DCT

1:23-cv-00421

CDN Innovations LLC v. Cogeco Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: CDN Innovations, LLC (Georgia)
    • Defendant: Cogeco Communications (USA) Inc. and Cogeco US Finance, LLC, collectively d/b/a Breezeline (Delaware)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00421, D. Del., 06/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant’s substantial business in the state, commission of infringing acts within the district, and maintenance of a registered agent in Wilmington.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s internet, video, and telecommunications services infringe nine patents related to technologies including limited-use browsers for content security, television guidance systems, speech recognition, adaptive information formatting, and network port security.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents cover a wide array of technologies that are foundational to the operation and user experience of modern digital content delivery and internet services provided by cable and telecommunications companies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of at least some of the asserted patents via notice letters sent on February 23, 2021, and June 29, 2022. This action is a First Amended Complaint which relates back to an unspecified original filing date.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-08 Priority Date for ’831, ’157, ’227, and ’450 Patents
2000-03-28 Priority Date for ’180 Patent
2001-02-16 Priority Date for ’714 Patent
2001-09-19 Priority Date for ’532 Patent
2001-10-30 ’180 Patent Issued
2003-07-18 Priority Date for ’291 and ’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
2014-09-21 ’450 Patent Issued
2016 (at least) Alleged Infringement Begins
2021-02-23 Plaintiff's First Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2022-06-29 Plaintiff's Follow-up Letter Sent to Defendant
2023-06-22 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,831 - Limited-use browser and security system

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,130,831, titled "Limited-use browser and security system," issued October 31, 2006 (’831 Patent). (Compl. ¶11, ¶22).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the lack of control that content publishers have over their intellectual property once it is distributed over the Internet, where users can easily copy, print, save, and redistribute proprietary content without authorization. (’831 Patent, col. 1:29-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a security system where a server only provides content to a client computer running a specialized "limited-use browser" or a general-purpose browser with a security add-in. This browser receives and displays the content in a "view-only" mode, programmatically disabling user functions—such as "Save As," "Print," or "Copy"—that would permit the creation of a permanent, non-ephemeral copy of the protected information on the client machine. (’831 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-54).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for digital rights management (DRM) for web-based content, aiming to enable business models for selling or controlling access to high-value digital information online. (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶25-26).
  • Claim 1 of the ’831 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • downloading, from a source to a local computer, authorization information that configures a web browser to process content in a specific manner;
    • downloading the content itself from the source to the local computer;
    • presenting the downloaded content within a browser window; and
    • disabling a disallowed user function that affects the content, as determined by the source in accordance with the authorization information.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 7,225,157 - Limited-use browser and security system

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,225,157, titled "Limited-use browser and security system," issued May 29, 2007 (’157 Patent). (Compl. ¶11, ¶32).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’831 Patent, this patent addresses the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of proprietary content published on networks like the Internet. (’157 Patent, col. 1:11-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system for protecting content. The system comprises a server with a security program that authenticates a client computer system before distributing content. The client computer runs a "limited-use browser" that is specifically configured to disable functions, such as printing or saving, while displaying the protected content received from the server. (’157 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-56).
  • Technical Importance: The system described aims to provide content owners with a secure distribution channel, allowing them to publish valuable content online while maintaining control over its use and reproduction. (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6. (Compl. ¶35-36).
  • Claim 6 of the ’157 Patent recites a system with the following essential elements:
    • a server computer system having a server security program;
    • a client computer system having a limited-use browser;
    • wherein the server distributes content to the client upon authentication of the client; and
    • wherein the limited-use browser is configured to disable at least one of a print function and a save function when displaying the content.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 8,024,227 & 8,868,450 - Limited-use browser and security system

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,024,227 (’227 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,868,450 (’450 Patent), both titled "Limited-use browser and security system."
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents are part of the same family as the ’831 and ’157 patents and relate to the same limited-use browser and content security system technology. The inventions describe methods and systems for controlling access to and preventing unauthorized reproduction of digital content distributed over a network. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 16 of the ’227 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’450 Patent. (Compl. ¶45, ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Accused Browser Access Instrumentalities" of infringement. (Compl. ¶44, ¶54).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,164,714 (’714 Patent), titled "Video transmission and processing system for generating a user mosaic."
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method and system for processing video signals, such as those for television programs, to generate a "user mosaic." This technology allows for the creation of customized, grid-like displays of multiple video streams, often used in electronic program guides. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claims 13, 15, and 17. (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Accused Video Guidance Instrumentalities," which allegedly process video to generate mosaics for users. (Compl. ¶63, ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 - Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 (’532 Patent), titled "Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars."
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for speech recognition that improves accuracy by defining a phrase structure with multiple "word slots" conforming to a predefined grammar. Each slot is populated from a unique set of words, allowing the system to more reliably recognize spoken identifiers by anticipating the grammatical structure. (Compl. ¶16; ’532 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Accused Speech Recognition Instrumentalities," which are allegedly configured to enable speech recognition for system control. (Compl. ¶75, ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 6,311,180 - Method for mapping and formatting information for a display device

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,311,180 (’180 Patent), titled "Method for mapping and formatting information for a display device."
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for dynamically generating a display document (e.g., a web page) that is automatically conformed to the characteristics of a specific display device (e.g., screen size, resolution, font support) and the preferences of the user (e.g., language). (Compl. ¶18; ’180 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Accused Display Instrumentalities." (Compl. ¶87).

U.S. Patent No. 7,293,291 & 7,565,699 - System and method for detecting computer port inactivity

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,293,291 (’291 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,565,699 (’699 Patent), both titled "System and method for detecting computer port inactivity."
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents relate to a method and system for enhancing computer security by detecting when a network data port connection is idle or inactive. Upon detecting inactivity, the system can block external network access to that port to prevent unauthorized intrusion. (Compl. ¶20).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 of the ’291 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’699 Patent. (Compl. ¶97, ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Accused Port Triggering Instrumentalities," which are allegedly used in router products to manage port forwarding and triggering functionalities. (Compl. ¶96, ¶101, ¶107, ¶112).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. Instead, it refers to categories of infringing technologies used by the Defendants, identified as the "Accused Browser Access Instrumentalities," "Accused Video Guidance Instrumentalities," "Accused Speech Recognition Instrumentalities," "Accused Display Instrumentalities," and "Accused Port Triggering Instrumentalities." (Compl. ¶24, ¶63, ¶75, ¶87, ¶96, ¶107).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants sell, offer for sale, and use products and services throughout Delaware that embody the accused technologies. (Compl. ¶6). The alleged functionalities map directly to the asserted patent groups:
    • A content access system that controls user functions. (Compl. ¶24, ¶34).
    • A video processing system that generates mosaics for users. (Compl. ¶67).
    • A speech recognition tool for user commands. (Compl. ¶79).
    • A system for formatting information for display devices. (Compl. ¶87).
    • Router products that utilize port triggering and forwarding. (Compl. ¶101, ¶113).
  • The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of these instrumentalities, instead referencing claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A2, B2, etc.) that would detail the infringement analysis. (Compl. ¶25, ¶35). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • '831 Patent and '157 Patent Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint alleges that Defendants' use of the "Accused Browser Access Instrumentalities" directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’831 Patent and claim 6 of the ’157 Patent. (Compl. ¶26, ¶36). The theory suggests that Defendants operate a client-server system where content is delivered to users through a proprietary interface (the accused "browser"). This system allegedly sends "authorization information" that configures the client interface and disables certain user functions (infringing the ’831 method patent), and comprises server and client components where the client is configured to disable functions like print or save (infringing the ’157 system patent). (Compl. ¶24-26, ¶34-36).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the accused instrumentalities (e.g., a set-top box user interface or a customer web portal) constitute a "web browser" as that term is used in the patents. The analysis may question whether "disabling" a function requires actively taking away a pre-existing capability, or if it can be met by an interface that was never designed with that capability in the first place.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual detail regarding the specific "authorization information" allegedly sent from Defendant's server to the client that "configures" it as required by claim 1 of the ’831 Patent. It also does not specify the "authentication" mechanism that allegedly satisfies claim 6 of the ’157 Patent. The case may turn on whether discovery reveals technical processes in Defendant's systems that map onto these claimed functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "web browser" (appearing in ’831 Patent, claim 1 and ’157 Patent, claim 6).

    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the dispute for the lead patents. The accused instrumentalities are part of a telecommunications service, not conventional, general-purpose web browsers like Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue for a narrow construction limited to such general-purpose software, while Plaintiff will likely advocate for a broader functional definition covering any client-side software that requests, receives, and displays content from a network server.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the system allows content providers to publish on a "local-area network (LAN) or wide-area network (WAN), such as the World Wide Web (web) and the Internet," which may support an interpretation that the invention is not limited strictly to the conventional web. (’831 Patent, col. 4:49-54).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discusses functionality specific to conventional web browsers, such as disabling menu items for "View Source," "Save As," and "Print," and securing "hyper-text markup language (HTML) files." (’831 Patent, col. 13:20-24; col. 4:21-23). This context may support a narrower construction tied to software with these traditional features.

  • The Term: "authorization information that configures the web browser" (’831 Patent, claim 1).

    • Context and Importance: This is a critical step in the asserted method claim. The infringement allegation depends on identifying a specific data transmission from Defendant's server that performs this "configuring" function on the client. Its definition will determine what evidence Plaintiff must produce.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a scenario where "if a web content owner authorizes a web page to be printed but not saved, the print function can be made available to the user," suggesting the "authorization information" could be any data that signals which functions to permit or deny. (’831 Patent, col. 9:64-col. 10:2).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a specific "client key" that is transmitted from the browser to the server for validation. (’831 Patent, col. 7:51-58). A defendant may argue that the "authorization information" should be construed as part of a specific security handshake or key-based system, rather than any general data stream.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For the ’714, ’532, ’291, and ’699 patent groups, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly encouraging infringement by "actively advertising, promoting and distributing technical information" that instructs users on how to use the infringing features (e.g., generating video mosaics, using speech recognition, or configuring port triggering). (Compl. ¶67, ¶79, ¶100, ¶112). The contributory infringement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing material components that are not staple articles of commerce and are especially made or adapted for infringing use (e.g., "componentry especially made to supply a television guide"). (Compl. ¶68, ¶80, ¶101, ¶113).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit at least as early as February 23, 2021, and again on June 29, 2022, due to notice letters sent by Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶27, ¶37, ¶47, ¶66, ¶78, ¶90, ¶99, ¶111). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement for all infringing conduct occurring after these dates.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can key claim terms rooted in the context of personal computing and the early web, such as "web browser," be construed broadly enough to read on the proprietary user interfaces and content delivery systems of a modern telecommunications provider?
  • A second central question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: as the complaint lacks specific product identifications and detailed technical allegations, the case will likely depend on whether discovery uncovers direct evidence of the accused systems performing the precise, multi-step functions required by the asserted claims, such as transmitting "authorization information" that "configures" a client or detecting "port inactivity" in the manner described by the patents.