DCT

1:25-cv-01272

Novacloud Licensing LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01272, D. Del., 10/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that both Plaintiff and Defendants are incorporated in Delaware, and that Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple large facilities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing platforms, content delivery networks, and related services infringe six patents concerning foundational technologies in networking, multimedia delivery, and network virtualization.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the core infrastructure of modern cloud computing, including dynamic resource allocation, efficient data and packet distribution, and adaptive multimedia streaming.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents originated with Ericsson. Plaintiff NovaCloud was formed in 2024 to acquire the portfolio. The complaint alleges that Amazon had interacted with Ericsson regarding these patents in February 2024, prior to NovaCloud initiating its own licensing discussions with Amazon in June 2024. These discussions allegedly continued through October 2025 without resolution, a history that may be relevant to the request for enhanced damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-03-01 ’721 Patent Application Filing Date
2008-01-23 ’028 Patent Application Filing Date
2011-10-07 ’612 Patent (Original ’907) Application Filing Date
2012-03-27 ’721 Patent Issue Date
2012-05-04 ’867 Patent Application Filing Date
2012-10-04 ’206 Patent Application Filing Date
2013-03-19 ’028 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-24 ’173 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2014-09-02 ’867 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-03 ’206 Patent Issue Date
2019-03-05 ’173 Patent Issue Date
2019-09-17 ’612 Reissue Patent Issue Date
2024-02-01 Amazon allegedly interacted with Ericsson regarding the patent portfolio
2024-06-01 NovaCloud allegedly initiated discussions with Amazon
2025-10-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,145,721 - "Bit Streams Combination of Downloaded Multimedia Files"

  • Issued: March 27, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficient use of resources when downloading multimedia files over bandwidth-limited connections, such as mobile networks, where high-quality real-time streaming may not be feasible (’721 Patent, col. 1:8-12, 1:43-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to divide a multimedia file into two separate parts. A first, lower-quality part is streamed to the user device for immediate, real-time playback. A second, higher-quality part is downloaded separately via a second bit stream. The user device then combines the two parts to reproduce the original, full-quality multimedia file, allowing for both immediate access and eventual high-fidelity content (’721 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-41).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to bridge the user experience gap between the desire for instant media consumption and the limitations of slower network connections, particularly in the mobile context of the time (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Connecting a server to a user device upon request.
    • Receiving a request to download a multimedia file via two bit streams.
    • Adapting the file by dividing it into a first part (coded with a first coding) and a second part (coded with a second, different coding), where the first part's coding is based on streaming throughput requirements.
    • Storing both parts.
    • Setting up a first set of conditions for streaming the first part and a second set of conditions for downloading the second part.
    • Streaming the first part when the first conditions are met and downloading the second part when the second conditions are met (Compl. ¶28).
  • The complaint’s infringement counts refer generally to "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert claims beyond the single independent claim identified (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,028 - "Selection of an Edge Node in a Fixed Access Communication Network"

  • Issued: March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of static or conventional DNS-based methods for selecting network edge nodes (e.g., gateways). These methods cannot account for dynamic network conditions like traffic load or topology changes, potentially leading to inefficient routing and overloaded resources (’028 Patent, col. 2:14-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a central "selection node" receives a service request from a host. This node then obtains data from a "dynamically updated database" containing information on the current status and capabilities of a plurality of edge nodes. Based on this real-time data, the selection node chooses an optimal edge node to service the request and sends identifying information for that selected node back to the host (’028 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for intelligent, dynamic load balancing and traffic management in large-scale networks, improving resource utilization and performance over static allocation techniques (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • At a selection node, receiving a request for a network service from a host entity.
    • Obtaining data from a dynamically updated database regarding the status and capabilities of each edge node.
    • Selecting an edge node on the basis of the retrieved data that provides a path between the host and the service.
    • Sending a response to the host that identifies the selected edge node (Compl. ¶36).
  • The complaint’s reference to "one or more claims" may indicate that other claims could be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. ¶80).

U.S. Patent No. 8,825,867 - "Two Level Packet Distribution with Stateless First Level Packet Distribution to a Group of Servers and Stateful Second Level Packet Distribution to a Server within the Group"

  • Issued: September 2, 2014
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance bottlenecks in stateful load balancers. It proposes a two-tier system where a stateless first level directs an incoming packet flow to a group of servers, and a distributed, stateful second level (residing with the servers) selects the specific server within that group to handle the flow, thereby maintaining session persistence or "stickiness" (’867 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶42).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's general datacenter and network infrastructure, which would include services like AWS Global Accelerator and Load Balancer (Compl. ¶¶14, 72).

U.S. Patent No. 8,949,206 - "System and Method for Creating Multiple Versions of a Descriptor File"

  • Issued: February 3, 2015
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of creating and storing multiple complete copies of a media file to accommodate different versions (e.g., for ad insertion, language tracks). The invention describes a system that creates multiple "descriptor files" (or manifests) from a single source descriptor file by manipulating the file's instructions (e.g., adding or removing references to content segments) without transcoding or duplicating the underlying media content itself (’206 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶50).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target Amazon's media services, such as AWS Elemental MediaTailor and AWS Elemental MediaPackage (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 10,225,173 - "Method to Provide Elasticity in Transport Network Virtualisation"

  • Issued: March 5, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing resource "elasticity" (the ability to dynamically add or release resources) in a complex, multi-domain virtualized network. The method involves receiving information about the elasticity capabilities of underlying physical network paths, summarizing these into "virtual links" with associated elasticity parameters, and creating a virtual network topology based on this information that a service controller can use for routing (’173 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint identifies AWS Elastic Fabric Adapter, a network interface for high-performance computing, as an accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,612 - "Adaptive Ads with Advertising Markers"

  • Issued: September 17, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses challenges in integrating traditional broadcast advertising markers into modern adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming workflows. It discloses a method for segmenting a content stream that contains ad markers, generating a manifest that dynamically incorporates references to both content segments and advertisements (which can be selected based on client demographics), and adjusting time codes to ensure seamless playback (’612 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶66).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 27 is asserted (Compl. ¶104).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets AWS Elemental MediaTailor, a service for personalized ad insertion (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly accuses "Amazon's datacenter and network infrastructure and/or cloud computing services" (Compl. ¶72). More specifically, it identifies Amazon Route 53, AWS Elemental MediaTailor, AWS Elemental MediaPackage, AWS Elastic Fabric Adapter, and AWS Global Accelerator/Load Balancer as accused products or services (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused instrumentalities represent a suite of core services within the Amazon Web Services (AWS) ecosystem. These services provide DNS and traffic management (Route 53, Global Accelerator), video processing and ad insertion (MediaTailor, MediaPackage), and high-performance networking (Elastic Fabric Adapter). The complaint asserts that this technology is "integral" to modern cloud computing and underpins many widely used consumer-facing services (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 8,145,721 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Amazon’s infrastructure and services perform the method of Claim 1 by downloading multimedia files using a two-bitstream approach (Compl. ¶¶74, 76). The narrative theory suggests that Amazon's systems adapt a media file by dividing it into a streamable first part and a downloadable second part, each with different coding and delivery conditions, thereby meeting all limitations of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶76, referring to Ex. 7).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question may be whether Amazon's use of adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming, where multiple alternative-quality streams are created, constitutes "dividing" a file into a "first part" and a "second part" that are intended for later combination, as required by the claim. The functionality of ABR streaming, where a client switches between complete-but-different-quality streams, may not align with the patent's description of combining two distinct parts to form a whole.
    • Scope Questions: This raises the question of whether the claim term "dividing said multimedia file" can be construed to cover the creation of multiple, parallel ABR renditions.

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,028 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Amazon’s services, such as Route 53 or Global Accelerator, infringe Claim 1 by implementing a method for dynamic edge node selection (Compl. ¶¶80, 82). The theory suggests these services act as a "selection node" that receives a user request, queries a dynamic database of network information (e.g., latency, health of edge locations), and selects an optimal edge node to route the user's traffic based on that real-time data (Compl. ¶82, referring to Ex. 8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be what evidence the complaint provides that Amazon’s network monitoring systems function as the claimed "dynamically updated database" and whether the selection logic uses the specific "status and capabilities" information as recited in the claim.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the definition of "database." Does Amazon's distributed, real-time health-checking and latency-monitoring infrastructure meet the definition of a "database" as understood in the context of the patent, or does the patent imply a more traditional, centralized data store?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’721 Patent

  • The Term: "dividing said multimedia file into a first part... and into a second part" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory appears to map this limitation onto modern ABR streaming. The defendant may argue that creating multiple standalone ABR streams is technically different from dividing a single file into two complementary components that must be combined to be complete.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to provide both a quick, low-quality version and an eventual high-quality version, an outcome functionally similar to some uses of ABR. The specification describes the parts primarily by their quality ("low-quality part" and "high-quality part") rather than their structural relationship ('721 Patent, col. 4:18-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language and specification describe a process of "combining said first, decoded part with said second, decoded part" to create a "complete version" ('721 Patent, col. 3:12-15). This may suggest that the parts are non-redundant components of a whole, unlike ABR streams where each stream is a complete, self-contained version of the media at a different quality.

For the ’028 Patent

  • The Term: "dynamically updated database" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The nature of this "database" is central to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern cloud infrastructure relies on distributed, real-time monitoring rather than a single, monolithic database, creating a potential mismatch with the claim language.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the structure of the database. Language describing the goal of taking "account of changes in the network without being reconfigured" could support a broad interpretation that covers any system providing dynamic network state information ('028 Patent, col. 2:25-27).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background distinguishes its solution from prior art DNS systems. A defendant may argue that a "database" implies a structured data store distinct from the real-time, ephemeral state data used in DNS-based health checks, which the patent sought to improve upon ('028 Patent, col. 1:24-46).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint pleads inducement to infringe for all asserted patents. It alleges that Amazon encourages its customers to use the accused services in an infringing manner through its "publications," which likely refers to developer documentation, user guides, and marketing materials that instruct on the use of the accused AWS services (Compl. ¶¶ 77, 83, 89, 95, 101, 107).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint seeks enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Prayer for Relief, ¶4). The basis for this request appears to be alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement. The complaint details communications regarding the patent portfolio between Amazon and the original patent owner, Ericsson, in February 2024, as well as subsequent licensing discussions between Amazon and Plaintiff NovaCloud beginning in June 2024 (Compl. ¶17).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Does the operational reality of Amazon’s sophisticated cloud services—such as creating multiple alternative streams for adaptive bitrate delivery—align with the specific, sequential method steps recited in the patent claims, for instance, the '721 Patent's requirement to "divide" a file into two complementary parts for later combination?

  2. The case will likely involve a significant dispute over definitional scope during claim construction. Can claim terms rooted in an earlier technological context, such as the '028 Patent’s "dynamically updated database," be construed broadly enough to encompass the distributed, real-time monitoring and routing systems that characterize a modern hyperscale cloud platform?

  3. A key question regarding damages will be the impact of pre-suit notice: Given the detailed allegations of licensing negotiations with both the plaintiff and the prior patent owner, the court will have to evaluate whether Amazon's conduct following these notices was sufficiently egregious to warrant an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.