DCT

1:14-cv-00169

Broadband iTV Inc v. Hawaiian Telcom Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:14-cv-00169, D. Haw., 04/09/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are registered to do business in Hawai'i, are deemed to reside there, and that the alleged acts of patent infringement occur within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video-on-demand (VOD) services infringe a patent related to a method for converting and displaying video content uploaded from the internet on a digital TV VOD platform.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for ingesting content from online sources and making it navigable and viewable within the structured electronic program guides (EPGs) of closed digital television networks, such as cable or IPTV.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. was informed of the patent-in-suit in 2010. It further alleges that Defendant Hawaiian Telcom was informed about Plaintiff's intellectual property, including the technology embodied in the patent, in April 2006, and was provided with a detailed infringement analysis on May 10, 2013. These allegations of pre-suit notice may be used to support a future claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-07-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’336 Patent (from parent application)
2006-04-01 Hawaiian Telcom allegedly informed of Plaintiff's intellectual property
2007-03-12 ’336 Patent application filed
2009-12-08 ’336 Patent issued
2010-01-01 Time Warner Cable allegedly informed of ’336 Patent
2011-01-01 Hawaiian Telcom begins offering VOD programming
2013-05-10 Hawaiian Telcom allegedly provided with detailed infringement notice
2014-04-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 - “Method For Converting, Navigating And Displaying Video Content Uploaded From The Internet To A Digital TV Video-On-Demand Platform” (issued Dec. 8, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge created by the proliferation of online video content from a vast number of "citizen" publishers. While this content was widely available on the internet, there was no convenient way for viewers to find and watch it on traditional, closed digital TV systems (like cable), which were primarily designed for a limited number of studio-produced channels (’336 Patent, col. 2:41-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to bridge this gap. A content provider uploads video content via an online network to a "Web-based content management server" associated with the TV service provider. Along with the video, the provider supplies a title and a "hierarchical addressing tag" (e.g., /News/Local/Financial). The system then converts the video for the VOD platform and, critically, uses that same hierarchical tag to list the content within the TV's electronic program guide (EPG). This allows a TV viewer to navigate a familiar, folder-like structure on their screen to find and play internet-sourced content (’336 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-col. 3:13).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a standardized, automated pathway for integrating a potentially unlimited amount of third-party internet content into the structured, curated environment of a VOD platform, making it easily discoverable for TV viewers using their remote control (’336 Patent, col. 17:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is central to the patent.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • Enabling the uploading of video content in a digital video format via an online network to a Web-based content management server.
    • The upload includes a title and a "hierarchical address" of hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories.
    • Converting the uploaded content into a standard TV digital format and storing it in a video content database.
    • Listing the title of the video content in an electronic program guide (EPG) for the VOD platform "using the same hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories" as the uploaded hierarchical address.
    • Providing a TV subscriber with access to the EPG to navigate the categories and find the title.
    • Upon subscriber selection, retrieving and transmitting the video content to the subscriber's set-top box.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the video-on-demand (VOD) services provided by Defendants Time Warner and Hawaiian Telcom (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate advanced digital television and broadband infrastructures to provide services including VOD programming (Compl. ¶¶7-9). These services offer digital customers the ability to choose on-demand from hundreds of video titles (Compl. ¶8). The complaint asserts that both sets of defendants "utilize the same systems and methods" in connection with the implementation of their VOD services (Compl. ¶23). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed, element-by-element comparison. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the complaint's broad allegations against the described VOD services.

’336 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) enabling the uploading of video content in a digital video format via an online network to a Web-based content management server that is connected to the VOD platform of the discrete digital TV service provider network, along with a title and a hierarchical address... Defendants' VOD services, which offer hundreds of video titles, necessarily include a system for ingesting or uploading content from providers onto their VOD platforms. ¶¶8, 9, 22 col. 21:26-36
(b) converting the content uploaded to the Web-based content management server into a standard TV digital format used by the discrete digital TV service provider network and storing a "local instance" thereof at a video ID... Defendants' systems allegedly perform the claimed method of "converting... video content" as part of operating their VOD services. ¶22 col. 21:37-44
(c) listing the title of the video content in an electronic program guide for the VOD platform of the discrete digital TV service provider using the same hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories as used in the uploaded metadata... Defendants' VOD platforms allegedly perform the claimed method of "navigating and displaying video content" in connection with their VOD services. ¶22 col. 21:45-53
(d) providing a TV service subscriber... with access to the electronic program guide for the VOD platform for navigating through the hierarchically-arranged titles of video content... Defendants provide VOD services to their television subscribers, which includes a navigable interface or program guide. ¶¶7, 8, 9 col. 21:54-col. 22:2
(e) upon the TV service subscriber selecting... the title for the video content from the hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories of the electronic program guide... transmitting a request... and transmission of the selected video content... Defendants' VOD services allow subscribers to select and receive video content for viewing. ¶15 col. 22:3-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the Defendants' VOD platforms meet the claim limitation of a "Web-based content management server." A key question may be whether the defendants' potentially private, partner-facing content ingestion portals can be considered "Web-based" in the manner described by the patent, which focuses on enabling "citizen" content publishers (’336 Patent, col. 2:46-49).
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the Defendants' systems practice the specific method of receiving a "hierarchical address" from a content uploader and then "using the same" hierarchical structure to list the content in the subscriber's EPG. The complaint provides no facts to support this specific functional link, which is a core part of the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "hierarchical address of hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central technical concept of the patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the Defendants' method of organizing VOD content constitutes a "hierarchical address" that is provided upon upload and then replicated in the EPG. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether a standard metadata tagging system infringes, or if a more specific, file-path-like structure is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular format, referring generally to "categories and subcategories," which could be argued to cover any system that organizes content in a nested or layered manner (e.g., Genre > Movie > Title).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of the hierarchical address as a specific, URL-like string, such as TV:/News/Anywhere Reporting/New York/Financial/"Live from NYSE by Jim Cramer" (’336 Patent, col. 15:43-48, Fig. 4). An argument could be made that this specific implementation defines the scope of the term.

  • The Term: "Web-based content management server"

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term will determine what kind of content ingestion system falls within the scope of the claims. The dispute may turn on whether this requires a publicly accessible, internet-facing portal available to any "citizen publisher" or if it can also cover private, proprietary systems used by the defendants and their established content partners.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be read to mean any server that is managed using web technologies (e.g., HTTP), regardless of whether it is public or private.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's "Background" and "Summary" sections heavily emphasize the goal of enabling a "vast number of self-publishers or so-called 'citizen' content publishers" to upload content from the internet, suggesting the server is intended to be an open, web-facing portal rather than a closed, B2B system (’336 Patent, col. 2:46-49).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have induced infringement, asserting they "caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided the induced infringement" (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support this, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct customers to perform infringing acts.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges facts that could support such a claim. It alleges Time Warner Cable was informed of the ’336 Patent in 2010 (Compl. ¶25) and that Hawaiian Telcom was informed of the patent and provided a "detailed description comparing the claims" to its products in 2013 (Compl. ¶26). These allegations establish a basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the alleged infringement.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "hierarchical address", which the patent illustrates with specific, URL-like strings, be construed broadly enough to cover the metadata and content categorization systems used in the accused VOD platforms?
  2. The case will likely turn on a key evidentiary question: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the Defendants' systems practice the core inventive step of Claim 1—specifically, that the hierarchical structure of their VOD menus is directly derived from a "hierarchical address" provided by a content provider during an upload process, as opposed to being generated independently by the Defendants' own curation and programming teams? The complaint currently lacks specific factual allegations on this point.
  3. A further question of scope will be whether the "Web-based content management server" requires an open, public-facing portal for "citizen publishers" as emphasized in the patent's specification, or if it can read on the potentially closed, proprietary content ingestion systems used by major cable and IPTV operators.