DCT

1:19-cv-05539

Post Media Systems LLC v. Google LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05539, N.D. Ill., 08/16/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Play Music web service infringes four patents related to systems and methods for creating, managing, and sharing lists of media files over a network.
  • Technical Context: The patents address early methods for what is now commonly known as podcasting or playlist sharing, focusing on a client-server architecture for creating, processing, and distributing media content.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor, Alan Bartholomew, assigned the patents-in-suit to Plaintiff Post Media Systems LLC for the purpose of seeking compensation for the inventions. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’310, ’175, ’832, and ’181 Patents
2006-06-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 Issued
2008-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 Issued
2014-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 Issued
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 Issued
2019-08-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the process of creating, preparing, and disseminating media files (e.g., audio presentations) over the Internet as a "tedious and inefficient process for the typical user," requiring specialized knowledge and the use of multiple, separate computer programs for tasks like recording, signal processing, encoding, and uploading ('310 Patent, col. 1:22-26). It notes that these tasks are often performed on different servers, requiring further user expertise ('310 Patent, col. 2:31-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a user downloads a "plug-in" to a local client computer. This plug-in enables the user to create, digitally process, and encode media files on their own machine, guided by control parameters received from a central server. Once complete, the processed file is uploaded to the server, where it can be stored and made available for playback via lists (e.g., playlists) posted on web sites ('310 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:65-3:8). The solution centralizes control and distribution while offloading the computationally intensive processing tasks to the client computer.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify media content creation for non-expert users by integrating multiple production steps into a single, guided workflow managed by a client-side application ('310 Patent, col. 2:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('310 Patent, col. 23:20-24:61; Compl. ¶19).
  • Claim 1 of the '310 patent recites essential elements including:
    • A first computer system configured to connect to a server.
    • The first computer system is configured to create a "mediagram" specified by a creator user, where the mediagram is an "atomic unit" with a reference to audio data and media attributes.
    • The first computer system is configured to publish the mediagram to the server.
    • The server is configured to receive and store the mediagram.
    • The mediagram is referenced in an "ordered list" on the server.
    • Another peer computer system connects to the server to display the ordered list.
    • The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically as a result of input provided to said ordered list."
    • The set of media attributes in the mediagram is changed on the server, and the server propagates those changes automatically.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 - "System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '310 patent, the '175 patent addresses the same technical problem: the difficulty and inefficiency for typical users to create, process, and distribute media files over a network ('175 Patent, col. 1:49-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The '175 patent describes a similar client-server architecture where a client-side plug-in, controlled by a server, is used to create and process media files locally before uploading them for distribution ('175 Patent, col. 3:1-14). The claims of the '175 Patent continue to focus on the concept of a "mediagram" as a logical, "atomic unit" for managing media references and attributes ('175 Patent, col. 17:7-13).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a structured way to manage not just the media files themselves but also the metadata and list relationships associated with them, which can be updated dynamically ('175 Patent, col. 17:58-18:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('175 Patent, col. 23:1-33; Compl. ¶34).
  • Claim 1 of the '175 patent recites essential elements including:
    • A system for sharing media for retrieval comprising a first computer system configured to connect to a server.
    • The first computer system is configured to create a "mediagram," defined as an "atomic unit" and a "logical entity that is not further divisible," containing a reference to audio data and media attributes.
    • A server configured to receive and store the mediagram, which is referenced in an "ordered list" whose position is based on a "popularity ranking."
    • The server presents the ordered list to a client computer for retrieval.
    • The ordered list is "altered dynamically as a result of input provided to said ordered list."
    • The client computer retrieves the mediagram and uses the reference to retrieve the audio data for playback.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

  • Technology Synopsis: The '832 patent, from the same family, continues to describe a system for networked media sharing. The complaint alleges it resolves technical problems of posting and sharing media by overcoming interface issues across different computing systems and accounts on shared networks (Compl. ¶44). The invention focuses on the creation and management of dynamic lists of media content that can be shared and updated across a network ('832 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Accused Features: The Google Play Music web service and its associated infrastructure are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 - "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback"

  • Technology Synopsis: The '181 patent is the most recent patent-in-suit from the family and covers similar technological ground. The complaint alleges the invention provides improvements for embedding media information and propagating changes to that information across a network (Compl. ¶62). The patent describes a system for creating and distributing lists of media files for playback, emphasizing the dynamic and manageable nature of these lists ('181 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The Google Play Music web service and its associated infrastructure are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are identified as the "Google Play Music web service, as well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service" (Compl. ¶¶19, 34, 49, 65).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as a "system directed to a specific functionality of computers and networks to share media for playback" (Compl. ¶19, 34). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical breakdown of how the Google Play Music service operates. It alleges the service is marketed and used throughout the United States (Compl. ¶21).

Visual Evidence

  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent; however, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint and are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶20, 35, 50, 51, 66). The narrative infringement allegations are high-level, stating that Google's act of "making, using, selling, importing and/or providing" the Google Play Music service constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶19, 34, 49, 65). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the Google Play Music service, as a whole system, embodies the claimed methods of creating, managing, and sharing media lists for network playback.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the term "mediagram," an inventor-coined term for an "atomic unit" containing media references and attributes, can be construed to read on the data structures used for playlists and media items in the Google Play Music service. Another question may be whether Google's system architecture, including its client applications and server infrastructure, collectively meets the specific system limitations of the asserted claims, particularly regarding client-side processing versus server-side control.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which components of the Google Play Music service perform the claimed functions. A key technical question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused service, in its actual operation, performs the specific function of "dynamically" altering an "ordered list" based on generalized "input," as required by claims in both the ’310 and ’175 patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mediagram" ('310 Patent, Claim 1; '175 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term, defined by the inventor, appears to be the core data object of the invention. Its construction will be critical, as the infringement case depends on whether a playlist entry or media object within the Google Play Music ecosystem qualifies as a "mediagram." Practitioners may focus on this term because its unique nature could be a key point of non-infringement if Google can demonstrate its data structures are organized and function differently.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims provide a functional definition, such as an "atomic unit having at least one reference to said audio data and a set of media attributes" ('310 Patent, col. 24:32-34), which could be argued to cover any data object that links to a media file and includes metadata.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "mediagram" as a specific "logical entity" that combines lists and attributes, and Figure 11 depicts a particular database schema with "list attributes," "media files references," and "association attributes" ('310 Patent, col. 17:30-32; Fig. 11). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific relational data structure.
  • The Term: "ordered list... altered dynamically as a result of input" ('310 Patent, Claim 1; '175 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the interactive functionality of the claimed media lists. The dispute will likely center on what constitutes "dynamic" alteration and what type of "input" is required. Google may argue its playlists are either static or altered only by direct editorial commands from a user, not the type of dynamic, behavior-based input described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that lists can change according to "a set of criteria or behaviors established by the user" or through "actions performed by users" ('310 Patent, col. 18:6-8), which could encompass a wide range of interactions, including implicit feedback.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where a user action is "considered a 'vote' for the item" which "may cause the selected item to ascend in the list because it is considered more popular" ('310 Patent, col. 18:8-12). This could be used to argue for a narrower meaning that requires an explicit voting or ranking mechanism that directly and automatically re-sorts the list.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis alleged is Defendant's "advertising and distributing" the accused service and providing "instruction materials, training, and services regarding the... Accused Instrumentalities to others" (Compl. ¶¶24, 39, 55, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it does allege that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶22, 37, 53, 68). This allegation may support a claim for enhanced damages for post-suit infringement, but it does not allege pre-suit knowledge, which is typically a stronger basis for a willfulness finding.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the inventor-coined term "mediagram," described in the specification with specific structural attributes, be construed broadly enough to cover the data structures used for tracks and playlists in the accused Google Play Music service?
  • A central factual question will be one of functional operation: does the accused service feature playlists that are "altered dynamically as a result of input," such as user behavior or popularity metrics, in a manner that maps onto the specific dynamic sorting function required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the lists are managed?
  • An early evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: given the high-level nature of the complaint and the absence of claim charts, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce specific technical evidence demonstrating how the distributed components of the Google Play Music architecture (including client software and servers) collectively perform the claimed steps.