DCT

1:22-cv-01294

Distributed Media Solutions LLC v. AMC Networks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01294, D. Del., 09/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware as Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AMC+ on-demand video-streaming platform infringes seven patents related to media distribution, data streaming, and content delivery optimization.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for managing access to distributed media sources, efficiently streaming data to multiple users, and tailoring content delivery based on client device attributes and network conditions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-02-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,482,384 Priority Date
2000-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,133,922 Priority Date
2001-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,122,004 Priority Date
2001-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,046,672 Priority Date
2002-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,811 Priority Date
2002-12-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,739,714 Priority Date
2003-03-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,437,389 Priority Date
2004-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,811 Issued
2006-11-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,133,922 Issued
2010-06-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,739,714 Issued
2011-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,046,672 Issued
2012-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,122,004 Issued
2013-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,437,389 Issued
2013-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,482,384 Issued
2022-09-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,697,811 - "Method and System for Information Management and Distribution"

  • Issued: February 24, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of communicating information between private or special purpose networks that may be globally distributed, operated by different organizations, and use varying data formats and technologies (Compl. ¶47; ’811 Patent, col. 1:13-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system with a "multi-access manager" (MAM) that provides centralized control over access to a distributed network of "source servers." A user first requests access to the system through the MAM. Once approved, the MAM displays a catalogue of source servers the user is authorized to access. The user then selects a source server and communicates directly with it to request and receive data, which can be translated into a standard format by the source server. This creates a "centralized management but decentralized execution of information distribution" (’811 Patent, col. 2:18-23; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to unify access to disparate data sources without requiring a single, monolithic central server to handle all data transmission, thereby improving security and scalability (Compl. ¶47; ’811 Patent, col. 2:20-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • receiving from a user at a multi-access manager a request for access to the system;
    • determining whether the request comprises an approved access at the multi-access manager;
    • displaying in response to an approved access a catalogue of at least one source server;
    • receiving a source server selection from the user;
    • providing access for the user to the selected source server;
    • receiving a request from the user for data at the selected source server; and
    • transmitting the data from the selected source server to the user.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,133,922 - "Method and Apparatus for Streaming of Data"

  • Issued: November 7, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a key disadvantage of conventional streaming technology: the "point-to-point approach that does not scale well with increasing numbers of users," which is inefficient and wastes bandwidth when multiple users request the same live event (Compl. ¶48; ’922 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "intelligent gateway at the edge of a group of users (such as an Intranet) through which requests for streaming data and the resulting data streams all pass" (’922 Patent, col. 5:6-9). If the gateway receives a request from a second client for a data stream it is already supplying to a first client, the gateway can duplicate the stream locally for the second client instead of making another request to the origin server. The system also describes a network of such gateways that can source streams from each other to balance load, based on interrogating neighboring gateways about their loading, stream quality, and latency (’922 Patent, col. 3:20-44).
  • Technical Importance: This gateway-based stream duplication and load-balancing aimed to significantly reduce server load and conserve network bandwidth for popular streaming content (Compl. ¶48; ’922 Patent, col. 2:40-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Essential elements of Claim 18 include:
    • locating a plurality of gateways between said server and said clients;
    • sourcing a data stream from a server or another gateway in the event that a request for a stream is a first request to a said gateway;
    • supplying a data stream from the said gateway to a second or subsequent client requesting a data stream;
    • deciding whether a neighbouring gateway exists from which a first requested data stream may be obtained; and
    • selecting between two or more gateways that are possible sources by interrogating said possible sources about the loading, quality of the data stream, and communication latency.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,739,714 - "System for Transmitting Digital Data Over a Limited Bandwidth Link in Plural Blocks"

  • Issued: June 15, 2010
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the demand for delivering scalable multimedia data to clients with varying bandwidths (Compl. ¶49; '714 Patent, col. 2:30-37). The solution involves encoding a digital "object movie" into a series of data blocks, where the initial blocks provide a low-quality version for immediate playback on low-bandwidth connections, and subsequent blocks progressively improve the quality as they are received ('714 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts system claim 9 (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the systems and methods used by AMC+ to encode, store, and deliver video content using the MPEG-DASH standard, which allegedly breaks content into a series of encoded data blocks for delivery (Compl. ¶¶96-104).

U.S. Patent No. 8,122,004 - "Generating and Providing Rich Media Presentations Optimized for a Device Over a Network"

  • Issued: February 21, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of users being "constantly bombarded with different requirements" to play media files from different systems (Compl. ¶50; '004 Patent, col. 1:20-24). The invention describes a method where a content delivery system processes a request, determines attributes of the network device (e.g., browser type, language, bandwidth), and configures a content package with code specific to that device's attributes ('004 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts method claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AMC+ processes requests from network devices, determines attributes like language and browser type, and delivers video content based on those attributes (Compl. ¶¶117-120).

U.S. Patent No. 8,046,672 - "Method and System for Delivering Technology Agnostic Rich Media Content with an Email, Banner Ad, and Web Page"

  • Issued: October 25, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '004 patent and describes a method for delivering rich media presentations by detecting attributes of an internet browser or network device and selecting a presentation from a plurality of options based on those attributes ('672 Patent, Abstract). The selected presentation includes a media package and a "virtual player" configured to play it on the device.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts method claim 1 (Compl. ¶131).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AMC+ detects attributes of the user's computer (e.g., browser and language) and selects a video presentation to send to the browser based on those attributes (Compl. ¶¶133-134).

U.S. Patent No. 8,437,389 - "Statistic Remulitplexing of Compressed Video Segments"

  • Issued: May 7, 2013
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need to adjust the bit rate of encoded video streams for delivery over fixed-bandwidth channels (Compl. ¶51; '389 Patent, col. 2:23-25). The described method involves providing video in blocks containing multiple segments encoded at different bit rates. A system then determines a "bit budget" and selects the video segment whose bit rate best meets that budget for inclusion in an output buffer ('389 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts method claim 1 (Compl. ¶145).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the use of adaptive bitrate streaming technology like MPEG-DASH, which allegedly provides video in segments at multiple bit rates and allows the client to select segments that match available bandwidth (the "bit budget") (Compl. ¶¶146-149).

U.S. Patent No. 8,482,384 - "Method and System for Playing Signals at Two Appliances"

  • Issued: July 9, 2013
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need to provide timely information to users by enabling media playback to be seamlessly transferred between devices (Compl. ¶52; '384 Patent, col. 1:32-35). The method involves playing a signal at a first appliance, pausing it, transmitting an indication of the pause point to a second appliance, and resuming playback from that point on the second appliance ('384 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts method claim 1 (Compl. ¶164).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the AMC+ service allows a user to play video on one device (e.g., a computer), pause it, and resume playback on a second device (e.g., a mobile phone) (Compl. ¶¶165-168).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "AMC+" on-demand video-streaming platform (Compl. ¶53).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes AMC+ as a premium streaming service that bundles content from sources including AMC, BBC America, IFC, Shudder, and Sundance Now (Compl. ¶53). The service allows users to stream video content to various devices, including televisions, computers, and mobile devices (Compl. ¶54). A screenshot in the complaint shows the various device platforms supported by the AMC+ service (Compl. p. 9).
  • Technically, the platform is alleged to implement the MPEG-DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) protocol to stream video content (Compl. ¶56). It is also alleged to use a Content Delivery Network (CDN) from Akamai to distribute content (Compl. ¶80). When run in a web browser, the service ascertains browser and system information to tailor the content provided (Compl. ¶55).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’811 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving from a user at a multi-access manager a request for access to the system The Accused Product receives a user's request for access via the login screen of the AMC+ website or application. ¶61 col. 5:12-14
determining whether the request for access to the system comprises an approved access at the multi-access manager The Accused Product determines if a user has access to the system by validating their credentials. A screenshot of the "Sign In" page is provided as evidence (Compl. p. 11). ¶62 col. 5:35-39
displaying in response to an approved access a catalogue of at least one source server, wherein each source server couples to a respective information source... After a user logs in, the Accused Product displays collections of video content from different sources (e.g., "Shudder Essentials," "IFC Films Unlimited Essentials"). A screenshot shows this catalogue of collections (Compl. p. 12). ¶63 col. 5:15-18
receiving a source server selection from the user... A user selects a specific video collection from the displayed catalogue. ¶64 col. 5:40-42
providing access for the user to the selected source server The Accused Product provides the user access to the content within the selected collection. A screenshot shows the content available within the "IFC Films Unlimited Essentials" collection (Compl. p. 13). ¶65 col. 5:43-45
receiving a request from the user for data at the selected source server, wherein the request for data requests data accumulated in a first format at the information source... When a user plays a video, a request is made for data in the MPEG-DASH format. A screenshot shows a GET request for a ".mpd" (Media Presentation Description) file, which is characteristic of MPEG-DASH (Compl. p. 14). ¶66 col. 6:20-27
transmitting the data from the selected source server to the user The Accused Product transmits the requested video data, allowing it to be played on the user's device. A screenshot shows a video playing in the AMC+ interface (Compl. p. 14). ¶67 col. 6:33-35

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the functional architecture of the AMC+ service maps to the distinct "multi-access manager" and "source server" components required by the claim. The defense may argue that the AMC+ login and content servers are part of a single, integrated system, not a distinct manager providing access to separate, remote source servers as described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that content "collections" like "Shudder Essentials" correspond to the claimed "source servers." A technical question will be whether these are merely curated playlists or if they represent technically distinct servers or data sources that align with the patent's description of source servers coupled to respective information sources.

’922 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
locating a plurality of gateways between said server and said clients, each said client being associated with one said gateway The Accused Product uses the Akamai Content Delivery Network (CDN), which locates a plurality of "edge servers" (gateways) between the origin server and clients, associating each client with a nearby edge server. ¶80 col. 5:6-9
sourcing a data stream from a server or another gateway in the event that a request for a stream is a first request to a said gateway for a said stream When an edge server receives a request for an object it does not have cached, it sources the stream from either the origin server or another Akamai deployment (another gateway). ¶81 col. 2:44-49
supplying a data stream from the said gateway to a second or subsequent client requesting a data stream The complaint does not directly map this element, but it is implied by the CDN's function of serving multiple clients from the same edge server (gateway). The complaint alleges Akamai's tiered distribution allows many edge deployments to serve content (Compl. p. 18). ¶82 col. 2:50-52
deciding whether a neighbouring gateway exists from which a first requested data stream may be obtained The Akamai CDN's "tiered distribution" architecture allegedly determines whether an edge server should contact the origin directly or another Akamai deployment (a neighboring gateway) to retrieve content. ¶83 col. 3:29-33
selecting between two or more gateways...by interrogating said possible sources about the loading..., quality..., and the communication latency... The Akamai platform is alleged to automatically select the content copy from the location (gateway) providing the "best performance for a fast, high-quality user experience," which implies a selection based on factors like loading and latency. An Akamai diagram illustrates this geographically distributed replication and delivery (Compl. p. 20). ¶84 col. 3:40-54

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Claim 18 requires "interrogating said possible sources" about specific metrics (loading, quality, latency). A key question will be whether the general, performance-based routing of a commercial CDN like Akamai performs the specific, active "interrogation" step recited in the claim, or if it uses a different, more passive routing mechanism that falls outside the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on public-facing marketing and developer documents from Akamai. A factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Akamai CDN, as implemented by AMC+, actually performs the specific "deciding" and "selecting" steps of the claim in the manner required, rather than simply using standard DNS-based routing to the nearest available server.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’811 Patent

  • The Term: "multi-access manager"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether a modern, integrated streaming service architecture, which may not have physically or logically distinct "manager" and "server" components in the way envisioned in 2002, can be found to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory depends on mapping the AMC+ login/authentication system to this element, separate from the content-hosting servers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the MAM "provides control over access to network system 10" and "provides means for requesting and granting access" (col. 5:35-39), suggesting a primary function of access control, which could be read broadly on modern authentication servers.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the MAM as distinct from the "remote source servers" (col. 5:13) and as displaying a "catalogue of source servers" from which a user selects (’811 Patent, col. 2:4-7). This suggests the MAM is a directory or portal, not merely a login gate to a unified content system.

For the ’922 Patent

  • The Term: "interrogating said possible sources"
  • Context and Importance: This active verb is a critical limitation in the "selecting" step of claim 18. The infringement case hinges on whether Akamai's standard CDN routing can be characterized as this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "interrogating" is construed to require a specific query-and-response protocol between gateways to exchange load/quality/latency data, it may be difficult to prove that a standard CDN performs this step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention mentions the gateway is provided with means for "interrogating a possible source gateway as to stream quality, loading and communication latency" (col. 3:51-54), framing it in terms of its purpose, which could allow for various technical implementations that achieve that goal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed claim language "interrogating said possible sources about the loading..., quality..., and...latency" suggests a specific, multi-factor inquiry. The complaint relies on an Akamai document stating the platform "automatically selects the copy from the location providing the best performance" (Compl. ¶84), which may not rise to the level of a specific, multi-part interrogation as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as instructing users on how to infringe or providing a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant having knowledge of the patents "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶70, ¶87, ¶107). This appears to be a claim for post-filing willfulness rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

This case will likely involve two central questions regarding the alignment of modern streaming architecture with patent claims drafted in an earlier technological era.

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the integrated nature of the AMC+ platform, where authentication and content delivery are deeply intertwined, satisfy the ’811 patent's requirement for a distinct "multi-access manager" that provides access to separate "source servers," or is this a fundamentally different architecture?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the generalized, performance-based routing of a commercial CDN like Akamai perform the specific, active "interrogating" of gateways about loading, quality, and latency, as explicitly required by claim 18 of the ’922 patent, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused CDN operation and the claimed method steps?