DCT
1:24-cv-01043
NTJK Inc v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NTJK, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shaw Keller LLP; Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01043, D. Del., 09/17/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ incorporation in Delaware and the presence of a “regular and established place of business” within the district, including a 3.8 million-square-foot fulfillment center.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Prime Video service and associated hardware infringe a patent related to an internet-based system for searching and tabulating TV program data.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses systems for aggregating, searching, and analyzing user interest in television programming distributed over the internet.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,783. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been on notice of the patent and its alleged infringement since at least August 2017, following letters sent in September 2016 and August 2017, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-07 | ’088 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-08-19 | ’088 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-09-01 | Alleged pre-suit notice letter sent to Amazon |
| 2017-08-01 | Alleged pre-suit notice letter sent to Amazon |
| 2024-09-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,088 - “System for Searching TV Program Data via the Internet”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,088, “System for Searching TV Program Data via the Internet,” issued August 19, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in traditional methods of discovering TV programs, such as on-air advertisements and print guides. It notes that these methods are limited in reach and fail to provide broadcasters with an advance "index showing the interest of viewers for programs to be broadcast in the future" (’088 Patent, col. 1:11-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system where "broadcasting stations" supply program data over the Internet to a "data management apparatus" (’088 Patent, col. 1:50-59). Users can search this aggregated data from their own terminals. The system is designed not only to provide search results but also to record and tabulate user searches, thereby creating a dataset of user interest in upcoming programs based on demographic attributes and search activity (’088 Patent, col. 2:10-33).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to transform a passive program guide into an interactive search and data-gathering tool, providing a novel method for gauging pre-broadcast audience interest. (’088 Patent, col. 1:39-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 6. (Compl. ¶19).
- Essential elements of independent claim 6 include:
- A system comprising "broadcasting station terminals," "user terminals," and a central "data management apparatus" connected via the Internet.
- The data management apparatus includes a web server, a database server, and a central processing controller.
- The database includes a "program data database" (for schedules and guide data) and a "user database" (for user registration data including demographics like sex, age, or occupation).
- The central processing controller includes a "program data recorder" for ingesting schedule data, a "user register" for recording user data, and a "program data searcher."
- The program data searcher searches for schedule and guide data and also considers "data including the number of prior searches having the same TV program data."
- A final "wherein" clause requires that the program data searcher "provides the user with data related to searches that other users have performed on the TV program data."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the Amazon Prime Video service, Amazon-branded devices compatible with the service (e.g., Fire TV, Fire Stick, Echo devices with a screen), and third-party devices running the Amazon Prime Video app (collectively, "the Accused Products") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products allegedly form an infringing system that allows users to search for and view video content ("TV program data") over the internet. The complaint alleges this system meets every limitation of at least claim 6 of the ’088 patent. (Compl. ¶27-28). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's market context beyond its general availability. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "Exhibit B" containing detailed infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit. The analysis below is based on the complaint’s narrative allegations against claim 6. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 28).
RE45,088 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for searching TV program data via the Internet for managing TV program data supplied by broadcasting stations... | The Amazon Prime Video ecosystem, which manages and provides video content from various content partners. | ¶¶ 22, 27 | col. 9:6-12 |
| broadcasting station terminals provided for broadcasting stations supplying the TV program data; | Content management systems used by studios and other content providers to supply video content to the Amazon Prime Video platform. | ¶¶ 22, 27 | col. 9:11-13 |
| user terminals for receiving the TV program data; | Amazon Devices (Fire TV, etc.) and third-party devices (smart TVs, smartphones) running the Prime Video app. | ¶22 | col. 9:14-15 |
| a data management apparatus connected to the broadcasting station terminals and user terminals via the Internet; | The backend infrastructure, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), that hosts and operates the Prime Video service. | ¶¶ 8, 22 | col. 9:16-20 |
| the database comprising: a program data database including a timetable... a subject matter table... and data including the number of prior searches... | Amazon’s databases storing video metadata, scheduling/availability information, and potentially user search activity data. | ¶¶ 27-28 | col. 9:30-36 |
| a user database including: a user table for recording user registration data... wherein the user registration data includes at least one of the user's sex, age or occupation; | Amazon's user account database, which contains demographic information provided by users upon registration. | ¶¶ 27-28 | col. 9:37-41 |
| a program data searcher for receiving requirements from the user terminals... and searching for... data including the number of prior searches having the same TV program data; | The search functionality within the Prime Video application, which allegedly uses data on prior user searches. | ¶¶ 27-28 | col. 10:49-57 |
| wherein the program data searcher provides the user with data related to searches that other users have performed on the TV program data. | Features within Prime Video, such as "trending" or "popular" lists, that allegedly provide information based on the search activities of other users. | ¶¶ 27-28 | col. 10:57-60 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "broadcasting station terminals," as understood in a patent filed in 2000, can be interpreted to cover the content management portals used by modern on-demand streaming partners. Similarly, the court may need to decide if "TV program data," which the patent describes in the context of broadcast schedules, reads on the on-demand video files and metadata used by a service like Prime Video.
- Technical Questions: The final "wherein" clause of claim 6 requires the system to provide the user with "data related to searches that other users have performed." A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that Amazon's recommendation or trending features are based on other users' search activity, as opposed to viewing history, ratings, or other metrics. The complaint does not specify the mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "broadcasting station terminals"
Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical for determining if the patent's architecture applies to modern on-demand streaming services. The infringement theory appears to depend on an interpretation where content providers for Prime Video are equivalent to the "broadcasting stations" envisioned by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to manage "TV program data received from broadcasting stations via the Internet" (’088 Patent, col. 1:46-48), which could suggest that any entity transmitting such program data over the internet for distribution falls within the term's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links "broadcasting stations" to the provision of scheduled content for a "timetable" (e.g., timetable 11a, col. 3:28-31; col. 3:37-45). This may support a narrower construction limited to entities that provide traditional, scheduled broadcasts, rather than on-demand content libraries.
The Term: "data related to searches that other users have performed"
Context and Importance: This term defines the specific "social" or "trending" feature of the claimed system. Infringement of this element will likely turn on whether Amazon's features like "Popular on Prime Video" are driven by aggregated search queries or by other data sources like viewing metrics.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue that a "most popular shows" list is inherently "related to" user searches, as high search volume for a title contributes to its popularity, even if viewing data is also used.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a specific process of tabulating "the number of search hits" and calculating a "program data access ratio" based on these searches (’088 Patent, col. 7:42-53). This suggests the claim requires a system that directly uses search counts, not a system where recommendations are primarily based on viewing behavior.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement on the basis that Amazon "actively encourag[es] customers" to use Prime Video on various devices in a manner that allegedly infringes, citing a general URL for downloading the application. (Compl. ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on Amazon’s alleged knowledge of the ’088 Patent since at least August 2017, following pre-suit notification letters sent by Plaintiff's predecessor. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30, 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms from a 2000-era patent describing a system for scheduled "TV program data" from "broadcasting stations" be construed to cover a modern ecosystem of on-demand video content supplied by various digital content partners?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Prime Video service provide users with "data related to searches that other users have performed," as strictly required by claim 6? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence, likely through discovery, that Amazon’s recommendation and trending algorithms are based on user search data, rather than exclusively on viewing history or other metrics.