DCT

1:25-cv-00873

Voxer Inc v. Google LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00873, D. Del., 07/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all parties are organized under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s YouTube Live video service infringes five U.S. patents related to hybrid communication techniques that combine real-time and time-shifted media streaming.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for delivering streaming media that blend the immediacy of live communication with the flexibility of store-and-forward messaging, a core function of modern digital video platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,142,270 and 10,511,557, were previously asserted against Meta Platforms, Inc. That litigation resulted in a jury verdict of infringement and an award of $174.5 million in damages, which was settled while on appeal. The complaint also states that petitions for inter partes review of these two patents were denied and that the claims were confirmed by the USPTO in subsequent ex parte reexaminations initiated by Meta.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-06-28 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2007-01-01 Voxer co-founded by Tom Katis
2009-01-01 Voxer launches prototype application
2011-01-01 YouTube officially launches its YouTube Live platform
2018-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,142,270 issues
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,511,557 issues
2020-01-07 Voxer files complaint against Meta
2021-10-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516 issues
2023-05-23 U.S. Patent No. 11,658,929 issues
2023-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,777,883 issues
2024-01-01 Voxer and Meta settle litigation
2025-07-14 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,142,270 - Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,142,270, issued November 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes an "inertia" in voice communications, which are divided into two mutually exclusive types: synchronous, real-time calls that require an established connection, and asynchronous, time-consuming voicemail systems (’270 Patent, col. 1:37-57; Compl. ¶38). This dichotomy limits flexibility and is inefficient, particularly in environments with poor network connectivity or in tactical situations (’270 Patent, col. 2:38-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hybrid communication system that enables users to engage in conversations in either a live or a time-shifted mode and to "seamlessly transition" between them (’270 Patent, Abstract). It achieves this by using an intermediate server infrastructure to receive and store media as it is created, allowing delivery to a recipient without first establishing a direct end-to-end connection between the sender and receiver (’270 Patent, col. 4:10-22; Compl. ¶39).
  • Technical Importance: This approach created a communication system described as more flexible, scalable, and resilient to poor network conditions than prior art systems (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 34 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Claim 34 recites a video communication method comprising the key elements of:
    • receiving an identifier for a video communication that identifies a recipient;
    • ascertaining a network location for the recipient's device;
    • receiving the video communication from the sending device independently of the location being ascertained;
    • storing the video communication; and
    • delivering portions of the video communication to the recipient's device, enabling it to be at least partially rendered while the sender is still transmitting, all without first having to establish an end-to-end connection between the sender and receiver.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 10,511,557 - Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,511,557, issued December 17, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’557 Patent addresses similar problems as the ’270 Patent regarding the limitations of conventional communication systems (Compl. ¶48). It also implicitly addresses the technical challenge of delivering a consistent streaming media experience over networks with variable bandwidth.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a video message service infrastructure that receives a video message as it is created and then generates "two or more degraded versions" of the video media (’557 Patent, Claim 1). The system then selects one of these versions based on the recipient's available network bandwidth and transmits it for rendering, enabling a time-shifted or real-time experience without a pre-established end-to-end connection (’557 Patent, col. 4:8-13; Compl. ¶49). This method is a form of adaptive bitrate streaming.
  • Technical Importance: The generation and selective transmission of degraded media versions allows for a more "flexible, adaptable, scalable, time-shifted, and real-time" communication system that can function effectively under varying network conditions (Compl. ¶50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Claim 1 recites a method for operating a video message service infrastructure, comprising the key elements of:
    • receiving a video message containing video media as the media is created;
    • generating two or more degraded versions of the video media by degrading its quality by different amounts;
    • selecting one of the degraded versions based on ascertained network bandwidth for delivery to a recipient; and
    • transmitting the selected version for rendering while the media is still being created by the sender and without first establishing an end-to-end connection.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶87).

U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516 - Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516, issued October 12, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a similar hybrid communication system. The asserted claim specifically recites that the video media is "segmented into a plurality of segments" which are received, stored, and then streamed to the recipient, enabling rendering while the media is still being created by the sender (Compl. ¶55, 106).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The YouTube Live streaming architecture, which allegedly segments, stores, and streams video media as claimed (Compl. ¶106).

U.S. Patent No. 11,777,883 - Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,777,883, issued October 3, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a communication infrastructure for multi-media conversations. The asserted claim recites maintaining an infrastructure, receiving information for forwarding a video message, using that information to ascertain and notify other participants, and streaming the video to them in a real-time mode while they are able to add their own messages to the conversation (Compl. ¶61, 119).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶119).
  • Accused Features: The YouTube Live service, which allegedly provides a communication infrastructure that allows multiple participants to join and interact within a live video stream (Compl. ¶119).

U.S. Patent No. 11,658,929 - Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,658,929, issued May 23, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to a communication infrastructure for multi-media messaging conversations. The asserted claim recites deploying an infrastructure, receiving information to determine and notify second users, streaming video media to them, and enabling users to render the media in real-time or time-shifted modes and contribute additional messages that are assembled into a string (Compl. ¶67, 132).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶132).
  • Accused Features: The YouTube Live platform, which allegedly enables multi-participant conversations where video and other messages (e.g., live chat) are streamed and assembled (Compl. ¶132).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Google's systems, devices, and servers used for streaming video services, specifically including the YouTube Live video service (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that YouTube Live "allow[s] [c]reators to bring viewers together in real time" via "webcam, mobile, [and/or] encoder streaming" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes a screenshot from a YouTube webpage stating that "YouTube Live and Premieres allow Creators to bring viewers together in real-time to learn, discuss and to form new social communities" (Compl. p. 4). A second screenshot describes how a webcam can be used to go live without specialized encoding software, illustrating a primary method of use (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that these products benefit from Voxer's innovations to "receive, store, and stream high-quality video more efficiently, more effectively, and more scalably" (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing the infringement allegations. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

U.S. Patent No. 10,142,270 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet all limitations of at least claim 34 (Compl. ¶79). The theory suggests that when a creator initiates a YouTube Live stream, Google's servers receive an identifier for the stream and its intended audience, ascertain the network locations of viewers' devices, receive the video from the creator's device, store it, and deliver it to viewers. This delivery allegedly enables viewers to begin watching the stream while the creator is still broadcasting, without a direct end-to-end connection having been established between the creator and each viewer in the manner of a traditional call (Compl. ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 10,511,557 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet all limitations of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶93). The infringement theory posits that YouTube's infrastructure receives a creator's live video stream and, to ensure smooth playback for viewers with varying internet speeds, generates two or more "degraded versions" of the video (e.g., streams at different resolutions or bitrates). The system then allegedly ascertains the bandwidth available to a particular viewer and selects and transmits the appropriate degraded version for that viewer to render, all while the creator's broadcast is ongoing and without a direct connection between the parties (Compl. ¶93).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’270 Patent will be the court's construction of the phrase "without having to first establish an end-to-end connection." Defendants may argue that modern streaming protocols (e.g., RTMP, HLS) inherently establish connections between client and server nodes, whereas Plaintiff may argue the patent distinguishes its method from traditional, circuit-switched telephone calls where a dedicated, synchronous two-way link is required before any communication can occur.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’557 Patent, a key factual question may be how and when YouTube's system "generat[es]... two or more degraded versions" and "select[s] one... based on an ascertained bandwidth." The dispute may focus on whether the accused architecture performs these steps in the precise manner and order required by the claim language, or if there is a functional or sequential mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "end-to-end connection" (from Claim 34 of the ’270 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's asserted departure from prior art synchronous communication systems. The complaint's infringement theory relies on the accused YouTube Live system operating without such a connection between the streamer and the viewer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems that require one to "wait for a connection to be made, and then engage in a full-duplex, synchronous conversation" (’270 Patent, col. 1:42-44). This language may support an interpretation where "end-to-end connection" means a dedicated, real-time, bidirectional circuit like a traditional telephone call.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also refers to avoiding a "dedicated circuit" (’270 Patent, col. 4:60-62). A defendant may argue that any client-server session established via protocols like TCP constitutes an "end-to-end connection" for the purposes of data transfer, and that the claim term should be interpreted more broadly than just a traditional telephone circuit.

The Term: "video message service infrastructure" (from Claim 1 of the ’557 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entity that performs the central steps of the claimed method (receiving, generating, selecting, transmitting). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the entirety of YouTube's accused architecture, which may be geographically and logically distributed, constitutes a single "infrastructure" as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures depict a system of "Server(s)" connected to clients over a network, suggesting the term can encompass a distributed, multi-component system (’557 Patent, Fig. 1). The specification describes servers as being responsible for "routing Messages... over the network" and for "persistent storage," consistent with a broad, functional definition (’557 Patent, col. 8:59-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the claim requires all the recited steps to be performed by a single, logically co-located infrastructure. If YouTube's video ingestion, transcoding, and content delivery network (CDN) functions are performed by distinct and separate systems, a question may arise as to whether they collectively meet this claim limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Google actively encourages and provides instructions for creators and users to use YouTube Live in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶74, 88, 102, 115, 128). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Google's platform is a material part of the invention and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶75, 89, 103, 116, 129).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on discussions between Voxer and Google personnel in 2016, a related Voxer patent being cited during the prosecution of a Google patent, and Google's awareness of the widely publicized litigation between Voxer and Meta involving the ’270 and ’557 patents (Compl. ¶76-77, 90-91).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "end-to-end connection," which the patent contrasts with traditional telephone systems, be construed to exclude the various client-server connections and protocols used in modern, large-scale video streaming? The viability of the infringement allegations against the ’270 Patent, and several related patents, may depend heavily on this construction.
  • A second central question will be one of technical mapping: does the operational sequence of YouTube's distributed architecture—from video ingestion and transcoding to adaptive bitrate delivery via a content delivery network—align with the specific, ordered steps recited in the asserted method claims? The case may turn on factual evidence detailing the precise inner workings of the YouTube Live platform.
  • A key evidentiary issue will concern willfulness: what level of pre-suit knowledge can Voxer prove Google possessed? The alleged 2016 discussions and Google’s awareness of the high-profile Meta litigation will be central to determining whether any infringement found was willful, which could expose Google to enhanced damages.