DCT

1:15-cv-00131

Broadband iTV Inc v. Time Warner Cable

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00131, D. Haw., 04/09/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Hawai'i on the basis that the Defendants are registered to do business, are deemed to reside in Hawai'i, and that the alleged acts of patent infringement occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video-on-demand (VOD) services infringe a patent related to methods for converting and displaying video content uploaded from the internet on a digital TV VOD platform.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of user- or third-party-uploaded internet video content into closed, managed VOD systems, making such content navigable via a conventional electronic program guide (EPG).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Time Warner Cable was informed of the patent-in-suit in 2010. It further alleges that Defendant Hawaiian Telcom was informed of the underlying intellectual property as early as April 2006 and was provided with a detailed infringement analysis comparing the patent claims to its services in May 2013. These allegations of pre-suit notice may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-07-30 '336 Patent Priority Date
2006-04 Hawaiian Telcom allegedly informed of BBiTV's IP
2009-12-08 '336 Patent Issue Date
2010 Time Warner Cable allegedly informed of '336 Patent
2011 Hawaiian Telcom begins offering accused IPTV VOD services
2013-05-10 Hawaiian Telcom allegedly provided with detailed infringement notice
2014-04-09 Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to expand television viewing beyond a "relatively small number of studio-produced program channels" to include content from a "vast number of self-publishers or so-called 'citizen' content publishers" ('336 Patent, col. 2:42-49). The technical challenge was to find a way for these numerous publishers to transmit their programs to home TVs and for viewers to easily find content of interest among the vast new offerings ('336 Patent, col. 2:49-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a content provider uploads video via an "online network" (e.g., the internet) to a web-based server associated with a VOD platform. Crucially, the upload includes both a title and a "hierarchical addressing tag" that categorizes the content (e.g., /News/Local/CityCouncil). The VOD system automatically converts this content into a standard TV format, stores it, and uses the provided hierarchical address to list the title in the correct location within its on-screen Electronic Program Guide (EPG). A TV subscriber can then navigate this familiar EPG structure to find and play the content on their television. ('336 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-col. 3:23).
  • Technical Importance: This method created a standardized, automated bridge between the open, chaotic world of internet content creation and the closed, curated environment of cable and IPTV VOD systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the '336 Patent (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Enabling the uploading of video content via an online network to a Web-based content management server, along with a title and a hierarchical address for categorizing the video content.
    • Converting the uploaded content into a standard TV digital format and storing a "local instance" of it at a video ID (VID) address linked to the title.
    • Listing the title of the video content in an electronic program guide (EPG) using the same hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories from the uploaded hierarchical address.
    • Providing a TV subscriber with access to the EPG to navigate and find the title.
    • Upon subscriber selection of the title, transmitting a request to the VOD platform, retrieving the stored video content, and transmitting it to the subscriber's set-top box for display.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Infringing Products and Services" are identified as the Defendants' "digital television services, including video-on-demand services" offered throughout Hawai'i and the United States (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Defendants provide advanced video services, including VOD, over infrastructure that includes coaxial and fiber-optic cables (Compl. ¶¶7-8). It asserts that customers can choose from "hundreds of video titles" and that both Time Warner and Hawaiian Telcom "utilize the same systems and methods" in connection with "customers' downloads of VOD content" (Compl. ¶8, ¶23). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding how Defendants ingest, process, or categorize third-party VOD content.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on general allegations that the Defendants' VOD services practice the patented method. Figure 4 from the patent, incorporated as Exhibit A, illustrates the overall process flow from content sources on the internet through a VOD platform to a viewer's TV (Compl. ¶19, Ex. A, Fig. 4). The table below synthesizes the complaint's high-level allegations against the elements of representative Claim 1.

’336 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) enabling the uploading of video content... via an online network to a Web-based content management server... along with a title and a hierarchical address... Defendants' VOD systems allegedly receive and process video content for inclusion in their VOD offerings. ¶22, ¶23 col. 2:58-65
(b) converting the content uploaded... into a standard TV digital format and storing a "local instance" thereof at a video ID (VID) address... Defendants' systems allegedly convert and store video content to make it available for on-demand viewing by subscribers. ¶22, ¶23 col. 3:1-6
(c) listing the title of the video content in an electronic program guide... using the same hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories as used in the uploaded metadata... Defendants' VOD services allegedly provide an on-screen guide with categorized video titles for subscribers to browse. ¶8, ¶22 col. 3:7-13
(d) providing a TV service subscriber... with access to the electronic program guide for navigating through the hierarchically-arranged categories... Defendants' VOD services allegedly provide subscribers with access to this on-screen guide to find content. ¶7, ¶8 col. 3:14-19
(e) upon the TV service subscriber selecting... the title... retrieving the selected video content... and transmission of the selected video content to the... set-top box... Defendants' systems allegedly deliver selected VOD content to a subscriber's home in response to a selection from the guide. ¶8, ¶23 col. 3:20-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the Defendants' systems, which likely ingest content from commercial studios via private, business-to-business networks, fall within the scope of "uploading... via an online network," a phrase the patent frequently discusses in the context of "citizen content publishers" and the public internet ('336 Patent, col. 2:48, col. 15:56-63).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement case may depend on whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that the Defendants' systems automatically use a "hierarchical address" supplied with the uploaded content to generate the EPG structure. The court will have to determine if the Defendants' internal process of categorizing content meets this limitation, or if they generate their own EPG structure independently after content ingestion, which could suggest a mismatch with the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "hierarchical address"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's claimed point of novelty. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the way Defendants organize their VOD menu constitutes a "hierarchical address" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any tree-like menu structure infringes, or if a more specific, URL-like data format provided at upload is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims and summary describe the term generally as "hierarchically-arranged categories and subcategories for categorizing the title for the video content" ('336 Patent, col. 2:62-65), which could support an interpretation covering any system that organizes content into nested menus.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of the address as a delimited string: "TV:/News/Anywhere Reporting/New York/Financial/'Live from NYSE by Jim Cramer'" ('336 Patent, col. 15:43-45). It also notes that a "TV EPG hierarchical address may be thought of as a URL for a TV program" ('336 Patent, col. 17:1-2), suggesting a specific format provided by the publisher, rather than a structure created internally by the VOD provider.

  • The Term: "uploading... via an online network"

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the Defendants' commercial-scale VOD operations depends on the scope of this term. The dispute will likely center on whether this is limited to public internet uploads or covers any form of digital content delivery.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "online network" itself is broad and not explicitly limited in the claims. This could support a reading on any network connection, including private, dedicated links from content partners.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and detailed description repeatedly frame the invention as a solution for "citizen content publishers," "self-published video programs," and content from public websites like "YouTube.com" ('336 Patent, col. 2:48, col. 15:60-63). This context may support a narrower construction limited to open, public networks.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have engaged in and induced infringement (Compl. ¶31). It makes a conclusory statement that Defendants "caused, urged, encouraged and/or aided the induced infringement" but does not plead specific facts (e.g., referencing user manuals or on-screen instructions) to support the element of intent (Compl. ¶33).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes specific allegations that could support a finding of willfulness. It alleges that Time Warner Cable has known of the '336 Patent since 2010 (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges that Hawaiian Telcom was informed of the underlying technology in 2006 and, more significantly, was provided with a "detailed description comparing the claims of the '336 Patent with its Infringing Products and Services" on May 10, 2013, nearly a year before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶26).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "uploading... via an online network," described in the patent in the context of individual "citizen publishers," be construed to cover the likely industrial-scale ingestion of content from major studios via private, dedicated networks used by the Defendants?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendants' VOD systems practice the specific method of using a "hierarchical address" provided with the video content to automatically structure the electronic program guide, as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation where Defendants create their own guide structure post-ingestion?
  • Given the specific factual allegations of pre-suit notice, a central question for damages will be willfulness: Does the alleged 2010 notice to Time Warner and, particularly, the 2013 detailed claim comparison provided to Hawaiian Telcom, establish the "wanton, malicious, and bad-faith" conduct necessary for an enhancement of damages if infringement is found?