DigiMedia Tech LLC v. WideOpenWest Finance LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: WideOpenWest Finance, LLC; WideOpenWest Networks, LLC; and WideOpenWest, Inc. d/b/a WOW! (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01427, D. Del., 12/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the grounds that each Defendant is a Delaware entity and therefore resides in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s video recording services, chatbot system, and streaming applications infringe three patents related to remote media recording, automated information exchange, and user-driven content delivery.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the architecture of on-demand media systems and automated customer support, which are central to modern internet service and content providers.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement for all three patents-in-suit via a letter dated July 14, 2022. This pre-suit notice is the basis for the complaint’s allegations of willful infringement.

I. Case Timeline

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

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

I. The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a disadvantage for television viewers: an inability to access all television programming broadcast throughout the world because a viewer is typically limited to content available in their local area (’778 Patent, col. 1:59-2:8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user with a personalized video recorder (PVR) can request a television show that is unavailable locally. An Electronic Programming Guide (EPG) server receives the request, locates one or more other PVRs within the broadcast region of the requested show, and programs a remote PVR to record it. The recorded show is then transmitted from the remote PVR, potentially via the EPG server, back to the user’s requesting PVR (’778 Patent, col. 2:9-28; Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Importance: The patent addresses the challenge of content fragmentation in the pre-cloud, pre-streaming era, proposing a peer-to-peer style network of recording devices to expand a user's access to geographically-restricted media (’778 Patent, col. 1:59-2:8).

II. Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 31 and dependent claims 32, 33, and 37 (Compl. ¶51).
• Independent Claim 31 recites the key elements of a method:
  • A server computer receiving a request from a receiver device for a television show;
  • The server computer locating a plurality of digital video recorders capable of receiving a broadcast of the television show;
  • Each of the digital video recorders receiving a programming instruction from the server computer to record the show;
  • At least one of the digital video recorders recording the show; and
  • The receiver device receiving the recorded television show.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, though none are specified (Compl. ¶51).

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

I. The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the technical difficulty of exchanging information between different computer applications or tools that use unique file formats and data structures, requiring significant effort to reformat and restructure data and methods (’220 Patent, col. 1:11-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a "loading engine" that automates the process of connecting data. It automatically identifies input and output variables within a data model composed of different "objects" and creates "object links" between them. This is intended to alleviate the need for users to manually create these connections, even if the underlying data structure (e.g., tables, functions) changes (’220 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create more flexible and maintainable data-driven systems by abstracting the connections between data components, a challenge relevant to complex software integration and database management (’220 Patent, col. 1:39-46).

II. Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶59).
• Independent Claim 10 recites the key elements of a method:
  • Retrieving a model from an information source, where the model has a plurality of objects, each with an input and an output variable;
  • Automatically identifying the input and output variables of each object; and
  • Automatically creating object links between the corresponding input and output variables of each of the plurality of objects.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’220 Patent.

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

I. Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem where a user cannot obtain information (e.g., tickets for a future concert, a TV show not currently scheduled) because it is not available at the time of the search (’568 Patent, col. 1:35-50). The invention is a system where a user can post a request for information; this request is stored and can be accessed by information providers, who can then fulfill the request when the information becomes available, potentially after an interaction to agree on terms of delivery (’568 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:1-10).

II. Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 6, and 12 (Compl. ¶¶44, 66).

III. Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by "Defendants' WOW! streaming apps" (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

I. Product Identification

The complaint identifies three categories of accused instrumentalities:

1. "Defendants' video recording functionality" accused of infringing the ’778 Patent (Compl. ¶51).
2. "Defendants' chatbot system" accused of infringing the ’220 Patent (Compl. ¶59).
3. "Defendants' WOW! streaming apps" accused of infringing the ’568 Patent (Compl. ¶66).

II. Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific product names or detailed descriptions of how the accused functionalities operate. The allegations are framed at a high level, corresponding to the general functions of video recording, automated customer support chat, and on-demand streaming applications offered by a telecommunications and content provider (Compl. ¶¶51, 59, 66). The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits D, E, and F for details, but these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶51, 59, 66). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the details by reference to Exhibits D, E, and F, which were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶51, 59, 66). As such, a detailed claim-chart-based analysis is not possible from the complaint document. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

I. ’778 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "video recording functionality" offered by Defendants infringes at least claim 31. The theory, presumably detailed in the missing Exhibit D, would need to show how Defendants' system performs the claimed method of receiving a request, locating a plurality of remote recorders, instructing one to record, and delivering the content to the requester (Compl. ¶51).

II. ’220 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that "Defendants' chatbot system" infringes at least claim 10. The infringement theory, presumably detailed in the missing Exhibit E, would need to establish that the chatbot system retrieves a data model with objects and "automatically creat[es] object links" between their inputs and outputs to provide responses (Compl. ¶59).

III. Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions (’778 Patent): A central question will be whether the term "a plurality of digital video recorders" can be construed to read on a modern cloud-based DVR architecture. The patent’s specification appears to contemplate a network of distinct, physical PVRs located in different broadcast regions (’778 Patent, col. 2:13-28). The defense may argue that a centralized, server-based recording system is technologically distinct and does not meet this claim limitation.
• Technical Questions (’220 Patent): The infringement analysis will likely focus on the technical operation of the accused chatbot. A key question for the court will be whether the chatbot's process for linking a user query to an answer constitutes the specific method of "automatically creating object links" between discrete "input variables" and "output variables" as required by the claim, or if it uses a more conventional keyword search or database lookup method that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

I. Term: "locating a plurality of digital video recorders" (’778 Patent, Claim 31)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis for the ’778 Patent. Its construction will determine whether a modern cloud DVR system, which may use virtualized recorder instances on centralized servers, falls within the scope of a claim conceived in the era of physical, user-premise PVRs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit "digital video recorders" to separate physical hardware or specific geographic locations, potentially allowing for an interpretation that includes multiple virtual recorders on a server.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the solution in the context of overcoming geographic broadcast restrictions, explaining that the server "locates via the Internet one or more personalized video recorders situated within a broadcast region of the requested television show" (’778 Patent, col. 2:16-18). This language suggests the "locating" step is meant to identify devices in distinct physical locations corresponding to broadcast markets.

II. Term: "automatically creating object links" (’220 Patent, Claim 10)

• Context and Importance: This is the core inventive concept of the ’220 Patent. The outcome of the infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused chatbot system's functionality can be characterized as performing this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term because many automated response systems exist, and the patentability and infringement positions will depend on this specific mechanism.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be interpreted broadly to cover any automated process that establishes a functional connection between an input (a user query) and an output (a system response) within a structured data model.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed diagrams and descriptions of "objects" (e.g., container objects, parent objects) with distinct input and output variables, and how "loading engine 30" creates links between them (’220 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 4:35-66). A defendant would likely argue that "object links" must be construed narrowly to mean this specific type of programmatic connection between structured software objects, not merely a database query.

VI. Other Allegations

I. Indirect Infringement

For the asserted method claims, the complaint alleges that to the extent a user performs a step, Defendants control the user's access to the functionality and condition its use on the performance of all claimed steps. This is framed to address potential divided infringement issues, alleging Defendants control the manner and timing of the system's use (Compl. ¶¶52, 67).

II. Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement for all three asserted patents in a letter dated July 14, 2022. It is alleged that any infringement occurring after this date has been willful (Compl. ¶¶54, 61, 69).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of several central questions:

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can the claim term "a plurality of digital video recorders," written in 2001 to describe a network of physical PVRs, be construed to cover a modern, centralized cloud DVR architecture? The case may turn on whether these systems are definitionally equivalent under the patent's language.
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Does the accused "chatbot system" actually operate using the specific "automatic information exchange" method claimed in the ’220 patent? This will require a deep dive into the system's source code and architecture to determine if its function of providing answers matches the claimed technical process of "automatically creating object links."
• Finally, a foundational question arises from the pleading standard: Given that the complaint relies on references to non-public exhibits for the factual basis of infringement, a threshold issue may be whether the allegations, as they stand in the public document, provide sufficient detail to be plausible or if they will require significant substantiation in discovery to survive.