "Port Triggering feature" (Compl. ¶124).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Mediacom’s "internet and cable services" and associated products (Compl. ¶8). Specific products or features mentioned include Mediacom's "display documents" (Compl. ¶47), the "Xtreme Voice Remote" (Compl. ¶59), "instrumentalities that control access to information presented on a web browser" (Compl. ¶71, ¶82, ¶93), "television guidance systems" (Compl. ¶104), and routers with a "Port Triggering feature" (Compl. ¶114, ¶124).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Mediacom is a communications and media company that provides broadband, video, and mobile services to customers (Compl. ¶4). The accused functionalities represent core aspects of modern digital media delivery: adapting content for various screens, providing voice control for media consumption, securing content through DRM, displaying television guides, and providing secure network hardware to end users. The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of these systems, focusing instead on Mediacom's legal arguments for non-infringement.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts detailing infringement, but rather summarizes Mediacom's arguments for why it does not infringe the asserted claims.

For the ’180 Patent, Mediacom’s central non-infringement argument is that its display documents are not created "dynamically" as required by claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).

For the ’532 Patent, Mediacom alleges that its Xtreme Voice Remote does not meet the claim limitations of "generating a plurality of unique identifiers" or "form[ing] the unique identifier" (Compl. ¶61). The complaint cites a court decision from a separate case involving CDN, suggesting that the term "unique identifiers" has been construed in a manner that does not read on Mediacom's remote (Compl. ¶61).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute for the ’180 patent will concern the proper construction of the term "dynamically creating." The case may turn on whether Mediacom's method of adapting content for different displays falls within the scope of this term as defined by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’532 patent, a key question is whether the technical operation of the Xtreme Voice Remote involves "generating... unique identifiers" by concatenating words from predefined grammatical sets, as claimed. Mediacom’s pleading suggests its voice command system operates on a different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’180 Patent:

    • The Term: "dynamically creating"
    • Context and Importance: Mediacom’s entire stated basis for non-infringement of the ’180 patent hinges on this term (Compl. ¶49). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of infringement for this patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with "statically creating various versions of an original document," stating the claimed mapping occurs based on characteristics "when they become known" (’180 Patent, col. 3:40-44). This language may support a broad construction covering any on-the-fly content adaptation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific "mapping system" that performs a sequence of localization, prioritization, selection, and organization processes (’180 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 5:6-13). This detailed embodiment may support a narrower construction that limits "dynamically creating" to a method that includes these specific sub-steps, rather than any generic form of responsive design.

  • For the ’532 Patent:

    • The Term: "unique identifier"
    • Context and Importance: Mediacom explicitly argues that its accused product does not generate a "unique identifier" as claimed (Compl. ¶61). The complaint’s reference to a court ruling in another CDN case on this same term indicates it is a critical and recurring point of dispute in CDN's litigation campaign.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the identifier simply as the result of "concatenating... selected words." This language, viewed in isolation, might support an argument that any unique phrase generated by the claimed method qualifies, regardless of its ultimate function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using the generated phrases to address messages and associate them with a physical device, analogizing them to numeric identifiers like telephone numbers (’532 Patent, col. 5:30-40). This context may support a narrower construction requiring the "unique identifier" to function as a persistent address or label for an entity, rather than a transient voice command.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any indirect infringement allegations.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any willful infringement allegations.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The dispute over the ’180 patent will likely turn on whether Mediacom's method of tailoring content for different screens constitutes "dynamically creating" as that term is construed from the patent's specification. Similarly, the dispute over the ’532 patent will depend on whether a voice command processed by the Xtreme Voice Remote is a "unique identifier" in the manner claimed by the patent.
  • A second central issue will be patent validity, particularly under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mediacom has asserted that multiple patents are invalid as directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, such as "sizing an image to fit a display" (’180 patent), "converting a word phrase into a numerical equivalent" (’532 patent), or "limiting access to content based on user permissions" (’831, ’157, ’227 patents) (Compl. ¶53, ¶65, ¶77, ¶88, ¶99). The court's analysis of these patent eligibility challenges will be a critical factor in the case's trajectory.
  • A final key question will be one of technological mismatch: For patents related to router security (’291, ’699 patents), Mediacom denies that its "Port Triggering feature" performs the claimed steps of blocking signals in response to detected idle time (Compl. ¶116, ¶126). This raises an evidentiary question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the specific security method claimed in the patents and the actual operation of Mediacom’s accused routers.