DCT

4:22-cv-00114

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00114, M.D. Ga., 07/14/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's commission of infringing acts and its maintenance of a regular and established place of business within the Middle District of Georgia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable television services, programming guides, and associated "TV Everywhere" applications infringe four patents related to video encoding, personalized content suggestion, and remote information delivery systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for digital media distribution, including perceptually-aware video compression, user-profiling for content recommendations, and network architectures for delivering on-demand or out-of-market content.
  • Key Procedural History: An ex parte reexamination certificate for the ’818 patent was issued on December 12, 2023, after the complaint was filed. The reexamination confirmed the patentability of asserted claims 1, 2, and 5, which could strengthen their presumption of validity during litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-27 ’568 Patent Filing Date
2000-12-27 ’818 Patent Filing Date
2001-05-25 ’778 Patent Filing Date
2004-06-01 ’818 Patent Issue Date
2004-10-19 ’568 Patent Issue Date
2006-06-20 ’778 Patent Issue Date
2007-07-13 ’980 Patent Priority Date
2008-07-11 ’980 Patent Filing Date
2012-04-17 ’980 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-14 Complaint Filing Date
2023-12-12 ’818 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,744,818 - Method and Apparatus for Visual Perception Encoding

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that standard video compression techniques of the time effectively reduced statistical and structural data redundancy but did not adequately address "perceptual redundancy"—information that is technically present in a video signal but imperceptible to the human eye (Compl. ¶12; ’818 Patent, col. 1:12-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a video encoding system that works in conjunction with a standard encoder (e.g., MPEG) to intelligently filter out perceptually insignificant information before final encoding. It uses a "visual perception estimator" to establish a base perception threshold, and a "compression dependent threshold estimator" which modifies that threshold based on feedback from the standard encoder, such as the type of frame being processed (Compl. ¶12-13; ’818 Patent, FIG. 1, col. 2:1-28). A filter unit then applies this final, context-aware threshold to the pixel data, aiming for smaller file sizes without a noticeable loss in visual quality (Compl. ¶13; ’818 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve video compression efficiency, a critical factor for storing and streaming video, by specifically targeting data that is irrelevant to human visual perception (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 5 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A visual perception estimator adapted to estimate a perception threshold for a pixel.
    • An encoder adapted to encode the current frame.
    • A compression dependent threshold estimator adapted to estimate a compression dependent threshold for the pixel, derived at least from the perception threshold and information from the encoder.
    • A filter unit adapted to filter the pixel at least according to the compression dependent threshold.

U.S. Patent No. 6,807,568 - Recipient Selection Of Information To Be Subsequently Delivered

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Users often desire information (e.g., a specific TV show, tickets to a future event) that is not currently available or scheduled. In conventional systems, the burden falls on the user to repeatedly search for this information, which is inefficient (Compl. ¶23; ’568 Patent, col. 1:13-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method that reverses this dynamic. A user "makes a request available" (e.g., by posting it to a local or central repository), and information providers can then access these standing requests. When a provider determines it has control over the requested content, it can initiate delivery to the user, effectively creating a "push" system where providers find interested users rather than users hunting for content (Compl. ¶23-24; ’568 Patent, col. 2:1-17, col. 4:51-54).
  • Technical Importance: This "reverse-lookup" model for digital content delivery creates a mechanism for fulfilling latent demand for information that is not yet scheduled or easily discoverable through traditional search methods (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • Making a request available to information providers by a user that desires certain information content.
    • Accessing the request by an information provider (other than the user) under the provider's control.
    • Determining by the information provider whether it has control of the desired information content.
    • Delivering the information content, which is under the provider's control, to the user.

U.S. Patent No. 8,160,980 - Information System Based On Time, Space And Relevance

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problems of reducing wait times for information and intelligently suggesting new content (Compl. ¶34). It describes a system comprising a client, a proxy for collecting and parsing data, a server that gathers usage data, and a data mining cluster. This cluster analyzes user interactions based on time, space, and relevance to build a user profile, which is then used to periodically update and provide automatic suggestions for new information channels (Compl. ¶34-35). The complaint references Figure 4 from the patent, a table of user interaction data, and Figure 5, a table illustrating a weighting mechanism for suggestions, to explain the profiling technology (Compl. ¶38-39).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: Defendant’s "Programming Guides" (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 7,065,778 - Method and System for Providing Media from Remote Locations to a Viewer

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of providing access to television content that is broadcast in a location remote from the user or at a time when the user cannot watch (Compl. ¶48). The claimed solution is a networked system where a central server receives a request from a user's receiver device. The server then locates one or more digital video recorders (DVRs) within the correct broadcast region, sends a programming instruction to those remote DVRs to record the show, and facilitates the transfer of the recorded content back to the user's receiver device (Compl. ¶48-49).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 31 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Accused Features: Defendant’s "Xtream TV App and Xtream Online Website" (Compl. ¶70).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names several of Defendant’s products and services, including its "Cable TV Services," "TV Everywhere Apps," "Programming Guides," and the "Xtream TV App and Xtream Online Website" (Compl. ¶55, ¶60, ¶65, ¶70).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these instrumentalities, as a whole, provide systems and methods for delivering digital media content to subscribers. This includes encoding and transmitting video for cable television, providing on-demand and remote access to content through various applications, and displaying programming guides. The "TV Everywhere" and "Xtream" products are alleged to provide functionality for users to access content across different devices and locations, which is central to the allegations involving the ’568 and ’778 patents (Compl. ¶60, ¶70). The "Programming Guides" are accused of implementing the personalization and suggestion technology of the ’980 patent (Compl. ¶65).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement theories for each patent are detailed in preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits E, F, G, and H (Compl. ¶55, ¶60, ¶65, ¶70). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, a claim-chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative allegations assert that Defendant’s "Cable TV Services" infringe the ’818 patent by using a perceptually-based video encoding system (Compl. ¶55). The "TV Everywhere Apps" are alleged to infringe the ’568 patent by providing a system where users request content that is subsequently delivered by Defendant (Compl. ¶60). The "Programming Guides" are accused of infringing the ’980 patent by providing personalized and automatically suggested content based on user profiles (Compl. ¶65). Finally, the "Xtream TV App and Xtream Online Website" are alleged to infringe the ’778 patent by providing a system for delivering media from remote locations to a viewer (Compl. ¶70).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’818 Patent

  • The Term: "visual perception estimator"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component that allegedly makes the invention non-conventional. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’818 patent will likely depend on whether the defendant's encoding architecture includes a component that meets the definition of a "visual perception estimator," as distinct from standard rate-control algorithms in video codecs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent itself describes the component's function broadly as being "adapted to estimate a perception threshold for a pixel" without detailing a required internal structure ('818 Patent, cl. 1). This may support an interpretation covering any module that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification notes that an "exemplary estimator 10 is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/524,618... incorporated herein by reference" ('818 Patent, col. 2:8-11). A party could argue this incorporation by reference limits the term's scope to the specific embodiment disclosed in the referenced application.

’568 Patent

  • The Term: "making a request available to information providers"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the initial step of the claimed method and distinguishes it from a direct command-and-control system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a modern, real-time VOD selection constitutes "making a request available" in the passive, searchable sense described in the patent, where the burden of discovery is shifted to the provider.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the user inputting "the information (or an abstract thereof) that he/she desires to be delivered," which is then stored and made accessible ('568 Patent, col. 1:64–2:4). This could be argued to cover any user action that communicates a desire for content.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and detailed description emphasize a system where providers "hunt for flags" and "access the requested information... from time to time" ('568 Patent, col. 2:1-4, FIG. 6). This may support a narrower construction requiring a persistent, passively stored request that is actively searched for by providers, rather than a direct request that is immediately fulfilled by an automated system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent based on user manuals or other materials.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages in the prayer for relief. It does not plead facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  1. Definitional Scope: A central issue will be whether the functionality of Mediacom’s modern, integrated digital media platform falls within the scope of patent claims drafted in the early 2000s. For the ’568 patent, can a user’s real-time selection of a VOD title be construed as "making a request available" for a provider to later discover, or is there a fundamental mismatch with the patent’s reverse-lookup model? Similarly, for the ’980 patent, does Mediacom's "Programming Guide" perform the specific "data mining" and "user profiling" required by the claims to generate "automatic suggestions"?
  2. Technical Equivalence: The case will involve a deep dive into the technical operation of Mediacom’s services. For the ’818 patent, a key evidentiary question will be whether Mediacom’s video compression system employs a distinct "visual perception estimator" that operates on top of a standard encoder, as claimed, or if its functionality is merely an inherent part of a conventional, modern codec’s rate-control algorithm.
  3. System Architecture: For the ’778 patent, the dispute will likely focus on architectural similarities. The key question is whether Mediacom’s "Xtream TV App" operates as a brokering system that locates and programs third-party or remote DVRs to fulfill a content request, as the patent describes, or if it functions as a more direct client-server system for streaming content from a central library.