DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Cogeco US Finance LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Cogeco US Finance, LLC d/b/a Breezeline (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00662, D. Del., 06/15/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the grounds that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TV programming guides, video recording functionality, chatbot system, and streaming applications infringe four patents related to personalized content delivery, remote media access, and automated information exchange.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern systems for personalizing and delivering digital media and information to users by analyzing their behavior, location, and preferences, and by creating distributed networks to overcome geographic content restrictions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint makes extensive arguments for the patent eligibility of the asserted patents under the Alice framework, referencing a declaration from a technical expert, David B. Lett. This declaration appears to respond to a prior court order in a different case, suggesting that the validity of at least the '980 patent has been previously challenged. The complaint also repeatedly points to the citation history of each patent by other patents and applications as evidence of their inventiveness and non-obviousness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-27	'568 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-20	'220 Patent Priority Date
2001-05-25	'778 Patent Priority Date
2004-01-27	U.S. Patent No. 6,684,220 Issues
2004-10-19	U.S. Patent No. 6,807,568 Issues
2006-06-20	U.S. Patent No. 7,065,778 Issues
2007-07-13	'980 Patent Priority Date
2012-04-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,160,980 Issues
2023-06-15	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,160,980 - "Information System Based On Time, Space And Relevance," issued April 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of accessing common, everyday information (e.g., weather forecasts), which often requires waiting for a scheduled broadcast or booting a computer, and the challenge of intelligently suggesting new content to a user from a potentially vast amount of available information (Compl. ¶12; ’980 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an information system, often embodied as an in-home touch screen device, that solves these problems by creating a user profile based on interaction data. The system comprises a client display, a proxy to collect and parse data, a server to gather usage data, and a "data mining cluster" that analyzes the user's context—in terms of time, space, and relevance—to automatically provide content suggestions and update the user's available information channels (’980 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶12). The system is described as a "quality of life solution developed in view of residential housing complexes" that provides quick access to services and information (’980 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention aims to provide easier access to common information than prior art systems by using a combination of a proxy, server, and data mining cluster to proactively personalize the user experience based on a multi-faceted analysis of user behavior (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶72).
• The essential elements of claim 5 are:
  • An information system comprising: at least one client that displays information related to a plurality of information channels;
  • a data mining cluster which performs user profiling and time, space and relevance analysis,
  • wherein suggestions are provided to said at least one client based on a user profile and said time, space, and relevance analysis,
  • and wherein said plurality of information channels are updated based on said suggestions.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, which add limitations related to a data-parsing proxy, periodic updates, automatic suggestions, and the use of XML format (Compl. ¶13, ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 7,065,778 - "Method and System for Providing Media from Remote Locations to a Viewer," issued June 20, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a disadvantage in television distribution where a viewer in one location cannot access programming that is broadcast only in a remote city, state, or country (’778 Patent, col. 1:59-2:5; Compl. ¶37).
• The Patented Solution: The patented method uses a network of personalized video recorders (PVRs) connected to a central server computer. A user with a PVR can request a television show that is unavailable in their local area. The server computer receives this request, locates one or more other PVRs situated within the correct broadcast region, and sends a programming instruction to those remote PVRs to record the show. After recording, the show is transmitted from the remote PVR, potentially through the server, back to the requesting user's PVR for viewing (’778 Patent, col. 2:9-28; Compl. ¶40).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a technical architecture for a distributed content delivery system that overcomes geographic broadcast limitations, effectively creating a peer-to-peer network for place-shifting and time-shifting television content (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 31 (Compl. ¶77).
• The essential steps of method claim 31 are:
  • a server computer receiving a request from a receiver device for a television show;
  • said server computer locating a plurality of digital video recorders capable of receiving a broadcast of said television show that satisfies said request;
  • each of said plurality of digital video recorders receiving a programming instruction from said server computer to record said television show;
  • at least one of said plurality of digital video recorders recording said television show; and
  • said receiver device receiving said television show recorded by said at least one of said plurality of digital video recorders.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 32, 33, and 37, which add limitations such as adding the instruction to a task list, receiving an electronic programming guide, and using a cache server (Compl. ¶41, ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 6,684,220 - "Method and System for Automatic Information Exchange," issued January 27, 2004

• Patent Identification: 6,684,220, "Method and System for Automatic Information Exchange," issued January 27, 2004 (Compl. ¶45, ¶48).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of enabling automated information exchange, such as for server-generated responses to customer inquiries in online chat systems (Compl. ¶51). The claimed solution is a method that retrieves a data model composed of objects, automatically identifies the input and output variables of those objects, and automatically creates links between them to facilitate automated information exchange without requiring direct human answers (Compl. ¶51-52).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶82).
• Accused Features: Defendant's "chatbot system" (Compl. ¶82).

U.S. Patent No. 6,807,568 - "Recipient Selection Of Information To Be Subsequently Delivered," issued October 19, 2004

• Patent Identification: 6,807,568, "Recipient Selection Of Information To Be Subsequently Delivered," issued October 19, 2004 (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem users face when trying to obtain information that is not yet available or scheduled, such as future concert tickets or TV programs (Compl. ¶62). The invention is a method where a user makes a request for certain information content available to information providers; an information provider can then access this standing request and, upon determining it has control of the desired content, deliver it to the user (Compl. ¶65).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
• Accused Features: Defendant's "Breezeline streaming apps" (Compl. ¶87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses several distinct services and functionalities offered by Defendant Breezeline: "TV programming guides," "video recording functionality," a "chatbot system," and "Breezeline streaming apps" (Compl. ¶72, ¶77, ¶82, ¶87).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific operational details by reference to preliminary claim charts (Exhibits E-H), which were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶72, ¶77, ¶82, ¶87). Based on the infringement counts, the accused functionalities are alleged to operate as follows:
  • The TV programming guides are alleged to provide personalized content suggestions based on user profiling and analysis (Compl. ¶72).
  • The video recording functionality is alleged to facilitate the recording of remote television broadcasts for delivery to a user (Compl. ¶77).
  • The chatbot system is alleged to conduct automated information exchanges (Compl. ¶82).
  • The streaming apps are alleged to enable users to request and receive desired information content from providers (Compl. ¶87).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance beyond general allegations of damages. The complaint reproduces a table from the patent specification showing exemplary user interaction data categorized by time, location, and content hierarchy, which illustrates the type of data the patented system is designed to analyze (Compl. ¶20, p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, preliminary claim charts that allegedly detail the infringement theories (Compl. ¶72, ¶77, ¶82, ¶87). The narrative infringement theory for each lead patent is summarized below.

'980 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's TV programming guides infringe at least claim 5 of the ’980 patent. The core of this allegation is that the guides function as the claimed "information system" by displaying channels to a user (the "client"), employing a "data mining cluster" to analyze user behavior and context ("time, space and relevance"), and using that analysis to generate "suggestions" that "update" the information channels presented to the user (Compl. ¶13, ¶72). A key factual question will be whether the accused guides perform the specific type of "time, space, and relevance analysis" detailed in the patent. The complaint includes a figure from the patent showing how interaction time and other factors are used to calculate a "Weight" for potential suggestions, illustrating the logic Plaintiff may claim is used in the accused system (Compl. ¶21, p. 10).

'778 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's video recording functionality infringes at least claim 31 of the ’778 patent. The infringement theory posits that Defendant operates a "server computer" that takes a user's request for a TV show, "locat[es] a plurality of digital video recorders" in the appropriate remote broadcast area, instructs them to record the show, and facilitates the transfer of the recorded program back to the requesting user's "receiver device" (Compl. ¶41, ¶77). The central dispute may focus on whether the architecture of Defendant's service, particularly if it is a modern cloud DVR system, maps onto the claimed distributed network of distinct "digital video recorders."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the '980 Patent: "data mining cluster"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claim 5 and was added during prosecution to secure allowance, making its construction critical for both infringement and validity (Compl. ¶25). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case hinges on whether Defendant's personalization engine meets this definition, and the validity case may rely on it as the key inventive concept over the prior art.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term by its function: a cluster that "performs user profiling and time, space and relevance analysis" (’980 Patent, col. 6:49-51). Plaintiff may argue that any component or group of components performing this function falls within the scope of the term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation using "Data Mining Clustering Techniques" to partition data into subsets (clusters) based on similarity and represents paths as a "hypergraph" to predict user behavior (’980 Patent, col. 8:2-34). Defendant may argue the term is limited to this more complex, disclosed embodiment.

Term from the '778 Patent: "a plurality of digital video recorders"

• Context and Importance: This term in independent claim 31 defines the nature of the network used for remote recording. The infringement analysis depends on whether Defendant's system uses an architecture that can be described as a plurality of distinct recorders.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term is technologically neutral and can read on a modern cloud DVR architecture where recording functions are handled by a distributed set of virtualized server instances, each acting as a "digital video recorder."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes locating "one or more personalized video recorders situated within a broadcast region of the requested television show" (’778 Patent, col. 2:19-21). Defendant may argue this language, coupled with the context of PVR technology at the time of filing, limits the claim to a network of discrete, geographically-distributed physical PVR devices, not a centralized or logically-partitioned cloud system.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent to encourage infringing acts by others. The allegations are directed at Defendant's own making, using, and selling of the accused systems (e.g., Compl. ¶71, ¶76).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts showing Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an exceptional case but does not explicitly request enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 28).

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

1. A central issue will be one of patent eligibility: Given the complaint's preemptive defense of the patents under the Alice framework, a key question for the court will be whether the claims, particularly those related to analyzing user data ('980 patent) and fulfilling information requests ('568 patent), are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas or if they contain a sufficient inventive concept tied to a specific technological improvement.

2. A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the '980 patent, can the term "data mining cluster", which the patent describes with specific techniques like hypergraphs, be construed to cover the potentially more generic personalization algorithms used in modern commercial programming guides?

3. A final key question will be one of architectural congruence: For the '778 patent, does the accused video recording service, likely a cloud-based DVR system, operate as a "plurality of digital video recorders" distributed in various broadcast regions as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused system's centralized or virtualized nature?