DCT

1:23-cv-01065

OptiMorphix Inc v. Alphabet Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01065, D. Del., 09/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC are organized under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud platform, video streaming, and video conferencing products infringe fourteen patents related to network traffic management, data optimization, and content delivery.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the optimization of data transmission, particularly video and web content, over mobile and other bandwidth-constrained networks, a critical area given the surge in mobile data consumption.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit were developed at Bytemobile, Inc. and Citrix Systems, Inc., described as pioneers in mobile internet and data optimization. The complaint repeatedly highlights that the patent families-in-suit have been cited as relevant prior art in numerous patents assigned to Google and other major technology companies, suggesting both the technology's significance and Defendant's potential pre-suit awareness of the patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 Priority Date
2001-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 Priority Date
2001-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 Priority Date
2001-05-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 Priority Date
2003-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,616,559 Priority Date
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 Issued
2006-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 Issued
2006-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,275,167 Priority Date
2007-07-10 Priority Date for ’664, ’285, ’904, ’105, ’141 Patents
2008-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 Issued
2009-03-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,412,388 Priority Date
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 Issued
2009-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,616,559 Issued
2010-07-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169 Priority Date
2011-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,987,285 Issued
2011-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,991,904 Issued
2011-04-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021 Priority Date
2012-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,230,105 Issued
2013-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169 Issued
2014-07-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,769,141 Issued
2015-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021 Issued
2015-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664 Issued
2016-03-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,275,167 Issued
2019-09-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,412,388 Issued
2023-09-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 - "Data Transport Acceleration and Management Within a Network Communication System"

  • Issued: August 29, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in conventional Transport Control Protocol (TCP) architectures, which were not optimized for networks with "variable or unpredictable network conditions," such as wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶20-21). Specifically, these architectures assume symmetric communication channels and react poorly to random packet loss, leading to "bursty" data transmission, under-utilization of bandwidth, and poor performance for applications like streaming audio or video (’273 Patent, col. 1:38-41, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes systems and methods for enhancing data transport by using techniques like congestion control mechanisms and timers to optimize data transmission (’273 Patent, col. 3:31-33). A core concept is the use of a "transmit timer" whose period is adjusted based on smoothed estimates of the round-trip time (RTT) and the congestion window, which is intended to reduce bursty data flow and better match the transmission rate to actual network conditions (’273 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶19, 26).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the reliability and performance of data-intensive applications over the burgeoning mobile and wireless networks of the early 2000s, which were poorly served by existing TCP standards (Compl. ¶¶23-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶143).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (a method) include:
    • Establishing a connection between a sender and a receiver.
    • Measuring round trip times of data packets.
    • Determining a congestion window parameter.
    • Transmitting additional data packets in response to expiration of a transmit timer, where the timer's period is based on the round trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 - "Transcoding Multimedia Information Within a Network Communication System"

  • Issued: October 28, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "mismatch between the required transmission rate of the multimedia information and the available transmission rate of the communication channel" (’418 Patent, col. 1:56-60). This problem is particularly acute in "bandwidth constrained networks" such as wireless, where sending multimedia encoded at a higher bitrate than the network can support leads to performance degradation (Compl. ¶31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a system that intercepts multimedia information transmitted between a sender and receiver. It estimates the available transmission rate of the receiver's connection and, if the original encoding rate is greater than the available rate, it transcodes the multimedia information to conform to the available rate before sending it to the receiver (’418 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:45-48; Compl. ¶30).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enabled the efficient transmission of rich media, like video, over networks that were not originally designed for such high-bitrate content, thereby preventing disruptions and improving the user experience (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶171).
  • Essential elements of claim 23 (a system) include:
    • A service module configured to intercept digital multimedia information encoded at a first transmission rate.
    • The service module is also configured to estimate an available transmission rate of a second communication channel by measuring trip time of data packets.
    • If the first transmission rate is greater than the available rate, the service module transcodes the multimedia information to conform to the available rate.
    • The service module is further configured to transmit the transcoded multimedia information to the receiver.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314, "Systems and Methods for Providing Differentiated Services Within a Network Communication System," issued April 18, 2006.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of deploying application-specific services on network infrastructure not originally designed for them (Compl. ¶¶36-37). The solution involves a service module that intercepts packets, determines if they correspond to a specific service, and can break and re-establish connections to apply application-specific processing, allowing for a more flexible and efficient system (Compl. ¶38).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 27 is asserted (Compl. ¶198).

  • Accused Features: The accused products are Google Cloud Platform load balancers (Application, Proxy Network, and Passthrough Network Load Balancers), which allegedly classify connections, compare them to predetermined criteria (rules), and form new connections to direct data to specific service applications based on those criteria (Compl. ¶¶181, 187-190, 194).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871, "Platform and Method for Providing Data Services in a Communication Network," issued September 8, 2009.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to solving the problem of efficiently providing data services like content filtering in a network (Compl. ¶44). The solution uses a communication node that detects an event, determines whether to suspend communication for servicing based on the event, processes the suspended communication, and allows return communication to pass through without processing (Compl. ¶¶43, 45).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶222).

  • Accused Features: Google Cloud Firewall and certain Network Load Balancers are accused. They allegedly monitor incoming data, detect events (e.g., threats), determine whether to suspend communication based on configured rules, and process the suspended data (e.g., via TLS inspection) (Compl. ¶¶209, 211-215).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,616,559, "Multi-Link Network Architecture, Including Security, In Seamless Roaming Communications Systems And Methods," issued November 10, 2009.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of ensuring secure and reliable communication over multiple links, especially for mobile devices that may switch between networks (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi) (Compl. ¶¶51-52). The solution involves a system that detects usable links, selects the best one, performs handovers, and reconnects if communication is disrupted (Compl. ¶53).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 5 is asserted (Compl. ¶250).

  • Accused Features: Google Cloud Platform load balancers are accused of detecting and selecting between different communication links with different security features, maintaining a connection, and switching to an alternate link if the first one becomes unavailable, based on health checks (Compl. ¶¶232, 235, 237, 241).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,275,167, "Content Adaptation," issued March 1, 2016.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to solving problems of inefficient data management in distributed storage systems, such as data loss, uneven node load, and slow retrieval (Compl. ¶¶58-59). The invention provides methods and systems to manage data in a distributed system more effectively (Compl. ¶¶58, 60).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶274).

  • Accused Features: Google Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) and Google AMP Cache are accused of identifying content sections in a webpage's Document Object Model (DOM), transforming the DOM for a mobile device based on adaptation criteria, and serializing the new DOM into adapted markup language to generate a webpage optimized for mobile download (Compl. ¶¶260, 262, 264-265, 268-270).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664, "Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks," issued November 17, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to solve the problem of delivering high-quality streaming media over capacity-limited wireless links, which suffer from bandwidth fluctuations and packet loss (Compl. ¶¶64-65). The solution is an adaptive bitrate manager that monitors network feedback, estimates conditions, and adjusts the media bitrate and encoding to optimize the user experience (Compl. ¶66).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶302).

  • Accused Features: YouTube and Google Meet are accused of receiving media data, receiving an optimal session bitrate, allocating that bitrate between audio and video streams, encoding the streams at their respective optimal bitrates, and providing the encoded data for transmittal (Compl. ¶¶285, 288, 292, 294, 296, 298).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,987,285, "Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks," issued July 26, 2011.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to solving the problem of delivering multimedia content over capacity-limited and shared links, particularly wireless networks, by quickly responding to changing network conditions (Compl. ¶73). The solution involves receiving a receiver report, estimating network conditions from it, determining an optimal session bitrate, and providing media data based on that optimal bitrate (Compl. ¶72).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶325).

  • Accused Features: YouTube and Google Meet are accused of obtaining a best-suited session bitrate, allocating it among audio and video streams, compressing the content according to the derived bitrates, and delivering the compressed media to an end device (Compl. ¶¶312, 314, 317, 318, 320).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,991,904, "Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks," issued August 2, 2011.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses rate control for media streaming in wireless environments, where delivering bandwidth-intensive content over limited links is challenging (Compl. ¶81). The invention provides a framework for adjusting the bitrate of streaming sessions according to instantaneous network capacity (Compl. ¶80).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶351).

  • Accused Features: Google Meet is accused of acquiring a session bitrate guided by TCP acknowledgment feedback, dividing this bitrate between audio and video, compressing the streams using specified codecs, and multiplexing the streams for forwarding to a terminal (Compl. ¶¶336, 338-342).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,230,105, "Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks," issued July 24, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses delivering consistent and optimized streaming media sessions over packet networks, particularly in wireless networks where issues like packet loss and limited bandwidth are common (Compl. ¶¶88-89). The solution uses an adaptive bitrate controller and a variable bitrate encoder to adjust the bitrate according to instantaneous network capacity (Compl. ¶90).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶378).

  • Accused Features: YouTube and Google Meet are accused of receiving an optimal session bitrate, allocating it between audio and video data based on a selected metric (e.g., user preference), encoding the media data according to the optimal bitrates, and making the compressed streams available to an end device (Compl. ¶¶362, 365, 367, 372-373).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,769,141, "Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks," issued July 1, 2014.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to solving the problem of rate control for media streaming over bandwidth-limited links by quickly responding to changes in network conditions (Compl. ¶97). The solution involves providing pseudo-streaming media, receiving a TCP acknowledgment, estimating network conditions based on it, determining an optimal session bitrate, and providing further pseudo-streaming data based on that optimal bitrate (Compl. ¶96).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 20 is asserted (Compl. ¶403).

  • Accused Features: YouTube is accused of employing an adaptive bitrate (ABR) algorithm using MPEG-DASH, obtaining an optimal session bitrate from metadata, apportioning it among audio and video streams, compressing the streams, and multiplexing the data for dispatch (Compl. ¶¶388, 393-395, 398-399).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,412,388, "Framework for Quality-Aware Video Optimization," issued September 10, 2019.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies the shortcoming of prior art single-pass rate control techniques where the relationship between a video frame's byte size and its quantization parameter (QP) is only known after encoding, making byte reduction difficult (Compl. ¶103). The solution is a quality-aware optimization method that involves decompressing a frame, extracting a first QP, acquiring a delta QP, determining a second QP, and re-compressing the frame using the second QP (’388 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶102).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶425, 430).

  • Accused Features: Google Cloud Platform's Transcoder API, Google devices (Chromecast, Pixel), and Android OS are accused of infringing by complying with the HEVC/H.265 video encoding standard, which allegedly mandates the claimed steps of identifying an initial QP, determining a delta QP, calculating a second QP, and compressing using the second QP (Compl. ¶¶413, 418-426).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169, "Systems and Methods For Video Cache Indexing," issued April 23, 2013.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficient content caching that occurs when dynamic URLs cause multiple cache entries for the same content or entries with expired references (Compl. ¶¶109-110). The solution is to index the content cache based on a "characterization of the content rather than the URL," which involves using a hash function on characterization data to generate an index (Compl. ¶111).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶456).

  • Accused Features: Google Content Delivery Network (CDN) is accused of receiving a content request, identifying descriptors for the content (e.g., segments of a URL), and computing an index by applying the descriptors to a hashing function to locate an entry in a cache data structure (Compl. ¶¶439, 441, 443-444).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021, "Measuring Web Browsing Quality of Experience in Real-Time at An Intermediate Network Node," issued October 20, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of accurately measuring webpage download time at an intermediate network node, which is difficult due to content distribution across multiple servers and dynamic URLs (Compl. ¶¶116-117). The solution is a method for grouping HTTP transactions into "page units" and computing a page unit time to measure Quality of Experience (QoE) at the intermediate node (Compl. ¶118).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶481).

  • Accused Features: Google Search Console is accused of capturing HTTP transactions, determining if they relate to web browsing for a specific client, evaluating if a current transaction belongs with a previous set of transactions, and delineating a "page unit" when a transaction is deemed unrelated (Compl. ¶¶465, 467-468, 472, 476).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities for the '273 Patent are the Google Cloud Platform (GCP), YouTube.com, and Google Meet (Compl. ¶124). For the '418 Patent, the accused instrumentalities are Google Meet and YouTube.com (Compl. ¶154).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products incorporate Google's BBR (Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-trip propagation time) congestion control algorithm to manage data transfer (Compl. ¶126). This algorithm allegedly measures round-trip times (RTT) of packets, maintains an estimate of the minimum RTT (MinRTT), and uses this to calculate a pacing rate to determine how quickly to transmit data (Compl. ¶¶129, 133, 134). The complaint includes a slide from an IETF presentation titled "BBR Congestion Control Work at Google" that outlines key parameters of the algorithm, including "RTprop: estimated two-way propagation delay of path, from windowed min RTT" (Compl. p. 37).
  • The complaint further alleges that the accused products perform adaptive bitrate transcoding for multimedia information (Compl. ¶¶153, 156). This functionality purportedly involves estimating the available transmission rate of a connection and transcoding the multimedia stream to match that rate (Compl. ¶¶158, 161). The complaint references a presentation on "WebRTC based Live streaming in YouTube" which states that a "big advantage of WebRTC is that is has built-in-bandwidth estimation adaptive bitrate" (Compl. p. 46).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'273 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
establishing a connection between a sender and a receiver in a communication network The accused products establish a data connection, such as a TCP connection, between a sender and a receiver using a handshake process. ¶126-128 col. 4:35-51
measuring round trip times of data packets transmitted from the sender to the receiver The accused products measure round trip times (RTT) of packets, specifically by timestamping a transmitted packet and subtracting that timestamp from the time an acknowledgement (ACK) is received. ¶129-132 col. 4:52-54
determining a congestion window parameter that specifies a maximum quantity of unacknowledged data packets permitted to be transmitted to the receiver The accused products calculate a congestion window parameter (cwnd) that defines the maximum quantity of unacknowledged data packets permitted to be transmitted. ¶135, 137 col. 4:55-58
transmitting one or more additional data packets to the receiver in response to an expiration of a transmit timer The accused products transmit additional data packets to the receiver in response to a transmit timer expiration. ¶139 col. 4:59-61
wherein a period of the transmit timer is based on the round trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter The period of the transmit timer is allegedly based on the round-trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter, as implemented in Google's BBR algorithm. ¶139 col. 4:62-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's use of a "pacing rate" in its BBR algorithm falls within the scope of the claimed "transmit timer." The patent claims a method responsive to the "expiration of a transmit timer" having a specific "period." Practitioners may question whether a system that continuously modulates a sending rate is structurally or functionally equivalent to a system based on a discrete timer with an adjustable period.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the timer's period to be "based on" the RTT and congestion window. The complaint alleges this is met but provides a formula for cwnd (cwnd = BtlBw * RTT) rather than for the timer period or pacing rate (Compl. ¶137). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the BBR pacing rate calculation performs the specific function taught in the patent, which describes the period as based on a "ratio" of the smoothed RTT and the smoothed congestion window (’273 Patent, col. 4:62-64).

'418 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a service module configured to intercept digital multimedia information communicated between a transmitter and a receiver...the digital multimedia information encoded at the transmitter at a first transmission rate The accused Google Meet and YouTube products intercept digital multimedia information, such as a video stream encoded at a primary transmission rate, between a sender and a recipient. ¶156-157 col. 3:1-10
the service module further configured to estimate an available transmission rate of a second communication channel between the service module and the receiver...by measuring a trip time of data packets communicated between the service module and the receiver via the second channel The products allegedly estimate the accessible transmission rate of the receiver-end connection, a process that involves determining the round-trip time for data packets. This is supported by references to WebRTC's "built-in-bandwidth estimation adaptive bitrate." ¶158-159 col. 4:5-13
wherein if the first transmission rate is greater than the available transmission rate, the service module is further configured to transcode the digital multimedia information to conform the digital multimedia information to the available transmission rate The products compare the original encoding rate with the estimated available rate and, if the original rate is greater, transcode the media data to match the available rate. ¶160-162 col. 4:14-20
the service module further configured to transmit the transcoded multimedia information to the receiver via the second communication channel The products convey the transcoded multimedia data to the recipient over the receiver-end connection. ¶164-165 col. 4:21-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the distributed cloud infrastructure of YouTube or Google Meet constitute a "service module" as that term is used in the patent? The patent figures and description may suggest a more discrete, singular component that performs the interception and transcoding, raising the question of whether a collection of disparate servers and software functions can meet this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: What is the specific mechanism by which the accused products "estimate an available transmission rate"? The complaint alleges this is done by measuring packet trip times (Compl. ¶158), but the supporting evidence cited is a high-level marketing statement (Compl. p. 46). The factual evidence showing that the accused WebRTC implementation actually performs estimation based on packet trip times, as required by the claim, will be a critical point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a transmit timer" (’273 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism of Claim 1. The infringement theory hinges on equating Google's BBR "pacing rate" with this "transmit timer." Practitioners may focus on this term because Google will likely argue that its algorithm, which continuously calculates a data sending rate, is fundamentally different from a method that relies on the "expiration" of a timer with a defined "period."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract of the ’273 Patent describes the invention's goal as providing "timer-based data flow control" to reduce "bursty data transmission." This purpose-driven language could be used to argue that any mechanism achieving this goal, including a pacing algorithm, falls within the term's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to the "period of the transmit timer" and its "expiration" triggering packet transmission (’273 Patent, col. 4:59-62). This language suggests a discrete, event-based mechanism (a timer runs out, a packet is sent) which could be contrasted with a continuous, rate-based system.

  • The Term: "service module" (’418 Patent, Claim 23)

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires a "service module" to perform several functions: intercepting, estimating, transcoding, and transmitting. The accused products are complex, distributed cloud services. The definition of "service module" will be critical to determining whether these distributed functions, potentially performed by different hardware and software components across Google's infrastructure, can be aggregated to meet a single claim limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "service module may be disposed within the network communication system" and can be configured to "break a connection between the transmitter and the receiver to form a first channel...and a second channel" (’418 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2). This could support a view that the "module" is defined by its function within the network path rather than as a single, co-located piece of hardware.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself, in describing the related ’314 patent, refers to a service module as a component that "can intercept packets, determine whether the connection corresponds to a service application, and then break and reestablish the connection" (Compl. ¶38), language which may imply a more centralized point of control and action rather than a diffuse, multi-part system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on Google providing documentation, product support, marketing, and training materials that allegedly instruct and encourage customers and end-users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶148, 175, 203).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge, supported by extensive lists of U.S. patents and applications owned by Google that cite the patents-in-suit or their family members as relevant prior art (e.g., Compl. ¶¶146-147, 174, 201-202). This is presented as evidence that Google was aware of the patented technology before the lawsuit was filed.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does Google’s modern, rate-based BBR congestion control algorithm function in a substantially similar way to the claimed method of transmitting packets upon the "expiration of a transmit timer" whose "period" is adjusted based on a specific ratio, or is there a fundamental operational difference that places it outside the scope of the ’273 patent?
  • A second central question will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "service module," as used in patents like the ’418 and ’314 patents, be construed to read on the distributed, cloud-based infrastructure of services like YouTube and Google Meet, or does the intrinsic evidence limit the term to a more discrete, co-located component that performs the claimed functions?
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: Given the extensive citation of the asserted patent families by Google's own patents prior to the suit, what level of knowledge can be imputed to the defendant as a corporate entity, and does the continued use of the accused technologies constitute the objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement?