DCT

1:23-cv-00987

DISH Tech LLC v. Beachbody LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00987, D. Del., 09/06/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Delaware primarily because Defendant BODi is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online fitness streaming services infringe eight U.S. patents related to foundational adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology.
  • Technical Context: ABR technology is a core component of modern internet video delivery, enabling services to dynamically adjust stream quality in real-time to match a user's available network bandwidth, thereby preventing buffering.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant’s Chief Legal Officer on March 17, 2023, identifying its ABR patent portfolio and inviting a discussion about a potential license. Following no response, Plaintiff sent follow-up communications on July 11 and July 31, 2023. These pre-suit notifications may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-01-01 MOVE Networks, Inc. founded (original owner of patents-in-suit)
2004-04-30 Earliest Priority Date for all patents-in-suit
2010-12-01 EchoStar acquires MOVE Networks and its ABR patent portfolio
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 Issued
2015-01-01 Sling TV launched, utilizing ABR technology
2016-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564 Issued
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 Issued
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555 Issued
2020-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156 Issued
2021-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680 Issued
2021-06-25 BODi acquires Myx Fitness Holdings, LLC
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 Issued
2023-03-17 DISH sends initial letter to BODi regarding ABR patent portfolio
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 Issued
2023-07-11 DISH sends follow-up letter to BODi
2023-07-31 DISH sends second follow-up letter to BODi
2023-09-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 - “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued on November 5, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the state of internet streaming prior to the invention, where users faced a poor choice between slow, full-file downloads and unreliable, low-quality streaming that was prone to buffering and network congestion (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21; ’554 Patent, col. 2:1-12). Existing streaming protocols sacrificed quality for immediate access and were vulnerable to network failures (Compl. ¶22; ’554 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention segments a media file into a series of smaller data packets called "streamlets" (’554 Patent, col. 7:39-42). Crucially, for each segment of content (e.g., a two-second portion of a video), multiple versions of the corresponding streamlet are created, each encoded at a different bitrate (i.e., quality level) (’554 Patent, Fig. 3b). A client-side player then intelligently monitors the user's network conditions and requests the highest-quality streamlet it can reliably play back for the next segment, seamlessly switching between bitrates as network performance fluctuates (’554 Patent, col. 17:42-54).
  • Technical Importance: This client-centric, segmented approach enabled reliable, high-quality video streaming over the standard HTTP protocol, eliminating the need for expensive, specialized streaming servers and making high-quality streaming scalable and cost-effective (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Claim 16 of the ’554 Patent recites an end user station that comprises a processor and memory with instructions to:
    • Establish network connections with a server that can access groups of streamlets.
    • Wherein a live event video is encoded at multiple bitrates (e.g., low, medium, high) to create multiple streams, with each stream comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one stream is encoded at no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each quality level have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the live event video.
    • Select one of the quality streams based on a determination made by the end user station.
    • Request the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested first streamlet.
    • Provide the streamlet for playback of the live event video.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. p. 13 n.1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 - “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued on June 13, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent, part of the same family as the ’554 Patent, addresses the identical technical problem of providing reliable, high-quality streaming over unreliable packet-switched networks like the internet (’798 Patent, col. 2:1-12). The specification notes that prior art streaming was "vulnerable to network failures or congestion" and sacrificed quality for immediacy (’798 Patent, col. 2:9-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is structurally identical to that of the ’554 Patent, based on segmenting content into time-aligned "streamlets" of varying bitrates (’798 Patent, Fig. 3b). The client device dynamically selects among these streamlets to adapt to network conditions, a process which the patent specification explains allows for "dynamic rate shifting" (’798 Patent, col. 6:35-37).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a foundational improvement by moving bitrate-switching decisions from the server to the client, which is better positioned to measure actual network throughput and thus select the appropriate quality level (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Claim 11 of the ’798 Patent recites an end user station comprising a processor and memory with instructions to:
    • Establish network connections with a server that can access groups of streamlets of digital content.
    • Wherein the digital content is encoded at multiple bit rates (e.g., first, second, third) to create multiple streams, with each stream comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one stream is encoded at no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each bit rate stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the digital content.
    • Determine whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy and, based on that, select a specific one of the streams.
    • Request the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested first streamlet.
    • Provide the streamlet for output to a presentation device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. p. 13 n.1).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564: Issued August 2, 2016, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content” (Compl. ¶10). This patent claims a method for rate-adaptive streaming where a media player makes successive determinations to shift playback quality up or down based on a calculated factor indicative of network performance, using thresholds for upshifting and downshifting (Compl. ¶90). Asserted claim 8 is a method claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' method of adapting requests for video segments based on network connection quality (Compl. ¶90).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680: Issued March 16, 2021, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (Compl. ¶8). This patent claims an end user station that selects a quality stream and places a "virtual timeline request" based on that selection (Compl. ¶115). Asserted claim 14 is an end user station claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' system of receiving video segments and adapting requests based on network quality (Compl. ¶115).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555: Issued November 5, 2019, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (Compl. ¶12). This patent claims a content player device that selects a specific stream based on a client module determination and requests the corresponding streamlet (Compl. ¶140). Asserted claim 10 is a device claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' system of receiving video segments and adapting requests based on network quality (Compl. ¶140).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772: Issued October 21, 2014, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (Compl. ¶13). This patent claims a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams by repeatedly generating factors indicative of the ability to sustain streaming and making successive determinations to shift quality based on those factors (Compl. ¶165). Asserted claim 1 is a method claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' method of adapting requests for video segments based on network connection quality (Compl. ¶165).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138: Issued October 11, 2022, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (Compl. ¶14). This patent claims an end user station that selects a quality stream based on its own determination and requests streamlets over an internet connection (Compl. ¶190). Asserted claim 14 is an end user station claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' system of receiving video segments and adapting requests based on network quality (Compl. ¶190).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156: Issued August 25, 2020, titled “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content” (Compl. ¶15). This patent claims an apparatus with a media player that requests sequential streamlets via HTTP GET requests based on successive determinations to shift playback quality, which are adapted based on a repeatedly generated factor related to network performance (Compl. ¶215). Asserted claim 1 is an apparatus claim. The accused features are the Accused Streaming Services' system of receiving video segments and adapting requests based on network quality (Compl. ¶215).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the online streaming services operated by BODi through its "BODi Application and the BODi Server(s)," collectively referred to as the "Accused Streaming Services" (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Streaming Services distribute fitness content, such as workout and meditation videos, over the internet to end-user devices (Compl. ¶¶1, 34). The core accused functionality is the service's alleged use of ABR technology, wherein the client application "adapt[s] requests for segments from a set of segments with the same content but varying quality based upon the quality of the network connection" (Compl. ¶40, ¶65). The complaint alleges this technology has established BODi as "one of the best fitness streaming applications" with "fantastic" video quality (Compl. ¶35).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’554 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An end user station to stream a live event video over a network...the content player device comprising: a processor; a digital processing apparatus memory device... The end-user devices (e.g., Apple TV, Roku, Chromecast) on which the BODi application runs, which contain processors and memory. ¶40, ¶49 col. 6:35-37
establish one or more network connections between the end user station and the server... The BODi application establishes connections with BODi's servers to receive segments of a selected video program. ¶40 col. 6:44-46
wherein the live event video is encoded at a plurality of different bitrates to create a plurality of streams including at least a low quality stream, a medium quality stream, and a high quality stream... The Accused Streaming Services provide access to sets of video segments with the same content but varying quality, which implies encoding at different bitrates. ¶40 col. 7:22-31
wherein the first streamlets of each of the low quality stream, the medium quality stream and the high quality stream each has an equal playback duration and each of the first streamlets encodes the same portion of the live event video... The Accused Streaming Services provide sets of segments which are alleged to have the same content, implying they encode the same portion of the video and are time-aligned. ¶40 col. 7:45-54
select a specific one of the...streams based upon a determination by the end user station to select a higher or lower bitrate version... The Accused Streaming Services (including the client application) adapt their requests for video segments based on the quality of the network connection, a determination made at the end user station. ¶40 col. 8:20-24
place a streamlet request to the server...; receive the requested first streamlet...; and provide the received first streamlet for playback... The BODi application requests, receives, and provides video segments from the BODi server for playback on the user's device. ¶40 col. 13:1-12

’798 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An end user station comprising: a processor; a digital processing apparatus memory device... The end-user devices on which the BODi application is installed, which are equipped with processors and memory. ¶65, ¶74 col. 6:35-37
establish one or more network connections between the end user station and at least one server... The BODi application connects to BODi servers to stream digital content. ¶65 col. 6:44-46
wherein the digital content is encoded at a plurality of different bit rates to create a plurality of streams... The complaint alleges the service adapts requests from a set of segments of varying quality, which corresponds to content encoded at different bit rates. ¶65 col. 7:22-31
wherein the first streamlets of each of the first bit rate stream, the second bit rate stream and the third bit rate stream each has an equal playback duration and each of the first streamlets encodes the same portion of the digital content... The Accused Streaming Services are alleged to provide sets of segments with the same content, implying time-alignment and equal duration for corresponding segments. ¶65 col. 7:45-54
determine whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy of the stream and based on that determination, select a specific one of the...streams; The client-side BODi application determines which quality level to request based on network conditions. ¶65 col. 17:42-54
place a first streamlet request...; receive the requested first streamlet...; and provide the received first streamlet for output... The BODi application is alleged to perform the steps of requesting, receiving, and providing segments for playback. ¶65 col. 13:1-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’554 Patent is the term "live event video." The complaint alleges infringement by BODi's streaming of "a selected video program" (Compl. ¶40), which may primarily consist of pre-recorded, on-demand content. This raises the question of whether the scope of claim 16 is limited to content streamed contemporaneously with its occurrence or if it can read on on-demand content. The ’798 Patent uses the broader term "digital content," suggesting a potential difference in scope between the patents.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the Accused Streaming Services use time-aligned segments of equal duration, a key technical requirement of the asserted claims. A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that BODi's system architecture actually implements this specific method of content segmentation and delivery, as opposed to other methods of adaptive streaming.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’554 Patent

  • The Term: "live event video"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of asserted claim 16. Its construction is critical to the scope of infringement, as it may determine whether the claim applies only to live-streamed fitness classes or to BODi's entire library of on-demand workout videos. Practitioners may focus on this term to define the universe of accused transactions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discusses streaming of content on demand ("previously recorded") in addition to live broadcasts, suggesting the invention is not limited to only live content (’554 Patent, col. 2:55-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit choice of the words "live event" in the claim itself, rather than a broader term like "video content," may be argued to limit the claim's scope to content that is captured and streamed substantially simultaneously, such as a live sports event mentioned in other claims (’554 Patent, cl. 6).

For the ’798 Patent

  • The Term: "streamlet"
  • Context and Importance: This term, used throughout the asserted patents, defines the fundamental unit of segmented content. Its precise definition—whether it requires a specific file structure, duration, or metadata—is central to determining if the accused data segments meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating a "streamlet refers to any sized portion of the content file" (’798 Patent, col. 7:40-41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Specific embodiments consistently describe streamlets as having a defined, equal duration (e.g., two seconds) and a "unique time index in relation to the beginning of the content," suggesting a more structured data object than just any portion of a file (’798 Patent, col. 7:45-54).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for all asserted patents. The factual basis is that BODi allegedly trains and encourages its customers to use the Accused Streaming Services in an infringing manner. This is supported by reference to BODi’s consumer-facing support documents that instruct users on how to download and install the BODi application on various streaming devices (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 49, 72, 74). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused Streaming Services are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 82).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that DISH first notified BODi of its ABR patent portfolio via a letter on March 17, 2023, and sent multiple follow-up communications (Compl. ¶¶ 36-38). The complaint alleges that despite this notice and a "high likelihood that its actions constituted induced infringement," BODi continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 77).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "live event video," as used in the ’554 Patent, be construed to cover the on-demand, pre-recorded fitness videos that form a substantial part of the accused service? The resolution of this question will significantly impact the scope of potential infringement for that patent.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the segments of video delivered by the Accused Streaming Services meet the specific claim requirements of being time-aligned "streamlets," each having an "equal playback duration" corresponding to the same portion of content across different bitrates? The case may turn on whether there is a functional match or a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation of the accused system compared to the patented method.
  • A third question concerns knowledge and intent: given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice, a central issue for willfulness and indirect infringement will be what steps, if any, BODi took to assess the infringement allegations after being contacted by DISH. The court will examine the facts surrounding BODi's awareness and subsequent conduct.