CDN Innovations LLC v. Gracenote Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CDN Innovations, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Gracenote, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00851, D. Del., 07/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the grounds that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s music identification services and voice-recognition systems infringe three patents related to methods for delivering music information and for recognizing spoken identifiers.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses systems for identifying ambiently-heard music and for creating reliably recognizable voice commands, which are foundational technologies in the digital media and voice-assistant markets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents claim priority to applications filed in early 2000 and 2001. All three patents were granted significant patent-term adjustments by the USPTO. No prior litigation or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-01-31	Priority Date for '088 and '397 Patents
2001-09-19	Priority Date for '532 Patent
2005-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 Issues
2011-01-11	U.S. Patent No. 7,870,088 Issues
2013-08-13	U.S. Patent No. 8,509,397 Issues
2025-07-09	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,088 - "Method of delivering music and information"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7870088, "Method of delivering music and information," issued on January 11, 2011. (Compl. ¶6).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent recognizes that when people hear music they like in public (e.g., on the radio, in a store), they often have no immediate means to identify or purchase it, resulting in lost sales opportunities for music producers. (’088 Patent, col. 1:20-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable communication device is used to sample a piece of ambient music. This sample is transmitted to a host computer, which searches a database to identify the music. The host computer can then transmit the matching music file, similar music, or related information (e.g., merchandise) to one or more user-specified reception units. (’088 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-34). The overall architecture involves a user device, a server, and various reception units, as illustrated in Figure 1. (’088 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between incidental music discovery and commercial transaction, creating a direct pathway from hearing a song to acquiring it. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • A computer system receiving a transmission of a portion of music from a wireless communication device operated by a person.
  • The reception occurs "instantaneously when the first person hears the music."
  • The portion of music comprises "musical instrument sounds."
  • The music is not initiated by the person operating the device.
  • The computer system compares the musical instrument sounds to digital music files in a database to find a match.
  • The computer system transmits the matching file, similar music, or related information to a reception unit.

U.S. Patent No. 8,509,397 - "Apparatus and methods of delivering music and information"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8509397, "Apparatus and methods of delivering music and information," issued on August 13, 2013. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its related '088 patent, the '397 patent addresses the problem of users being unable to act upon discovering music they enjoy in their environment. (’397 Patent, col. 1:40-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specific method centered on a "wireless telephone." The telephone receives ambient music, digitizes it into a sample, and transmits a signal derived from that sample to a server. In response, the telephone receives a second signal from the server, from which it "recover[s] text" that is the title of the song and displays it on the user interface. (’397 Patent, Abstract; Claim 13).
• Technical Importance: This patent describes a specific and commercially significant implementation of music identification technology: using a standard mobile phone to quickly obtain identifying text information about a song playing nearby. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶29).
• The essential elements of Claim 13 are:
  • Receiving ambient music of a song by a wireless telephone.
  • Digitizing the music to obtain a sample, performed by the telephone.
  • Wirelessly transmitting a first signal derived from the sample to a server.
  • The first signal is derived from the music itself, not an embedded code.
  • Wirelessly receiving a second signal from the server.
  • Recovering text from the second signal, where the text is the song's title.
  • Displaying the recovered text on the wireless telephone.

U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 - "Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6865532, "Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars," issued on March 8, 2005. (Compl. ¶15).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of unreliable speech recognition for identifiers like long number sequences. (’532 Patent, col. 1:41-48). The proposed solution is a method to generate unique identifiers by defining a phrase with a fixed grammatical structure (e.g., number-adjective-noun-verb) and selecting words for each "slot" from unique, constrained vocabularies, making the resulting phrases easier for a machine to recognize correctly. (’532 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-col. 5:14).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 7. (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Defendant's systems and processes for selecting and recognizing spoken identifiers" of infringement. (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names Defendant's "MusicID service" as the instrumentality infringing the '088 and '397 patents. (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). Infringement of the '532 patent is alleged against "Defendant's systems and processes for selecting and recognizing spoken identifiers." (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused technologies as relating to "music detection and recognition" and "recognizing spoken identifiers." (Compl. ¶14, ¶19). It states that the accused instrumentalities incorporate the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶21, ¶28, ¶35). The complaint does not provide further specific technical details about how the MusicID service or the voice recognition systems operate, but characterizes the patented technologies as "pioneering." (Compl. ¶14, ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the asserted patents by incorporating by reference preliminary claim charts (Exhibits D, E, and F), which were not available for this analysis. (Compl. ¶22, ¶29, ¶36). The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

The infringement theory for the '088 Patent appears to be that the "MusicID service" functions as the claimed "computer system." It allegedly receives a music sample transmitted by a user's wireless device, compares that sample to its database to find a match, and transmits the identified song or related information back to a user-specified device, thereby performing the steps of claim 1. (Compl. ¶22-23).

The infringement theory for the '397 Patent appears to be that when a user operates the "MusicID service" on a wireless telephone, the combined system performs the steps of claim 13. The user's phone allegedly captures and digitizes ambient music, transmits it to Gracenote's server, and in return receives and displays a text message containing the song title sent from the server. (Compl. ¶29-30).

For both the '088 and '397 patents, the complaint asserts that to the extent any steps are performed by a third party (i.e., the end-user), Defendant controls their performance. (Compl. ¶23, ¶30). The allegations against the '532 patent are more general, stating that Defendant's systems for recognizing spoken identifiers infringe claims 1 and 7. (Compl. ¶36).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,088

• The Term: "musical instrument sounds" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the content that the accused computer system must compare against its database. The scope of infringement may hinge on whether this term is construed narrowly to mean only sounds from conventional instruments, or broadly to encompass any component of a modern music track, including vocals, synthesized audio, and digital effects. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern music identification algorithms typically analyze the entire acoustic waveform, which may or may not be limited to what is traditionally considered "instrument sounds."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently uses the broader term "piece of music" when describing the invention's overall purpose, suggesting an intent to cover any music a user might hear. (’088 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim drafter chose the specific phrase "musical instrument sounds" instead of the broader "portion of music." A party could argue this was a deliberate limitation to distinguish the claim from prior art or to capture a specific embodiment, thereby excluding purely vocal or synthesized tracks. (’088 Patent, col. 22:50-54).

U.S. Patent No. 8,509,397

• The Term: "recovering text" (from Claim 13)
• Context and Importance: This step is performed by the "wireless telephone" after receiving a signal from the server. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether this "recovering" action is met by the standard operation of a modern smartphone application receiving and displaying data. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether it requires a specific, active data extraction process on the phone itself or if it is satisfied by the passive receipt and presentation of a text-based data packet.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract and summary describe the overall system function without specifying a complex "recovery" mechanism, suggesting the term could be interpreted to mean the general function of obtaining and making text available to the user from a server response. (’397 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The choice of the word "recovering" over a simpler term like "receiving" or "displaying" could imply that the claimed method requires the telephone to perform a specific technical step of parsing or extracting the text from a larger or more complex data structure, rather than simply displaying a pre-formatted message. (’397 Patent, col. 22:31-33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations for each patent that, to the extent an end-user performs certain method steps, Defendant "conditioned the third party's use of the functionality... on the performance of that step" and "controlled the manner and/or timing of the functionality." (Compl. ¶23, ¶30, ¶37). These allegations appear tailored to address potential divided infringement issues but do not plead specific facts supporting active inducement, such as references to user manuals or advertisements.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement or plead any facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the following key questions:

1. A central issue will be one of divided infringement: The asserted methods in the '088 and '397 patents involve steps performed by both the end-user's device and the defendant's server. Can the plaintiff establish that Gracenote directs or controls its users' actions (e.g., capturing audio) with sufficient specificity to hold it liable for performance of the entire claimed method under current law?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: Do the modern, app-based MusicID services operate in a way that maps onto the specific claim limitations of patents with priority dates from the early 2000s? For instance, does the data exchange between a smartphone app and a cloud server meet the '397 patent’s specific requirement that the "wireless telephone" itself performs the step of "recovering text"?

3. A core question for the '532 patent will be one of factual application: Does Gracenote's voice-recognition technology actually use the claimed method of generating identifiers from predefined grammatical word slots, or does it employ a more conventional, modern statistical speech-recognition engine that does not align with the patent's structured approach? The complaint's generic allegations leave this question entirely open.