DCT
2:18-cv-00529
WhereverTV Inc v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC
I. Case Summary
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WhereverTV, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reese Marketos LLP; Robert N. Harrison, PA
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00529, M.D. Fla., 10/15/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the judicial district, including a specific Xfinity retail store in Lee County, Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Xfinity X1 Platform, an integrated entertainment system, infringes a patent related to a global, user-configurable interactive program guide that aggregates content from multiple distinct sources.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the market trend of consolidating traditional cable television content with over-the-top (OTT) internet-based streaming services into a single, seamless user interface.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint, indicating a prior version has been superseded. The complaint notes that Defendant has previously filed a Rule 12(b) motion in response to the original complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-07-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,656,431 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2014-02-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,656,431 Issued |
| 2018-10-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a fragmented media landscape where consumers must navigate multiple, proprietary, and geographically-limited program guides to access content from different sources, such as traditional cable operators (Multiple System Operators or "MSOs") and independent internet-based providers. ('431 Patent, col. 2:36-53). This creates a disjointed and challenging user experience, particularly as users expect content access across various devices and locations. ('431 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single, global, and user-centric interactive program guide (IPG) that is independent of any specific MSO or device. ('431 Patent, Abstract). This IPG application aggregates content listings from disparate sources—including traditional MSOs and independent "non-MSO" internet providers—into one persistent, customizable interface. The user can configure the guide, manage subscriptions, and access content from any location with an internet connection, creating a "follow me" personalized experience. ('431 Patent, col. 6:5-28).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to unify the "lean back" experience of traditional television with the growing variety of internet-delivered content, shifting control from the content consolidator (the MSO) to the end-user. ('431 Patent, col. 6:40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 6. (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 57-58).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "content manager device" comprising three main components:
- A "server" on a network with descriptive program data from both "MSOs" and "non-MSOs".
- A "device" capable of connecting to that network.
- An "interactive program guide application" on the device that provides a "user-configurable" IPG, listing and providing access to channels from both MSO and non-MSO sources, where the server is "distinct" from at least one MSO and one non-MSO, and where the user can "add or delete channels".
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "Xfinity X1 Platform," which is described as a collection of products and services including Xfinity X1 TV, set-top boxes, and related software applications such as the Xfinity Stream app. (Compl. ¶25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Xfinity X1 Platform is a "multiscreen, cloud-based entertainment platform" that provides an "integrated experience for watching video entertainment." (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). Its core accused functionality is an interactive programming guide that aggregates and combines search results from multiple content sources, including traditional live TV (the MSO source) and third-party over-the-top services like Netflix and YouTube (the alleged non-MSO sources). (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes a screenshot from the X1 interface showing "Streaming Online Services" such as Netflix listed alongside traditional "Broadcast" channels like ABC and CBS, illustrating this alleged aggregation. (Compl. p. 20, ¶53).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a server resident on a network containing descriptive program data about video content available from one or more multiple cable system operators (MSOs) and one or more non-MSOs | ¶51 | col. 16:30-41 | |
| a device capable of establishing and maintaining a connection with the network via a communications link | ¶52 | col. 1:8-12 | |
| an interactive program guide application installed on the device that provides user-configurable interactive program guide (IPG) listing at least one channel of video content available from each of the one or more MSOs and each of the one or more non-MSOs and descriptive program data from the server for the video content available on each of the channels | The Xfinity X1 Platform is alleged to provide an interactive programming guide that lists channels from Comcast (MSO) and non-MSOs like Netflix and YouTube, and provides descriptive data for the content on those channels. A screenshot shows a menu where a user can select and add various premium channels, including non-MSO Netflix. (Compl. p. 22, ¶55). | ¶53 | col. 16:42-56 |
| wherein each of the channels is selectable for receiving only or virtually entirely streaming video programming from its respective MSO or non-MSO source via the communications link and the network | The complaint alleges that users can select channels from Comcast-distributed content (MSO) or from non-MSOs like Netflix and YouTube to receive streaming video. (Compl. ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 17:45-51 |
| wherein the server is distinct from at least one of the one or more MSOs and one or more non-MSOs | The complaint alleges that the server containing the descriptive program data is distinct from at least one of the MSOs (e.g., a Comcast server) and non-MSOs (e.g., a Netflix server). (Compl. ¶51). | ¶51 | col. 17:52-55 |
| and wherein the application allows for the IPG to be configured by a user with respect to adding or deleting channels from any of the one or more MSOs or the one or more non-MSOs | The complaint alleges the X1 guide is "user configurable" and allows for "adding and deleting channels," including adding and deleting premium and favorite channels. (Compl. ¶55). The complaint's voice remote screenshot shows a user saying "House of Cards" to directly access Netflix content, which the complaint alleges infringes dependent claim 6 by converting a verbal command to a digital one. (Compl. p. 26, ¶58). | ¶55 | col. 17:56-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of a "non-MSO." The patent does not provide an explicit definition, but its specification contrasts MSOs (content consolidators) with "independent content owners" and "web-based content providers." ('431 Patent, col. 2:33-34, 3:39-40). The court will need to determine if services like Netflix and YouTube, as alleged in the complaint, fall within the scope of "non-MSOs" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that the application allow a user to "add or delete channels." The complaint points to functionality for adding premium channels or adding channels to a "favorites list." (Compl. ¶55). A key technical dispute may be whether managing subscriptions or a favorites list is the same as "adding or deleting channels" in the context of configuring the IPG itself, as required by the claim.
- Structural Questions: The claim requires the data server to be "distinct from" at least one MSO and at least one non-MSO. The complaint alleges that a Comcast server is distinct from other Comcast servers and from non-MSO servers. (Compl. ¶51). The interpretation of "distinct" will be critical. The dispute may focus on whether this requires a physically or legally separate entity, or if a logically distinct server within Comcast's own cloud infrastructure can satisfy this limitation, especially since Comcast is itself the MSO.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "non-MSO"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's core concept of aggregating traditional and non-traditional content. Its construction will determine whether the accused integration of services like Netflix and YouTube can be infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's value is tied to its applicability to the modern ecosystem of over-the-top (OTT) streaming providers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term in contrast to "Multiple System Operator," which it describes as a "cable television content consolidator." ('431 Patent, col. 2:36-38). The specification also refers to "independent content owners" and "web-based content providers," suggesting "non-MSO" is a catch-all for sources outside the traditional cable model. ('431 Patent, col. 2:33-34, 3:39-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing argument could be that the patent's examples at the time of filing did not contemplate the scale and nature of modern integrated streaming services like Netflix, which now partner with MSOs. The meaning might be argued to be limited to the specific types of "independent" providers that existed when the patent was filed.
The Term: "adding or deleting channels"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the "user-configurable" nature of the IPG, a key feature of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused X1 Platform's functionality meets this specific requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the application allows a user to "add, delete programming channels in 'real-time' that might not be available through subscribed-to MSO's." ('431 Patent, col. 6:16-18). This could be interpreted to cover any user action that results in a new content stream appearing or disappearing from their accessible guide, such as subscribing to a premium service.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "adding or deleting channels from any of the one or more MSOs or the one or more non-MSOs" could be interpreted more restrictively to mean direct manipulation of the guide's channel lineup itself, rather than merely managing subscriptions or favorites lists which are then reflected in the guide. Figure 8, for instance, depicts a process of "USER ASSIGNS CHANNEL #'s TO EACH NEW CONTENT 'CHANNEL'," suggesting a more fundamental configuration process. ('431 Patent, Fig. 8, block 810).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While the complaint alleges in its jurisdictional section that Comcast "contributed to and induced acts of patent infringement," it does not include a formal count for indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶7). It explicitly "reserves the right to amend this Complaint to assert claims for indirect infringement (including inducement and/or contributory infringement)" if later-obtained information supports it. (Compl. ¶60).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not currently allege willful infringement or provide facts to support pre-suit knowledge. It reserves the right to amend the complaint to assert willfulness "if information obtained during the course of this lawsuit supports such assertions." (Compl. ¶60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "non-MSO", which the patent contrasts with traditional cable consolidators, be construed to cover major modern streaming platforms like Netflix and YouTube that partner with MSOs, as alleged by the Plaintiff?
- A key question of functional interpretation will be whether the Xfinity X1 Platform’s features for managing subscriptions (e.g., adding premium packages like HBO or Netflix) and creating favorites lists meet the claim requirement of allowing a user to "add or delete channels", or if the patent requires a more direct form of guide configuration.
- A central structural question will be whether Comcast’s cloud-based server architecture, which is used to deliver its own MSO content while also integrating third-party data, can be considered "distinct from" the MSO (Comcast itself) as required by the claim's language.