DCT
1:22-cv-01531
Akamai Tech Inc v. Automated Media Processing Solutions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Automated Media Processing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Equilibrium (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ropes & Gray LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01531, D. Del., 11/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant being a Delaware corporation and therefore residing in the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TweekIT.io decentralized application for content modification infringes a patent related to policy-based content insertion and delivery.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for improving the efficiency and scalability of content delivery networks (CDNs) by decoupling the processing of content requests from the actual streaming of media.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on November 22, 2022, one day prior to filing suit, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a cease and desist letter that included a draft of the complaint, establishing a clear date for alleged actual notice of infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-01-14 | '667 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-09-24 | '667 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-02-03 | TweekIT.io Launch Date |
| 2022-11-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,543,667 - "Policy-Based Content Insertion," issued September 24, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies scalability challenges in prior art systems for delivering large multimedia content, where the server processing a user's request was also responsible for the high-bandwidth task of streaming the content, creating a performance bottleneck (Compl. ¶13; ’667 Patent, col. 1:40-60). Streaming and request processing could not be scaled independently (’667 Patent, col. 5:3-5).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that decouples request processing ("control plane") from media streaming ("media plane") ('667 Patent, col. 5:58-64). A first "content server" (acting as a proxy) intercepts a user's request, modifies it based on a policy, and forwards it to a "second server" (e.g., an application server). The second server processes the request and returns a reply containing only a "content insertion instruction" (e.g., a file name, offset, and bitrate), not the large media file itself. The first content server then uses this instruction to retrieve the content from storage and stream it to the user, thereby off-loading the intensive streaming task from the application server ('667 Patent, Abstract; '667 Patent, col. 6:48-67).
- Technical Importance: This architectural separation allows for the use of specialized, high-performance components for media streaming, independent of the general-purpose servers that handle application logic, enabling more efficient and scalable delivery of high-quality video ('667 Patent, col. 6:7-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 28 (Compl. ¶23).
- Claim 28 is directed to a computer program product with instructions to cause a data processing apparatus to perform the following steps:
- receive, at a content server, a content request from a requesting computing device;
- modify, at the content server, the content request by adding data to it (e.g., headers or attributes);
- transmit the modified content request to a second server based on routing policies; and
- receive, from the second server, a reply containing a "content insertion instruction" with data indicative of the content to be transmitted to the user.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Equilibrium’s TweekIT.io service ("TweekIT") (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- TweekIT is described as a decentralized server application ("DApp") for modifying content, such as rendering and normalizing files for users (Compl. ¶19).
- It operates on the "Computing Global Network" (CGN), which the complaint describes as a network of independently operating regional nodes that provide computational power (Compl. ¶20). TweekIT allegedly uses Equilibrium’s "MediaRich Server" technology, running as a service called "MediaGen" on the CGN (Compl. ¶20).
- According to the complaint, a user sends a file and a modification request to a CGN endpoint. The request is passed to the CGN for processing, which then returns a "transformed output of the uploaded document" (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint does not contain an explicit claim chart. The following table synthesizes the infringement theory for Claim 28 based on the complaint's factual allegations.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receive, at a content server, a content request from a requesting computing device; | A user sends a file to an endpoint of the CGN along with a request for modification via the TweekIT application. | ¶21 | col. 6:48-50 |
| modify, at the content server, the content request by adding data to the content request, the data comprising one or more headers, attributes, or both, based on the content request; | After authentication, the request is passed to the CGN for processing "according to modification parameters in the request," which allegedly constitutes the modification. | ¶21 | col. 6:61-62 |
| transmit, by the content server, the modified content request to a second server based on one or more routing policies; | The TweekIT system passes the request to the CGN, a "global association of independently operating regional CGN nodes," for processing. | ¶20, ¶21 | col. 6:65-67 |
| receive, at the content server, a reply message responsive to the modified content request from the second server, the reply comprising a content insertion instruction comprising data indicative of content to transmit to the requesting computing device. | The CGN returns a "transformed output of the uploaded document," which is alleged to be or contain the reply with the content insertion instruction. | ¶21 | col. 8:12-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the decentralized TweekIT/CGN architecture, where nodes on a network perform processing, maps onto the patent's more distinct "content server" and "second server" structure ('667 Patent, Fig. 3). The complaint's description of TweekIT as a "DApp" on a "CGN" raises the question of which entity performs the role of the claimed "content server" versus the "second server" (Compl. ¶19-20).
- Technical Questions: Claim 28 requires the reply from the "second server" to contain a "content insertion instruction," which the patent describes as metadata (e.g., file name, offset) used by the "content server" to then stream the content. The complaint alleges the CGN returns a "transformed output" (Compl. ¶21). This raises the evidentiary question of whether this "output" is the final, processed content itself or if it is an "instruction" as the claim requires.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "content server"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on successfully mapping the accused TweekIT system onto the patent's two-server architecture. Practitioners may focus on this term because the definition will determine if the decentralized TweekIT/CGN model can be seen as having a distinct "content server" that acts as an intermediary proxy as depicted in the patent.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to the content server as a "policy-based content insertion proxy (PCIP)" and a "type of reverse proxy server," which could support a functional definition not tied to a specific hardware configuration ('667 Patent, col. 6:30-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments consistently depict the "content server" (PCIP 320) as a discrete architectural component situated between the client and the "web server" (310), performing the specific functions of modifying requests and later streaming content based on instructions ('667 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 8:20-35). This could support a narrower construction requiring this architectural separation.
The Term: "content insertion instruction"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's claimed decoupling of control and media planes. The dispute may turn on whether the "transformed output" that the complaint alleges is returned by the CGN can be considered an "instruction" (Compl. ¶21).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "data indicative of content to transmit," a phrase that could arguably be interpreted broadly to include the transformed content itself ('667 Patent, col. 15:34-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides concrete examples of an instruction, such as "content identification, data rate, etc." ('667 Patent, col. 5:49-51) and a header containing "the name of the file, the offset from which to begin streaming and the bit rate" ('667 Patent, col. 8:15-18). This evidence suggests the "instruction" is metadata about the content, not the content itself, which is consistent with the invention's goal of offloading the content delivery.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Equilibrium knowingly encourages and provides instructions to its customers to "develop custom programs in TweekIT that directly infringe the '667 Patent" (Compl. ¶26-27).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Equilibrium received a cease and desist letter, which included a draft of the complaint, on November 22, 2022, thereby giving it "actual notice" of the alleged infringement before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: can the decentralized TweekIT/CGN system, where a network of nodes performs content transformation, be construed to meet the patent’s two-server model, which requires a distinct "content server" that intercepts requests and a "second server" that provides instructions?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the "transformed output" returned by the accused TweekIT system function as a "content insertion instruction" under the patent's claim language—i.e., as metadata directing a separate entity to stream content—or is it simply the final, processed data, suggesting a fundamental operational difference from the claimed invention?