Muvox LLC v. Rhythm One PLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Muvox LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Rhythm One PLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01165, D. Del., 10/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to systems for categorizing music tracks based on computer-derived attributes and creating corresponding playlists.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses automated music categorization and playlist generation, a central feature in the competitive digital music streaming market.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is the result of a long chain of continuation applications dating back to a 2014 provisional application. This extensive prosecution history may present points for future claim construction or estoppel arguments, though none are raised in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,899,713 - “Music streaming, playlist creation and streaming architecture,” issued February 13, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a challenge for music publishing entities (e.g., radio stations, independent labels) that wish to offer their own branded streaming experience to end users. These entities may lack a practical way to make their catalogs available through a customized application that reinforces their brand, distinct from large, monolithic streaming services (U.S. Patent No. 11,899,713, col. 1:40-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for categorizing music tracks using computer-derived "rhythm, texture and pitch (RTP) scores" (’971 Patent, Abstract). These scores, which can be mapped to descriptive "moods," are stored in a universal database accessible to multiple music publishers via an API. This allows a track to be analyzed and scored once for use by many publishers (’971 Patent, col. 2:7-33). End-user applications, sponsored by a particular publisher, can then access this data to create personalized playlists, streaming only the tracks that the sponsoring publisher is licensed to provide, thereby creating a customized user experience (’971 Patent, col. 2:27-33).
• Technical Importance: The described architecture proposes a method for decentralizing music curation, enabling smaller publishers to deploy sophisticated, mood-based playlisting features without needing to develop the underlying analysis technology or license a comprehensive music catalog independently (’971 Patent, col. 1:50-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '713 Patent Claims" in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's method claims.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method for selecting a song):
  • selecting the song based on a computer-derived comparison between a representation of the song to known similarities in representations of other songs,
  • wherein the known similarities... is based at least in part on a human-trained machine using the representations of the other songs,
  • wherein the representation of the song is based on isolating and identifying frequency characteristics of the song,
  • wherein the representations of a plurality of the other songs are based on a human listening to each of the plurality of the other songs in order to isolate and identify frequency characteristics,
  • wherein the frequency characteristics of the song correspond to one or more moods of the song, and
  • wherein the selection is based on the similarity between the one or more moods of the song and the one or more moods of the plurality of the other songs.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" and in "Exhibit 2," neither of which were filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’713 Patent but provides no substantive details of its infringement theory in the body of the document (Compl. ¶11). It states that claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products are contained in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint's narrative is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '713 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). In the absence of the referenced exhibit or a descriptive narrative, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Due to the lack of information regarding the accused products' functionality, it is not possible to identify specific points of contention from the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "human-trained machine" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the inventive concept of automating music categorization based on human sensibilities. The definition will determine what type of automated system falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused system relies on a "machine" that was "trained" in the specific manner required by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using a "neural network" and mentions that it may be "trained based on an ontology of audio event classes and a large-scale collection of human-labeled sound clips" (’971 Patent, col. 4:53-58). This could be argued to encompass a wide variety of modern machine learning models trained on labeled data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 further requires that the similarities be based on "a human listening to each of the plurality of the other songs in order to isolate and identify frequency characteristics." A defendant may argue this requires a specific, direct human listening process for the training set, not just the use of a pre-existing labeled dataset. The specification also describes a specific embodiment where humans first "develop RTP scores that correspond to each track" in a sample set (col. 4:35-40).

• The Term: "moods" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The selection of a song is ultimately based on the "similarity between... moods." The definition of this term is critical to determining infringement, as it establishes the basis for the claimed comparison. The dispute will likely center on whether "mood" is simply a descriptive label or a technical parameter derived in a specific way.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that RTP scores may be "subjectively or objectively mapped to moods" and provides common examples like "happy, excited, manic, peaceful, sad and cautious," suggesting a flexible and non-limiting definition (’971 Patent, col. 3:29-32; col. 6:18-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links moods to the calculated RTP scores, which are derived from low-level acoustic data (’971 Patent, col. 2:12-16). Figure 1 explicitly shows a step to "MAP RTP scores to moods" (Fig. 1, step 105). A party could argue that a "mood" under the patent is not just any categorical tag but must be the output of the claimed RTP scoring and mapping process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). The complaint pleads no specific facts to support a finding of willfulness or egregious conduct, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

1. A Threshold Evidentiary Question: The primary and most immediate issue is the complaint's lack of specificity. A key question is how and when Plaintiff will supplement its bare allegations to identify the accused products and articulate a cognizable factual basis for infringement, which is currently deferred to an unfiled exhibit.

2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, particularly for the terms "human-trained machine" and "moods." A central question for the court will be whether these terms are limited to the specific architectures and human-involved training processes detailed in the patent's embodiments, or if they can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of algorithmic music recommendation systems.

3. A Functional Question of Infringement: Once a product is identified, a core issue will be one of operational function: does the accused system actually perform song selection "based on the similarity between... moods" as required by Claim 1? The analysis will focus on whether the accused technology performs the claimed comparative and selective process, or if it uses mood-like labels in a different, non-infringing manner.