DCT

1:19-cv-05540

Post Media Systems LLC v. Pandora Media LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05540, N.D. Ill., 11/06/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ internet music streaming services infringe four patents related to systems and methods for creating, managing, and sharing lists of media for subsequent playback over a network.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation and distribution of media playlists, a foundational concept for modern digital media services like internet radio and on-demand music streaming.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, superseding an original complaint filed at an unspecified earlier date.

Case Timeline

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310, "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback," issued June 27, 2006 (Compl. ¶29).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of creating and disseminating media files (e.g., audio presentations) over the Internet as "tedious and inefficient," requiring specialized knowledge of multiple different computer programs for steps such as recording, signal processing, encoding, and uploading (’310 Patent, col. 1:21-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a client-based system, described as a "plug-in," to streamline this workflow (’310 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:1). A user can employ the plug-in on their local computer to create, process, encode, and upload media files to a server, where they are made available for playback via web-based lists, simplifying what was previously a multi-step, expert-level task (’310 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-52).
  • Technical Importance: The invention proposed an integrated client-server system to make the creation and network-based sharing of media, akin to early podcasting, accessible to non-expert users (’310 Patent, col. 2:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A system with a first computer system (client) and a server.
    • The client is configured to create a "mediagram" defined as an "atomic unit" with references to audio data and media attributes.
    • The client publishes the mediagram to the server, which stores it.
    • The mediagram is referenced in an "ordered list" on the server.
    • The server displays the ordered list to a peer computer system, enabling a user to select an item for playback.
    • The ordered list and its contents are "altered dynamically as a result of input provided to said ordered list."
    • Changes to the mediagram's attributes on the server are propagated "automatically."

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175, "System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network," issued December 30, 2008 (Compl. ¶44).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the ’175 Patent addresses the complexity of disseminating media over the Internet (’175 Patent, col. 1:31-35). It also identifies a specific limitation in prior systems: the lack of a "simple mechanism for depositing the media files into a dynamic environment (e.g., a list that changes according to a set of criteria or behaviors established by the user)" (’175 Patent, col. 2:19-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where a user creates a "mediagram," which is defined as a "logical entity that is not further divisible," and publishes it to a server (’175 Patent, cl. 1). The mediagram is then placed in an "ordered list" where its position is determined by a "popularity ranking," and the list itself is "altered dynamically" based on user input (’175 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This invention focuses on the dynamic organization of media content based on popularity metrics, a concept central to modern personalized playlists and content recommendation engines (’175 Patent, col. 2:23-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A system with a first computer system (client) and a server.
    • The client creates a "mediagram," described as an "atomic unit" and a "logical entity that is not further divisible."
    • The server receives and stores the mediagram.
    • The mediagram is referenced in an "ordered list" on the server, with its position based on a "popularity ranking."
    • The server presents the list to a client computer for retrieval.
    • The ordered list is "altered dynamically as a result of input."
    • A client computer retrieves the mediagram and its associated audio data for playback.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832, "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback," issued May 13, 2014 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, the ’832 Patent addresses the technical problem of simplifying the creation and sharing of media over a network (’832 Patent, col. 1:35-39). The disclosed solution involves a client-server system for creating and managing dynamic lists of media content that can be shared with and accessed by other users, with the lists being modifiable based on user input or popularity (’832 Patent, Abstract; cl. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The "internet music service known as Pandora Radio, as well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service" (Compl. ¶65).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181, "System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback," issued February 17, 2015 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, discloses a system for sharing media content where a first computer receives a dynamically modifiable list of media from a remote computer (’181 Patent, Abstract; cl. 19). The system enables a user to select items from the list for playback and is configured to handle updates to the list content automatically, such as by downloading modified media data in response to a notification (’181 Patent, cl. 19).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 19 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The "internet music service known as Pandora Radio, as well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service" (Compl. ¶81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "internet music service known as Pandora Radio and Sirius XM Streaming Online Radio, as well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service" (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' services provide functionality for sharing media for playback over computer networks (Compl. ¶35). It further alleges that the Defendants' operations are intertwined, enabling them to "cross-offer products and media content" (Compl. ¶9). Examples cited include "Personalized Stations Powered by Pandora" offered on Sirius XM services and Sirius XM-branded stations offered on Pandora's service (Compl. ¶9). This functionality is alleged to involve the creation and use of "songs, albums, stations, and playlists" (Compl. ¶9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the asserted patents but does not include element-by-element infringement analysis within the body of the complaint itself. Instead, it references separate exhibits, not provided with the complaint document, that purportedly contain a "comparison" of the accused services with the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶36, 51, 66, 67, 82). The narrative infringement theory is that the accused Pandora and Sirius XM services are systems for sharing media for playback that practice the methods and systems claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶35, 50, 65, 81).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the term "mediagram," defined in the patents as an "atomic unit" created on a client computer, can be construed to read on server-side constructs such as a "station" or "playlist" generated by the accused services (’310 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the algorithmic curation of a streaming radio station, influenced by user feedback like "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," performs the functions required by claim limitations such as an "ordered list" that is "altered dynamically as a result of input provided to said ordered list" (’310 Patent, cl. 1). The evidence presented will need to establish how the accused systems technically operate with respect to ordering, altering, and propagating changes to their media lists.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mediagram"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental data object recited in the asserted claims of the ’310 and ’175 patents. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether a "playlist" or algorithmically-generated "station" within the accused services meets the patent's definition of a "mediagram."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’310 Patent defines the term functionally as an "atomic unit having at least one reference to said audio data and a set of media attributes." The specification further describes it as a "logical entity" that combines lists and attributes, which a party could argue is a broad definition encompassing modern playlist structures (’310 Patent, cl. 1; col. 17:29-32).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's embodiments describe the mediagram in the context of a user actively creating a file with a client-side plug-in (’310 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:3-7). A party could argue that the term "atomic unit" implies an indivisible, user-created file, distinct from a server-side, algorithmically-managed list of tracks (’310 Patent, cl. 1).

  • The Term: "ordered list... altered dynamically as a result of input provided to said ordered list"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical for mapping the claims onto the functionality of personalized radio services. Practitioners may focus on whether influencing a recommendation algorithm with user feedback (e.g., a "thumbs up") is the same as providing "input" that "alters" an "ordered list."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that a list can change based on user actions, which are considered "votes," causing items to "ascend" or "descend" in the list based on popularity (’310 Patent, col. 18:8-15). This could support a broad construction that covers algorithm-based ranking influenced by user interactions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes lists being actively managed and edited by a "creator user," suggesting direct manipulation rather than indirect influence on an algorithm (’310 Patent, col. 18:46-48). A party may also argue that an "ordered list" requires a defined sequence of items, which may be different from the dynamically generated sequence of a streaming radio station.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants encourage infringement by "advertising and distributing the... Accused Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials" to end users (Compl. ¶¶39-40, 54-55). Knowledge is alleged to exist "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused services are a material component especially made for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶41, 56).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement" in the counts for relief. However, it alleges Defendants acted with "specific intent or willful blindness" and had "actual knowledge" of the patents and their infringement since the filing of the original complaint (Compl. ¶¶39-40). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. p. 19, ¶C).

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's interpretation of claim terms conceived in the context of early-2000s technology and their application to modern, algorithm-driven streaming services.

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mediagram," described in the patent specification as a user-created "atomic unit," be construed to cover server-side, dynamically generated constructs like a Pandora "station" or a user "playlist"?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does influencing a recommendation algorithm with user feedback (e.g., "thumbs up/down") meet the claim requirement of providing "input" that "alters" a specific "ordered list," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed method of list manipulation and the actual operation of the accused services?