DCT

1:24-cv-01231

Adeia Tech Inc v. Walt Disney Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01231, D. Del., 11/07/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because all named defendants are incorporated or formed under the laws of Delaware, rendering them residents of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live, and ESPN+) infringe six patents related to dynamic media streaming, cloud data architecture, user interface functionalities for tracking viewing progress, and key frame synchronization for live content.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the backend architecture and user-facing features of modern on-demand and live video streaming platforms, a market central to the media and entertainment industry.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Adeia asserts a patent portfolio developed internally and acquired from a range of pioneering media technology companies, including TiVo, Gemstar, Rovi, MobiTV, and Brightcove (via its predecessor Unicorn Media). The complaint emphasizes a history of innovation in areas from electronic program guides and DVRs to mobile and cloud-based streaming.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-01 ’428 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-29 ’595 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-29 ’324 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-23 ’705 Patent Priority Date
2010-07-01 ’987 Patent Priority Date
2010-12-22 ’639 Patent Priority Date
2012-10-02 ’987 Patent Issue Date
2013-09-24 ’705 Patent Issue Date
2016-01-12 ’428 Patent Issue Date
2017-09-12 ’639 Patent Issue Date
2018-01-02 ’595 Patent Issue Date
2018-12-25 ’324 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-26 Disney+ "Continue Watching" feature added
2024-11-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,762,639 - "Dynamic manifest generation based on client identity"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional video streaming involved creating and storing static "manifest" files that told a user's device where to find pre-processed "chunks" of a media file. This approach was inflexible, as it could not easily tailor the stream to different device types or user needs in real-time (Compl. ¶480).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention enables a server to dynamically generate a unique manifest for a particular user at the time of their request. This allows the streaming service to customize the content delivery for each client, for example by providing media chunks formatted for a specific device or by inserting personalized ads (Compl. ¶480-482; ’639 Patent, col. 4:19-21).
  • Technical Importance: This server-side, on-the-fly approach was recognized for making content distribution to any IP-enabled device less time-consuming and expensive, allowing for real-time tailoring of content delivery (Compl. ¶484).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method Claim 8 (Compl. ¶499).
  • Essential elements of Claim 8 include:
    • Receiving a URL in a first request from a first client.
    • Determining an identity and a device type of the first client.
    • Based on the first device type, generating a first manifest with information for streaming media segments using a first chunking protocol.
    • Sending the first manifest to the first client.
    • Receiving the same URL in a second request from a second, different client.
    • Determining an identity and device type of the second client, different from the first.
    • Based on the second device type, generating a second manifest using a second chunking protocol, where the content of the second manifest is different from the first.
    • Sending the second manifest to the second client.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶498).

U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987 - "Cloud data persistence engine"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In a typical data hosting architecture, deploying the same content across every server in a geographically distributed network is inefficient, especially when data requests vary by location, leading to significant storage of infrequently accessed data (Compl. ¶593; ’987 Patent, col. 1:17-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "cloud data persistence" system with a hierarchical server structure. An "origin server" holds all data objects, while intermediate "cache servers" and front-end "application servers" store only subsets of data based on client demand. If a local server does not have requested data, it requests it from the next level up the hierarchy, ensuring that frequently accessed data is stored closer to the user for faster retrieval while reducing overall storage requirements (’987 Patent, col. 2:48-67).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides efficiencies by reducing server storage needs, increasing the speed of data access, and enabling efficient updating of data objects across the network, which is particularly useful for live-streaming events that are of regional interest (Compl. ¶595-596).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent system Claim 5 (Compl. ¶608).
  • Essential elements of Claim 5 include:
    • A first server at a first location storing data objects that link to media assets stored at a separate second location.
    • A second server that stores a second set of data objects and is configured to request a data object from the first server if it is not present locally.
    • A third server communicatively coupled with the first server.
    • The second server is also communicatively coupled with a fourth and fifth server.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶607).

U.S. Patent No. 9,860,595 - "Systems and methods for episode tracking in an interactive media environment"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of helping users track their viewing progress in serialized media content, especially in a streaming context where content is not stored locally. The invention provides a method for storing a user's progress and generating selectable links that allow the user to resume streaming directly from their last-viewed point, including across different devices (Compl. ¶660-662).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method Claim 1 (Compl. ¶688).
  • Accused Features: The "Continue Watching" feature in Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, which displays a user's progress in various shows and allows them to resume playback from a stored progress point (Compl. ¶689-691).

U.S. Patent No. 10,165,324 - "Systems and methods for episode tracking in an interactive media environment"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the technology in the ’595 patent, this invention describes a user interface method for presenting media content based on viewing progress. It claims a method where selecting a link corresponding to a program first presents an option to resume playback (such as a play button), and selecting that option then generates the program for display from the stored progress point (Compl. ¶743, 777, 780).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method Claim 1 (Compl. ¶763).
  • Accused Features: The user interface flow in Disney+ and Hulu where clicking a show in the "Continue Watching" row presents a details page with a "Continue" or "Resume" button, which, when clicked, resumes playback (Compl. ¶764, 767, 783).

U.S. Patent No. 8,542,705 - "Key frame detection and synchronization"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses delays in streaming, particularly for live TV, which occur when a user tunes to a channel and first receives "predictive frames" that cannot be displayed without a preceding "key frame." The invention describes a server-side method that uses a "key frame sensitive buffer" to identify and provide an initial key frame immediately upon a user's request, reducing wait time and improving user experience (Compl. ¶810-812).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method Claim 1 (Compl. ¶831).
  • Accused Features: The live TV functionality of Hulu Live and ESPN+, which allegedly provide a manifest identifying an available segment that begins with a key frame, not predictive frames, in response to a channel change request (Compl. ¶858-859).

U.S. Patent No. 9,235,428 - "User interface method and system for application programs implemented with component architectures"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of fixed, platform-dependent Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) that are difficult to update. The invention describes a "web-browser paradigm" for GUIs, using a renderer, a proxy, and a workflow manager to create a platform-independent and dynamically updatable interface based on component architectures (Compl. ¶886-888).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method Claim 9 (Compl. ¶907).
  • Accused Features: The Hulu "Living Room App," which is alleged to use a Webkit-based renderer and a Javascript single-page application (SPA) architecture that functions as the claimed proxy and workflow manager to render the GUI on various smart TVs and streaming devices (Compl. ¶910-918).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the Disney+, Hulu, Hulu + Live TV, and ESPN+ streaming services (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused services as offering extensive libraries of on-demand and, in the cases of Hulu Live and ESPN+, live streaming content to subscribers across a wide array of devices, including web browsers, mobile devices, smart TVs, and gaming consoles (Compl. ¶37-39). The complaint alleges that these services are operated through a complex web of Disney subsidiaries that share backend technology, advertising functions, and executives (Compl. ¶146-163). For example, a diagram of the AWS architecture used to support Hulu's live TV backend is provided to illustrate the cloud-based infrastructure that enables content distribution (Compl. ¶613, p. 84).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’9,762,639 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a universal source locator (URL) in a first request from a first client... The Disney+ and Hulu services receive a URL in a request from a client application (e.g., an app on an iPad). ¶502-503, ¶505 col. 4:1-3
determining an identity of the first client. The services determine the client's identity from information in the request headers, such as User-Agent information. ¶507-510 col. 4:4-5
determining a first device type based on the identity of the first client. The services determine device attributes like manufacturer, OS, and supported codecs based on the client identity. ¶514-517 col. 4:6-7
based at least in part on the determination of the first device type, generating... a first manifest having information for streaming... in accordance with a first chunking protocol... The services generate a JSON manifest that includes a URL to a master playlist containing stream formats (e.g., HEVC/H.265) appropriate for the specific device type. ¶521-526 col. 4:8-14
receiving the URL in a second request from a second client... the identity of the second client different from the identity of the first client. The services receive the same URL from a different client (e.g., a Chrome browser on a Windows PC). ¶535-538, ¶542-545 col. 4:22-26
determining a second device type based on the identity of the second client, the second device type different from the first device type. The services determine the attributes of the second device type, which are different from the first (e.g., a PC versus an iPad). ¶549-551 col. 4:27-29
generating... a second manifest... wherein content of the second manifest is different from content of the first manifest. The services generate a second JSON manifest linking to a different master playlist with different stream formats (e.g., AVC/H.264), resulting in different manifest content. ¶554-560 col. 4:30-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether generating a JSON manifest that itself contains a URL to a separate master playlist constitutes "generating... a first manifest having information for streaming," as required by the claim, or if this two-step process falls outside the claim's scope.
    • Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the "chunking protocol" for the first client (e.g., HEVC/H.265 streams) is meaningfully different from the "chunking protocol" for the second client (e.g., AVC/H.264 streams) in a way that maps to the claim language, beyond just using different codecs?

’8,280,987 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first server which stores a first plurality of data objects... located at a first location; each of the first plurality of data objects comprises a link to a media asset of a plurality of media assets; the plurality of media assets is located at a second location; and the second location is distinct from the first location. Hulu Live's manifest generation service and associated storage (e.g., Manifest Service and/or RDS Aurora) are the "first server" at a "first location," storing manifest data objects that link to video segments ("media assets") stored in a separate "second location" (e.g., Amazon S3 or Akamai). ¶612, ¶619-622 col. 10:3-10
the second server stores a second plurality of data objects and is configured to request a data object from the first server if the data object is not present... Hulu Live uses a distributed cache or CDN regional servers as the "second server," which stores a subset of manifests. If a requested manifest is not in its cache, it requests it from the manifest generation service (the "first server"). ¶623-629 col. 10:11-15
the second server is communicatively coupled with a fourth server and fifth server. The CDN regional servers (the "second server") are communicatively coupled to multiple other CDN servers, such as multiple edge servers (the "fourth" and "fifth" servers). ¶624, ¶628, ¶638 col. 10:16-17
the fourth server stores a third plurality of data objects and is configured to request the data object from the second server if the data object is not present... CDN edge servers (the "fourth server") store a subset of manifests. If a client requests a manifest not stored locally, the edge server requests it from a CDN regional server (the "second server"). ¶634-635, ¶639 col. 10:18-21
wherein the fourth server is configured to receive a request from a first client for the data object. The CDN edge servers receive requests for manifests directly from client devices (e.g., the Hulu app). ¶635-636 col. 10:22-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the specific components of Hulu's distributed CDN architecture (e.g., manifest service, regional caches, edge servers) map cleanly onto the claimed "first server," "second server," "third server," "fourth server," and "fifth server" roles, which are defined by specific storage and request-forwarding functions.
    • Technical Questions: A key question is how the complaint defines the "third server" required by the claim preamble, as the infringement allegations appear to map Hulu's architecture onto the "first," "second," "fourth," and "fifth" servers but do not explicitly identify a "third server." The complaint provides a diagram of Hulu's live streaming architecture that depicts a manifest generation service communicating with a CDN (Compl. ¶617, p. 86).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Patent ’639

  • The Term: "manifest"
  • Context and Importance: The core of the infringement theory rests on the accused services "generating... a first manifest." However, the complaint alleges generation of a JSON file that links to a master playlist. The definition of "manifest" will be critical to determining if this two-step process meets the claim limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not highly specific about the format, stating a manifest may provide "information about how to stream the content, such as information about where to locate the available chunks" (Compl. ¶479). This could be read to cover a file that points to another file containing that information.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the manifest to have "information for streaming one or more segments... in accordance with a first chunking protocol." This could suggest the manifest itself must contain the technical details of the stream formats, not merely a link to them.

Patent ’987

  • The Term: "first server," "second server," "fourth server"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 5 recites a specific system architecture with servers defined by their function and connectivity. The infringement case depends on mapping the components of Hulu's AWS-based CDN (e.g., manifest origin, regional cache, edge cache) to these specific claimed roles. Practitioners may focus on whether this mapping is technically and legally sound.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the servers functionally (e.g., a server that stores a subset of data and requests from a higher-tier server). This functional language may allow for mapping onto a variety of modern, distributed cloud architectures that did not exist in the same form when the patent was filed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a specific set of interconnections (e.g., "the second server is communicatively coupled with a fourth server and fifth server"). A court may construe these terms to require a specific, fixed architecture that may not perfectly align with the more complex and dynamic routing within a modern CDN like Amazon CloudFront.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against all defendants. The factual basis includes allegations that defendants finance, support, direct, and coordinate the design and operation of the accused services; offer subscriptions for sale; encourage users to download and use the services; and provide instructions on how to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶386-455). Specific examples include screenshots of the "Disney Bundle" offer, which encourages customers on one service's website to subscribe to the others (Compl. ¶582-584, pp. 75-77).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants had notice of the asserted patents and their infringement at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶456-464). It further alleges that defendants "took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others, and/or they willfully blinded themselves as to the existence of the Asserted Patent[s]" (Compl. ¶585, ¶652). The prayer for relief seeks a finding that the infringement has been willful (Compl. p. 166, ¶B).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the specific multi-server system recited in the ’987 patent, with its "first," "second," "third," "fourth," and "fifth" servers, be mapped onto the more complex, multi-layered, and distributed cloud and CDN architecture used by the Hulu Live service, as depicted in the complaint's own diagrams?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of definitional scope: For the ’639 patent, does a "manifest" that provides a link to a playlist meet the claim limitation of a "manifest having information for streaming," or is this an indirect, two-step process that falls outside the claim? Similarly, for the ’324 patent, does displaying a details page with a "resume" button constitute generating an "option" for display, as claimed?
  • A central question of corporate liability will be how liability is apportioned across the numerous Disney-affiliated defendant entities. The complaint details an intricate web of shared services, technology, and management, and the court will need to determine which specific entities are responsible for the alleged direct and indirect infringement for each accused service.