Innobrilliance LLC v. Xperi Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Innobrilliance, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Xperi Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01330, D. Del., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, maintains an established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products, which are not specifically named in the complaint, infringe a patent related to methods and systems for organizing and displaying television channels in thematic groups.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of navigating a large number of television channels by allowing users to view and select from curated groups of channels based on a shared attribute, such as genre.
• Key Procedural History: The current filing is a First Amended Complaint. The patent-in-suit claims priority back to applications filed in 2007, indicating a long development and prosecution history for the underlying technology.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299 - "Method and system for television channel group," issued January 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "daunting task" of navigating the large number of channels available through cable, satellite, and internet television, particularly in a multi-picture viewing environment where a user may wish to monitor several programs simultaneously (U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299, col. 2:3-7). Existing methods like video-on-demand or simple channel lists are described as inadequate for managing this complexity (U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299, col. 2:8-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system, centered around a "frame controller," that organizes television channels into a "channel group" based on a "common attribute" (e.g., sports, news, movies) ('299 Patent, Abstract). This system can display multiple video streams from the group simultaneously in separate, non-overlapping picture frames on a single television screen, allowing a user to easily switch the content of one frame to another channel within the same thematic group ('299 Patent, col. 2:41-56; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more intuitive user interface for content discovery at a time when the volume of available channels was rapidly expanding, moving beyond linear channel surfing to thematic browsing ('299 Patent, col. 2:3-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "the Exemplary '299 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology.
• Independent Claim 1: The claim recites a television system with an input interface and a frame controller that performs the following steps:
  • Receives a first user selection to display a "video group" related to an "attribute," where the group contains at least two video streams.
  • Receives and displays those video streams in a plurality of separate pictures on a display.
  • Receives a second user selection to change the display in one picture to another video stream from that same video group that is not currently being displayed.
  • Displays the newly selected video stream in the designated picture.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its main body. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '299 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '299 Patent Claims" as detailed in the non-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative infringement theory posits that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the ’299 Patent (Compl. ¶11). This infringement is alleged to occur through Defendant’s making, using, selling, and importing the products, as well as through internal testing and use by Defendant’s employees (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The substantive basis for these allegations is contained entirely within the referenced, but not provided, Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the functionalities of the accused products, once identified, fall within the scope of the patent’s claims. For instance, does a feature that allows users to filter channels by genre constitute a "video group related to an attribute" as that term is used in the patent?
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the court will be whether the accused products perform the specific sequence of user interactions recited in claim 1: selecting a group, displaying multiple channels from it, and then swapping one displayed channel for another non-displayed channel from the same group. The complaint itself provides no factual support for how the accused products perform this multi-step process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "video group related to an attribute" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers a wide range of channel organization features or is limited to the specific embodiments described. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is critical to the infringement analysis against modern electronic program guides and streaming interfaces.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential attributes, including "sports; news; movies; live events; appropriateness for children; and an age group," suggesting the term is meant to be capacious (U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299, col. 12:12-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly illustrates the concept with distinct, pre-defined thematic groups (e.g., Channel Group 460a for sports, 460b for news) ('299 Patent, Fig. 5a). A defendant could argue this context limits the term to such curated, system-defined groups, potentially excluding user-created "favorites" lists.

The Term: "frame controller" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The identity of the "frame controller" within the accused system will be a critical point of dispute. The construction will determine whether the claims require a specific hardware component or can be read onto software running on a general-purpose processor.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the frame controller by its function: "causing the video data to be displayed" and "controls operations of the multipicture frame" ('299 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:52-53). Such functional language may support an interpretation that covers a software module.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s diagrams consistently depict the "Frame Controller" as a discrete hardware-style block, distinct from and connected to other components like "Tuners" and an "Input Interface" ('299 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support an argument that the term requires a specific hardware architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint references the non-provided Exhibit 2 as containing further details on this allegation (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The allegation of willfulness appears to be based exclusively on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that the filing of the complaint and its associated claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement, and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary support: as the complaint’s infringement contentions are deferred entirely to an external exhibit, the case will depend on the specific evidence Plaintiff produces in discovery to show that the accused products actually perform the multi-step method of selecting, displaying, and navigating within a "video group" as claimed.
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "video group related to an attribute," which is rooted in the patent’s examples of curated genres like "sports" and "news," be construed broadly enough to read on the specific channel organization and filtering features present in the accused products?
• Finally, a key question for the inducement claim will be whether Defendant’s user manuals and marketing materials do more than describe the product’s features, and instead actively instruct or encourage users to perform the entire sequence of steps recited in the asserted claims, thereby demonstrating the specific intent required for inducement.