DCT

4:22-cv-00138

CDN Innovations LLC v. Mediacom Communications Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00138, M.D. Ga., 09/12/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Georgia because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media and communication services infringe nine patents related to a range of technologies, including content formatting, speech recognition, secure browsing, video guidance, and network port management.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover foundational technologies relevant to the delivery and management of digital content and services, a core function of modern telecommunications and media companies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its potential infringement of several of the asserted patents via a letter dated August 1, 2022, approximately six weeks prior to the filing of the suit. This pre-suit notice may be used to support allegations of willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-08 Priority Date for ’831, ’157, ’227, and ’450 Patents
2000-03-28 Priority Date for ’180 Patent
2001-02-16 Priority Date for ’714 Patent
2001-09-19 Priority Date for ’532 Patent
2001-10-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,311,180 Issues
2003-07-18 Priority Date for ’291 and ’699 Patents
2005-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,865,532 Issues
2006-10-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,130,831 Issues
2007-01-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,164,714 Issues
2007-05-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,225,157 Issues
2007-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,293,291 Issues
2009-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,565,699 Issues
2011-09-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,024,227 Issues
2014-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,450 Issues
2016 Alleged Infringement Begins for multiple patents
2022-08-01 Plaintiff sends Defendant notice letter regarding alleged infringement
2022-09-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,311,180 - “Method for mapping and formatting information for a display device”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "conformal problem" where a single document, such as a web page, must be displayed on a wide array of devices with different screen sizes, formats, and capabilities (e.g., desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs), which often makes the content difficult or impossible to read (’180 Patent, col. 1:40-51). An additional problem is "localizing" the content to a user's preferred language and style (’180 Patent, col. 3:7-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that dynamically generates a display document by selecting elements from a source file and mapping them to a target device based on two key sets of information: the display limitations of the device itself (e.g., screen size, font capability) and a predetermined user profile containing the user's viewing preferences (e.g., language, minimum readable character size) (’180 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:54-59). This avoids the need to statically create and maintain multiple versions of the same document for different devices (’180 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
  • Technical Importance: The technology addresses the challenge of content fragmentation that arose with the proliferation of diverse, internet-connected mobile devices in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Providing one or more source contents in a predetermined format.
    • Recognizing the display limitations of the display device from a first information source.
    • Determining the viewing preferences of the user from a second information source.
    • Selecting preferred display contents from the source contents using a mapping system in conformance with the display limitations and viewing preferences.
    • Generating the display document containing the preferred display contents.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis (Compl. ¶23).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for voice-operated communication devices to correctly recognize identifiers, particularly long sequences of numbers like security or account codes, which are difficult for users to operate via buttons and prone to recognition errors (’532 Patent, col. 2:41-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for creating and recognizing unique spoken identifiers built from a predefined grammatical structure. A phrase is defined with multiple "word slots" (e.g., number:adjective:noun:verb), and each slot is assigned a set of unique words (e.g., the "noun" slot contains only animal names) (’532 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-11). A unique identifier is formed by selecting one word from each slot's set, creating a memorable and error-resistant phrase (e.g., "four green dogs flew through Boston") that can be mapped to a numeric equivalent (’532 Patent, col. 5:12-16).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make voice control more reliable and user-friendly for complex identifiers, moving beyond simple number recognition to a more robust, grammatically constrained system (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Defining a phrase having a plurality of word slots arranged in a predetermined order and according to a predetermined grammatical structure of a target language.
    • Associating a set of unique words with each word slot, selected from the target language according to the grammatical structure.
    • Generating a plurality of unique identifiers by selecting one word from each set for each word slot, such that concatenating the words forms the unique identifier.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis (Compl. ¶32).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Limited-Use Browser and Security System Patents

  • Patent Identification:
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,130,831, issued October 31, 2006.
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,225,157, issued May 29, 2007.
    • U.S. Patent No. 8,024,227, issued September 20, 2011.
    • U.S. Patent No. 8,868,450, issued September 21, 2014.
    • All are titled “Limited-use browser and security system.”
  • Technology Synopsis: This family of patents describes methods for controlling access to content stored on a server by permitting it to be accessed only by a client running a "limited-use browser" or an add-in security module (’831 Patent, Abstract). The system aims to prevent unauthorized modification or copying of the content by, for example, disabling functions like printing or saving to disk while the content is displayed (’831 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 of the ’831 patent, Claim 6 of the ’157 patent, Claim 16 of the ’227 patent, and Claim 1 of the ’450 patent (Compl. ¶45, ¶55, ¶64, ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s use of the "Accused Browser Access Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶43, ¶53, ¶62, ¶70).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Television Guidance System Patent

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,164,714, “Video transmission and processing system for generating a user mosaic,” issued January 16, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of helping users select a TV program from a large number of available channels by creating a "mosaic" of reduced-size program images (’714 Patent, col. 1:15-21). The system generates a user-customized mosaic based on descriptors associated with sub-sampled video signals, allowing a user to see a relevant group of programs rather than a static, exhaustive grid (’714 Patent, col. 2:4-9; Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 13, 15, and 17 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Accused Video Guidance Instrumentalities," which allegedly process video to generate mosaics (Compl. ¶78, ¶82).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Detecting Port Inactivity Patents

  • Patent Identification:
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,293,291, issued November 6, 2007.
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,565,699, issued July 21, 2009.
    • Both are titled “System and method for detecting computer port inactivity.”
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent family describes a system for enhancing the security of computers with "always on" broadband connections by detecting when a computer port is idle or inactive (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-26). Upon detecting a specified period of inactivity, the system can block external communications to the port to prevent unauthorized access or hijacking, and restore communications when activity resumes (’291 Patent, col. 2:14-20).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 9 of the ’291 patent and Claim 9 of the ’699 patent (Compl. ¶91, ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Accused Port Triggering Instrumentalities," which are allegedly intended for use with router products to utilize port triggering and forwarding functionality (Compl. ¶90, ¶94, ¶102).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies five categories of accused instrumentalities, which appear to correspond to different functionalities within Defendant Mediacom’s communication and media services (Compl. ¶22, ¶31, ¶43, ¶78, ¶90). These are identified as:

  1. Accused Display Instrumentalities
  2. Accused Speech Recognition Instrumentalities
  3. Accused Browser Access Instrumentalities
  4. Accused Video Guidance Instrumentalities
  5. Accused Port Triggering Instrumentalities

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific product names but alleges that these instrumentalities represent technologies used, sold, and offered for sale by Mediacom in the United States (Compl. ¶22, ¶31, ¶43, ¶78, ¶90). The functionalities implicated by the patent-in-suit groupings suggest the lawsuit targets core aspects of Mediacom’s service delivery platform, including how content is formatted for user devices, voice command features, secure content delivery, the electronic program guide, and network management in customer premises equipment like routers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include exhibits containing exemplary infringement claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶32). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided document.

  • '180 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's use of the Accused Display Instrumentalities directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’180 Patent (Compl. ¶24-25). The infringement theory appears to be that Mediacom’s system for delivering content to various customer devices necessarily performs a method of mapping and formatting that information to conform to the specific device's display limitations and potentially to user preferences.
  • '532 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's use of the Accused Speech Recognition Instrumentalities infringes at least claim 1 of the ’532 Patent (Compl. ¶31, ¶37). The theory appears to be that voice command systems offered by Mediacom, which allow users to control services with spoken words, use a method for recognizing identifiers that falls within the scope of the patent's claims.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’180 Patent, a central question may be whether Mediacom’s system uses a "user profile" as claimed to determine "viewing preferences," or if it relies solely on device characteristics. For the ’532 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether the accused voice command system recognizes "identifiers" using a "predefined grammar" with distinct "word slots" as required by the claim, or if it uses a different, more generalized form of natural language processing.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’180 Patent will be what specific information Mediacom's servers use when formatting content for a particular end-user device. For the ’532 Patent, discovery will likely focus on the technical architecture of the accused speech recognition system, including the structure of its vocabulary and the rules governing command recognition.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • From the ’180 Patent, Claim 1:

    • The Term: "viewing preferences of the user"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement may depend on whether the accused system considers user-specific data (preferences) in addition to device-specific data (limitations) when formatting content. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if purely device-adaptive formatting, without explicit user input or profiles, falls outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires determining preferences "from a second information source," which is distinct from the "first information source" for display limitations, suggesting two different types of data are required (’180 Patent, col. 11:4-6). This could be interpreted broadly to include implicit preferences derived from user behavior.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of a "user profile," such as "a locale in which the person lives, a minimum size of characters that the user is capable of reading, or a natural language the user can or cannot read" (’180 Patent, col. 6:2-7). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to explicitly defined, stored user settings.

  • From the ’532 Patent, Claim 1:

    • The Term: "predefined grammatical structure"
    • Context and Importance: The patentability of the invention appears tied to its structured, grammar-based approach, which contrasts with more open-ended speech recognition. The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether the accused system's recognition rules can be characterized as a "grammatical structure" as envisioned by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the structure as arranging "word slots" in a "predetermined order," suggesting any system that processes spoken commands as a sequence of expected word types could be argued to meet this limitation (’532 Patent, col. 10:20-23).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly specific example of the structure: "number:adjective:noun:verb:preposition:proper-noun" (’532 Patent, col. 5:1-2). A defendant may argue that this detailed embodiment limits the claim to systems with a similarly rigid, multi-part syntactic formula, as opposed to simpler "verb-object" command structures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for multiple patents, including the ’532, ’714, ’291, and ’699 Patents (Compl. ¶35-36, ¶82-83, ¶94-95, ¶106-107). The inducement allegations are based on Defendant's alleged encouragement of infringement through advertising, promotion, and the distribution of technical information that instructs users on how to use the accused features (e.g., Compl. ¶35). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused instrumentalities are material components specially made for practicing the patents and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," the factual predicate for such a claim is established through allegations of pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the ’532, ’714, ’291, and ’699 patents "at least as early as its receipt of CDN's August 1, 2022 letter regarding notice of infringement" (Compl. ¶34, ¶81, ¶93, ¶105).

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

  • A central issue across multiple patents will be one of technological evolution: can claim limitations drafted in the context of early 2000s technology (e.g., "limited-use browsers," "user profiles" for WAP phones) be construed to cover the integrated and adaptive technologies used in modern, sophisticated cable and streaming media platforms?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: the dispute will require detailed discovery into the internal workings of Defendant's service delivery platform to determine whether its methods for formatting content, processing voice commands, and managing network security actually operate in the manner required by the specific, multi-step limitations of the asserted claims.
  • The case presents a question of infringement aggregation: Plaintiff has asserted nine distinct patents covering disparate technologies. A primary challenge for the court and the parties will be to manage the complexity of construing claims and analyzing infringement across these varied technological fields within a single litigation.