DCT

1:23-cv-01000

DISH Tech LLC v. A Parent Media Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01000, D. Del., 09/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant A Parent Media Co. USA, Inc. being a Delaware corporation and Defendant A Parent Media Co. Inc. being a foreign corporation with no principal place of business in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Kidoodle.TV online streaming service infringes eight patents related to foundational adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology.
  • Technical Context: Adaptive bitrate streaming is a core technology for delivering high-quality video over the internet by segmenting content into small files at multiple quality levels and dynamically selecting which file to deliver based on the user's real-time network conditions.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originate from a portfolio developed by MOVE Networks, Inc., which Plaintiff’s corporate parent acquired in 2010 for a reported $45 million. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants on March 17, 2023, identifying its ABR patent portfolio and inviting licensing discussions, which Defendants ultimately declined on July 24, 2023.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 Issued
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
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 Issued
2023-03-17 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant regarding ABR patents
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 Issued
2023-07-24 Defendant declines license offer
2023-09-08 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 (Issued Nov. 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, internet video delivery was unreliable and offered poor quality compared to cable or satellite (Compl. ¶23). Users faced a choice between waiting for a large file to download or unreliable streaming that was prone to "buffering" and worked only at low resolution (Compl. ¶23; ’554 Patent, col. 2:1-4). Existing streaming protocols were inefficient, expensive to scale, and required custom server configurations (Compl. ¶24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses these problems through HTTP-based Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) (Compl. ¶26). It involves encoding a video file into multiple versions at different bitrates, segmenting each version into small, time-aligned chunks called "streamlets," and storing them on a standard web server (’554 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3b). An intelligent client device then monitors the user's network conditions and requests the appropriate bitrate streamlet for the next segment of video, allowing it to seamlessly shift between quality levels to ensure continuous playback without buffering (Compl. ¶29; ’554 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This client-driven, HTTP-based approach eliminated the need for specialized streaming servers and protocols, leveraging standard web infrastructure to deliver a high-quality, reliable viewing experience that could rival traditional broadcast television (Compl. ¶¶26, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Essential elements of claim 16, an "end user station," include:
    • A processor and memory with instructions to:
    • Establish a network connection to a server having access to groups of "streamlets."
    • Wherein a "live event video" is encoded into at least low, medium, and high quality streams, each comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one of the streams is encoded at a bit rate of no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each quality stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the video.
    • Select a specific quality stream based on a determination by the end user station.
    • Place a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested streamlet and provide it for playback.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶13, n.1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 - Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming (Issued Jun. 13, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '798 Patent, part of the same patent family, addresses the same fundamental problems of unreliability and poor quality in pre-ABR internet video streaming (Compl. ¶¶23-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is substantively identical to that of the '554 Patent, describing an ABR system where digital content is encoded into multiple bitrate streams, segmented into time-aligned streamlets, and delivered via standard web protocols based on client-side requests that adapt to network conditions (’798 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: As with the related patents, this technology was significant for enabling reliable, high-quality video streaming using scalable, standard internet infrastructure (Compl. ¶¶26, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Essential elements of claim 11, an "end user station," include:
    • A processor and memory with instructions to:
    • Establish a network connection to a server with access to groups of "streamlets of digital content."
    • Wherein the digital content is encoded into at least a first, second, and third bit rate stream, each comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one stream is encoded at a bit rate of no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each 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 select a specific stream based on that determination.
    • Place a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested streamlet and provide it for output to a presentation device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶13, n.1).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564 (Issued Aug. 2, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method executable by an end user station for presenting rate-adaptive streams. The method involves requesting sequential files (streamlets) from different copies of a video, repeatedly generating a performance factor based on network conditions, and using that factor to shift between higher and lower quality copies to achieve continuous playback (Compl. ¶92).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Streaming Services' function of adapting requests for video segments based on network quality infringes this patent (Compl. ¶92).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680 (Issued Mar. 16, 2021)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an end user station for streaming video that is encoded into multiple quality streams composed of streamlets. The station selects a quality stream, places a "virtual timeline request" based on the selection, and receives the virtual timeline, which dictates playback (Compl. ¶117).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets the Accused Streaming Services' general functionality of adapting requests for video segments based on network connection quality (Compl. ¶117).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555 (Issued Nov. 5, 2019)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a content player device that establishes a connection to a server, selects a stream from multiple available quality versions (each composed of streamlets), and requests/receives streamlets for playback. The claim specifies that streamlets encoding the same portion of video in different quality streams have equal playback duration (Compl. ¶142).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶142).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is the adaptive streaming functionality of the Accused Streaming Services, which allegedly requests and plays back segments of varying quality based on network conditions (Compl. ¶142).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 (Issued Oct. 21, 2014)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams by requesting sequential files from multiple different-quality copies of a video over TCP connections. The method includes repeatedly generating factors indicative of network performance and using those factors to shift between the different quality copies to maintain continuous playback (Compl. ¶167).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶167).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is the adaptive nature of the Accused Streaming Services, which receives video segments and adapts requests based on network quality (Compl. ¶167).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 (Issued Oct. 11, 2022)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an end user station structurally and functionally similar to that of the '554 and '798 patents. It establishes an internet connection, selects a quality stream (comprised of streamlets), and requests, receives, and plays back streamlets, with at least one stream encoded at >= 600 kbps (Compl. ¶192).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶192).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the general adaptive streaming functionality of the Accused Streaming Services of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶192).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156 (Issued Aug. 25, 2020)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus with a media player that requests sequential streamlets using HTTP GET requests. The player repeatedly generates a performance factor, adapts its quality-shifting determinations based on that factor, and presents the streamlets in order of ascending start time (Compl. ¶217).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶217).
  • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged based on the Accused Streaming Services' functionality of adapting requests for video segments based on network quality (Compl. ¶217).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendants' online streaming service named "Kidoodle.TV," which is operated through the "APMC Application and APMC Server(s)" and collectively referred to as the "Accused Streaming Services" (Compl. ¶¶4, 37).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Streaming Services function by receiving segments of a selected video program for playback over a network connection (Compl. ¶¶13, 18, 92). The service is alleged to "adapt requests for segments from a set of segments with the same content but varying quality based upon the quality of the network connection" (Compl. ¶¶13, 18, 92). The complaint does not provide specific details on the market positioning or commercial importance of the Kidoodle.TV service beyond identifying it as an online streaming service.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain element-by-element infringement allegations in the body of the text for any of the asserted patents. Instead, for each count of infringement, it refers to a corresponding claim chart exhibit (Exhibits M through U) that was attached to the complaint but was not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶42, 67, 92, 117, 142, 167, 192, 217). The narrative infringement theory provided for each patent is identical, stating that the "Accused Streaming Services receive segments of a selected video program for playback... [and] adapt requests for segments from a set of segments with the same content but varying quality based upon the quality of the network connection" (Compl. ¶¶42, 67, 92).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 16 of the ’554 Patent is directed to streaming "live event video." This raises the question of whether the Kidoodle.TV service, which appears to be a service for on-demand children's programming, streams content that falls within the scope of this term as it is defined and used within the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The asserted claims require specific technical implementations, such as encoding video into at least three distinct quality streams, ensuring at least one stream is encoded at a bitrate of "no less than 600 kbps," and using time-aligned "streamlets" of equal playback duration. A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the Accused Streaming Services technically operate in the precise manner required by each of these claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "streamlet"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims and is central to the patented invention's architecture. It is not a standard industry term, suggesting it may have a specific meaning defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what type of data segmentation structure (e.g., file format, duration, time-alignment) is covered by the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "As used herein, streamlet refers to any sized portion of the content file 200" (’554 Patent, col. 7:39-41). This broad definition could support an argument that any chunking or segmentation of a video file meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes streamlets as being "encapsulated as an independent media object" and having a "unique time index" and a specific duration, such as two seconds (’554 Patent, col. 7:41-49). This language, along with figures like 3b showing discrete, time-aligned blocks, may support a narrower construction requiring specific metadata and structural properties.

  • The Term: "live event video"

    • Context and Importance: This term is an express limitation in claim 16 of the asserted ’554 Patent. The infringement analysis for this patent will depend heavily on whether the content streamed by the accused Kidoodle.TV service qualifies as "live event video."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint itself refers to the technology's suitability for "live stream playback" (Compl. ¶28), and the patent repeatedly discusses applications for live television broadcasts. However, the term is not explicitly defined. A party might argue that in the context of the patent, it refers to the method of streaming (i.e., streaming as if live) rather than the content itself being a contemporaneous event.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific phrase "live event video," which contrasts with the broader term "digital content" used in the asserted claim of the related ’798 Patent (Compl. ¶67). This explicit choice of different terms in a related patent may support an argument that "live event video" was intended to be narrower in scope and limited to the streaming of events as they occur, not on-demand content.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on Defendants allegedly having knowledge of the patents and encouraging infringement by providing customers with an adaptive streaming service and promotional materials, such as articles explaining how to watch Kidoodle.TV (e.g., Compl. ¶¶48-51, 73-76). The contributory infringement claims allege the Accused Streaming Services constitute a material part of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for use in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶59-62, 84-87).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent portfolio as of a March 17, 2023 letter, which explicitly identified at least U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156 (Compl. ¶38). For other patents, knowledge is alleged to have occurred "no later than the time of filing this lawsuit," suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness (e.g., Compl. ¶¶44, 69).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "live event video," an explicit limitation in claim 16 of the '554 patent, be construed to cover the on-demand children's programming allegedly offered by the Kidoodle.TV service, or is its meaning restricted to the streaming of contemporaneous events?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the factual evidence that the Accused Streaming Services practice the specific technical architecture required by the claims, such as segmenting content into time-aligned "streamlets" of equal duration across multiple bitrate streams, with at least one stream exceeding 600 kbps?
  • The dispute over willfulness will likely focus on the scope of pre-suit notice. The central question will be whether a letter identifying the patent portfolio and one specific asserted patent is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement for all eight asserted patents, or if willfulness for the other seven can only be established post-filing.