Media Key LLC v. Radius Networks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Radius Networks, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00603, D. Del., 05/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems for distributing updatable content to users via a software application ("media key") that initiates a network connection to a content server.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for bridging physical or localized media distribution with dynamic, server-side content, enabling information delivered to a user to be updated remotely.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876, Media Keying for Updateable Content Distribution, issued October 20, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of content distributed on physical media (e.g., CDs, DVDs) becoming static and outdated upon distribution. Updating this content was described as impractical, typically requiring the end-user to return the media or the provider to issue a new physical copy (ʼ876 Patent, col. 1:12-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a physical, portable medium is provided to an end-user. This medium contains a preinstalled "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID." When the user runs the application on a network-connected device, the application communicates with a remote "Content Server," using the Source ID to retrieve and display specific, updatable content. This effectively turns the static physical medium into a "key" that unlocks dynamic, customized information from a remote server (ʼ876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-23). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 4, which shows a "Media with Keying Application" (420) being used on a "Local User System" (430) to connect to a "Content Server" (450) over a network (ʼ876 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to combine the benefits of physical media distribution (e.g., for marketing or software installation) with the flexibility of live, network-delivered content, a significant challenge in the era preceding ubiquitous high-speed internet and application stores (ʼ876 Patent, col. 1:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more claims" and incorporating by reference an "Exhibit 2" containing "Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Independent claim 1 is representative of a system claim. Its essential elements include:
  • At least one network-connected content server adapted to create and update information according to a user profile.
  • A "keying application stored on the external storage media" for launching on an electronic device.
  • The keying application selects a user ID and transmits it along with a "storage media identifier" to the content server.
  • The profile is generated from factors including the storage media identifier, a user ID, and transaction histories.
  • If the "external storage media" is "non-recordable," the keying application records the user ID on the local electronic device itself.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general language suggests this possibility.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its main body. It states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts contained within Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" that "practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the defendant's technology, which is not described in the complaint, qualifies as the system claimed in the patent. For example, a central question may be whether a modern mobile application that interacts with location-based services (a known business area for Radius Networks) can be considered equivalent to the "processor readable portable external storage media" described in the patent (ʼ876 Patent, col. 8:38-39).
• Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products, it is unclear what features are alleged to perform the functions of the "keying application," the "storage media identifier," and the "user identity (user ID)" as recited in the claims (ʼ876 Patent, col. 8:49-59). The mechanism by which an accused product "records the user ID... on the local electronic device" if the "media" is non-recordable will likely be a point of technical dispute (ʼ876 Patent, col. 8:60-64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "external storage media"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the scope of the claims. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether Defendant's accused instrumentalities can be characterized as "external storage media." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the patent, written in an era of CDs and floppy disks, reads on modern software distribution and execution environments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any type of media, volatile or non-volatile, can be used" and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples ('876 Patent, col. 2:62-64). An argument could be made that this language is meant to be technologically inclusive.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples such as "floppy disk, magnetic tape, EEPROMS, CD, DVD, memory card" ('876 Patent, col. 2:65-67). The claims themselves refer to the media as "portable" (col. 8:39) and contemplate it being "non-recordable" (col. 8:61), language that strongly suggests a physical object distinct from the user's primary computing device.

• The Term: "keying application stored on the external storage media"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the location and nature of the software that initiates the patented process. The infringement question will require identifying a corresponding software component in the accused product and determining if its relationship with the "media" matches the claim language.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the keying application as potentially being a "browser-like application" or a "GUI" (col. 4:40-45), suggesting its functionality is more important than its specific implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly requires the application to be "stored on" the media ('876 Patent, col. 8:55). This could be interpreted to exclude applications that are downloaded from a general app store and later configured by a signal or local data, as such applications are not "stored on" the object or signal that provides the initial "key."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. These materials are referenced as being part of the missing Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's allegations of willfulness and inducement are predicated on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A core issue will be one of "definitional scope": can the term "external storage media", rooted in the patent's context of physical, portable objects like CDs, be construed to cover the accused technology, which is not identified but may involve modern constructs like mobile applications configured by proximity beacons or other localized data?

2. A threshold procedural question will be one of "pleading sufficiency": does a complaint that withholds the identity of the accused products and the entirety of its infringement contentions in a non-proffered exhibit provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard?

3. An essential evidentiary question will be one of "functional mapping": assuming the case proceeds, the plaintiff will need to demonstrate how specific components of the accused products perform the roles of the "keying application," the "storage media identifier," and the "user ID," and how the system handles the "non-recordable" media scenario as required by the asserted claims.