DCT
1:23-cv-01061
Dazn Ltd v. Distributed Media Solutions LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DAZN Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Distributed Media Solutions, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney (DELAWARE) LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01061, D. Del., 09/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff DAZN alleges venue is proper in Delaware because Defendant DMS is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having purposefully directed activities there, including sending cease-and-desist letters, filing multiple patent lawsuits, and acquiring the patents-in-suit from Delaware-based entities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff DAZN seeks a declaratory judgment that its sports streaming service does not infringe four patents owned by Defendant DMS and that those patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies for managing and distributing digital media and streaming data over computer networks, which are central to modern content delivery and video-on-demand services.
- Key Procedural History: Defendant DMS acquired the patents in August 2021 and subsequently filed infringement lawsuits against several other streaming services. After being accused of infringement by DMS, DAZN filed this preemptive action. The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,697,811, 7,133,922, and 8,122,004 appear to have expired, which may limit any potential damages to the pre-expiration period.
I. Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-08-07 | ’922 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-01-12 | ’004 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-03-07 | ’811 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-12-24 | ’714 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-02-24 | ’811 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-11-07 | ’922 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-06-15 | ’714 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-02-21 | ’004 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-08-01 | DMS acquires the DMS patents by assignment (approx. date) |
| 2022-07-08 | DMS files suit against Deezer S.A. and Aspiro AB |
| 2022-09-30 | DMS files suit against AMC Networks Inc. |
| 2022-10-13 | DMS files suit against CuriosityStream Inc. |
| 2023-02-09 | DMS files suit against Fenix International, Ltd. |
| 2023-09-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
I. U.S. Patent No. 6,697,811 - "Method and System for Information Management and Distribution"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of collecting and distributing information across global networks composed of different private or special-purpose systems that store data in varying, incompatible formats (’811 Patent, col. 1:11-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture that separates management from execution. A central “multi-access manager” authenticates a user and displays a catalog of authorized remote “source servers.” The user selects a server, which then directly handles the data request, translates the data into a standard format, encrypts it, and transmits it to the user, thereby centralizing access control while decentralizing data delivery (’811 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provided a method for securely managing access to disparate, geographically distributed data sources while addressing the critical challenge of data format incompatibility in early global network systems (’811 Patent, col. 2:20-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent claim 1 of the ’811 Patent recites the essential elements of:
- Receiving a user access request at a multi-access manager.
- Determining if the access request is approved.
- Displaying a catalogue of authorized source servers.
- Receiving a source server selection from the user.
- Providing the user with access to the selected source server.
- Receiving a data request at the selected source server.
- Transmitting the requested data from the selected source server to the user.
- DAZN is seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity as to all claims of the ’811 Patent (Compl. ¶¶24-36).
II. U.S. Patent No. 7,133,922 - "Method and Apparatus for Streaming of Data"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that conventional point-to-point streaming technology does not scale well for popular live events, as separate connections from the server to each user create massive bandwidth waste and risk network overload, particularly when many users are behind a single corporate or campus intranet (’922 Patent, col. 1:41-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "intelligent gateway" positioned at the edge of a local network. When the first client requests a data stream, the gateway retrieves it from the origin server. When subsequent clients request the same stream, the gateway duplicates it locally and serves them directly, avoiding redundant requests to the origin server and thus conserving upstream bandwidth (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-56).
- Technical Importance: This intelligent stream-caching and duplication approach at the network edge offered a practical solution to make internet broadcasting more scalable and robust by mitigating the bandwidth bottlenecks that constrained early streaming media (’922 Patent, col. 2:6-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of at least independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent claim 18 of the ’922 Patent recites the essential elements of:
- Locating multiple gateways between a server and clients.
- Sourcing a data stream from a server or another gateway upon a first request.
- Supplying the data stream from the gateway to subsequent clients.
- Deciding if a neighboring gateway exists from which a stream can be obtained.
- Selecting between two or more possible gateway sources.
- DAZN is seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity as to all claims of the ’922 Patent (Compl. ¶¶37-49).
III. U.S. Patent No. 7,739,714 - "System for Transmitting Digital Data Over a Limited Bandwidth Link in Plural Blocks"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of delivering large multimedia files over bandwidth-constrained networks by using a scalable encoding method. The technology encodes data into a series of "blocks," where the initial block provides a lower-quality version for immediate playback, and subsequent blocks progressively improve the quality, accommodating users with different connection speeds (’714 Patent, col. 1:45-67; col. 2:51-59).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶51).
- Accused Features: DAZN denies that its system performs the claimed functions of an "encoder for compressing a digital object movie" or a "processing unit...for determining one or more data blocks to transmit based on...bandwidth" (Compl. ¶55).
IV. U.S. Patent No. 8,122,004 - "Generating and Providing Rich Media Presentations Optimized for a Device Over a Network"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that optimizes the delivery of rich media by first determining the attributes of a requesting device, such as its operating system, browser, and bandwidth. Based on these attributes, the system generates and delivers optimized content, including a device-specific "virtual player" and media packages, to enhance the user experience (’004 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
- Accused Features: DAZN denies that its system performs the claimed functions of "configuring a content package for media content" or "causing communication of the content package" as required by the claims (Compl. ¶68).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
I. Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities generally as "DAZN Products" and "DAZN products and/or services," referring to DAZN's global sports streaming service (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
II. Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not detail the technical functionality of the DAZN service. Instead, it focuses on DAZN’s business relationship with its content delivery network provider, Akamai. DAZN alleges that it "licenses the Akamai Content Delivery Network ('Akamai CDN')" and "does not exercise any direction or control over the Akamai CDN" (Compl. ¶¶28, 41, 54, 67). This assertion forms the basis of DAZN's primary non-infringement defense, which suggests that the steps of the patented methods are not performed by a single entity.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
I. U.S. Patent No. 6,697,811 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving from a user at a multi-access manager a request for access to the system | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶29 | col. 8:37-39 |
| displaying in response to an approved access a catalogue of at least one source server | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶29 | col. 8:44-49 |
| receiving a source server selection from the user | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶29 | col. 8:50-54 |
II. Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: Does the architecture of the DAZN streaming service, which relies on the Akamai CDN, contain components that function as a "multi-access manager" and "source servers" as those terms are described in the ’811 Patent? The complaint's denials suggest a fundamental architectural mismatch.
- Legal Questions (Divided Infringement): A central dispute will be whether DAZN can be held liable for direct infringement if some claim steps are performed by DAZN and others by Akamai. The complaint asserts that DAZN "alone does not perform all the steps" and is not in a "joint venture or enterprise with Akamai" (Compl. ¶28). This raises the question of whether DMS can prove that DAZN directs or controls Akamai's actions sufficiently to attribute Akamai's performance of claim steps to DAZN.
III. U.S. Patent No. 7,133,922 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| locating a plurality of gateways between said server and said clients, each said client being associated with one said gateway | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶42 | col. 12:47-50 |
| sourcing a data stream from a server or another gateway | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶42 | col. 12:51-53 |
| supplying a data stream from the said gateway | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶42 | col. 12:54-57 |
| deciding whether a neighboring gateway exists | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶42 | col. 12:58-60 |
| selecting between two or more gateways | The complaint alleges that DAZN's system does not perform this step. | ¶42 | col. 12:61-63 |
IV. Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Does a modern CDN edge server, such as those used by Akamai, meet the definition of the claimed "gateway"? The analysis will likely focus on whether the standard caching and routing functions of a CDN perform the specific, multi-step decision logic for sourcing and duplicating streams recited in claim 18 of the ’922 Patent.
- Legal Questions (Divided Infringement): As with the ’811 Patent, the complaint’s core argument is that DAZN does not itself perform the claimed steps related to gateway location, sourcing, and selection, attributing that functionality to the Akamai CDN over which it claims to have no direction or control (Compl. ¶41).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
I. For the ’811 Patent
- The Term: "multi-access manager"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central component in the claimed system for managing and authenticating user access. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether any part of the DAZN or Akamai architecture can be characterized as a "multi-access manager". Practitioners may focus on this term because DAZN’s non-infringement defense rests on its system not containing or controlling such a component.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component as providing "control over access to network system 10" and notes it may comprise "any combination of software, firmware, hardware or other suitable components," suggesting a potentially broad functional definition (’811 Patent, col. 4:39-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses a specific embodiment where the manager "acts as the first gateway to grant access," "maintains a separate and distinct database of user-level rules and permissions," and displays a filtered list of accessible sources, functions which might be used to argue for a more limited construction (’811 Patent, col. 7:30-47).
II. For the ’922 Patent
- The Term: "gateway"
- Context and Importance: The functionality of the "gateway" is the core of the ’922 Patent's invention. The dispute will turn on whether the Akamai CDN servers used by DAZN meet the functional requirements of the claimed "gateway", particularly the specific logic for duplicating streams for subsequent clients.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent broadly describes the gateway as being "located between said server and said clients," which could potentially read on any intermediary network node like a CDN edge server (’922 Patent, col. 2:42-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific function where the gateway "effectively duplicat[es] said stream within said gateway by converting a unicast address type to a multicast address type" (Claim 1) and uses novel APIs to do so (’922 Patent, col. 8:10-31). An accused infringer could argue that this requires more than standard CDN caching and implicates a specific method of local stream replication.
VI. Other Allegations
I. Indirect Infringement
- The complaint includes a general denial of any direct or indirect infringement for each of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶26, 39, 52, 65). However, the specific factual allegations focus entirely on refuting direct infringement, primarily through the argument that DAZN does not perform all the steps of any single claim due to its use of the third-party Akamai CDN (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not provide specific facts alleged by DMS regarding inducement or contributory infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary legal issue for the entire case will be one of divided infringement: can the actions of the Akamai CDN be attributed to DAZN to satisfy the requirement that a single party performs all steps of the asserted method claims? DAZN's complaint frames this as its central defense, creating a significant evidentiary burden for DMS to demonstrate the requisite direction or control.
- A key question of claim scope and technical operation will be whether the functionalities of a modern, large-scale streaming service built on a third-party CDN can be mapped onto the specific architectures claimed in patents from the early 2000s. The case may turn on whether terms like "multi-access manager" (’811 Patent) and "gateway" with stream-duplication logic (’922 Patent) can be construed to read on the components of the DAZN/Akamai system, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technology.