DCT
1:24-cv-01786
Ziklag IP LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ziklag IP LLC (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Amazon Web Services Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dowell IP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01786, N.D. Ill., 06/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district and maintains a physical, established place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s CloudFront content delivery network infringes a patent related to systems for the real-time distribution of digital files.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of content delivery networks (CDNs), which are critical infrastructure for reducing latency and efficiently delivering digital media like music and video over the internet.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent expired on March 5, 2018. The complaint seeks damages only for a three-day period from March 2, 2018, to March 5, 2018, corresponding to the end of the patent's life within the six-year statutory damages window. The patent was assigned to the plaintiff, Ziklag IP LLC, by the original plaintiff, Touchmusic Entertainment LLC, on April 18, 2024, after the original complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-05 | ’128 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-01-30 | ’128 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-02 | Start of Alleged Infringement Period |
| 2018-03-05 | ’128 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2018-03-05 | End of Alleged Infringement Period |
| 2024-04-18 | ’128 Patent Assigned to Ziklag IP LLC |
| 2024-06-03 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,182,128, “Real-Time Music Distribution Systems,” issued January 30, 2001.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks of distributing music in the 1990s, citing both the physical overhead of retail sales on "tangible" media and the technical limitations of early internet distribution, which forced a choice between low-quality real-time streaming and slow, high-fidelity downloads. (’128 Patent, col. 1:17-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a content distribution system divided into "regional networks." Each region has a "distribution center" with a local library of digital files. A user requests a file, and the regional center retrieves it from its local library and transmits it to the user over a high-bandwidth connection (e.g., cable TV) for real-time, high-fidelity playback. (’128 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-55). If a file is not available locally, a "control center" coordinates with other regional distribution centers to locate and route the file to the user. (’128 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes an early architecture for a content delivery network (CDN) that addresses latency by storing content geographically closer to users, a foundational principle for modern internet-based content streaming. (’128 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 2 and dependent claims 4 and 17. (Compl. ¶8, 19, 20).
- Independent Claim 2 of the ’128 Patent recites a system for distributing data files, with its essential elements being:
- A plurality of "distribution centers," each with a network interface, a library of data files, a library interface, and a processor.
- The processor is for receiving user requests, determining if a requested file is in the local library, transmitting available files, and recording request information.
- A "central controller" connected to each distribution center's network interface.
- The central controller is for receiving "file import requests" from a distribution center, "searching the library within at least one other of said distribution centers" to find the file, and instructing that other center to transmit the file to the requesting center.
- The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted in the future beyond those noted.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "CloudFront internet delivery and cloud storage online services." (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes Amazon CloudFront as a content delivery network (CDN) that uses a "plurality of distribution centers" (edge locations) to deliver content. (Compl. ¶8-9). These distribution centers cache static content closer to end users to "allow for high, sustained data transfer rates." (Compl. ¶11). When a server at a distribution center receives a request for a file not in its local cache ("library"), it sends a "file import request" to an "origin server," which then provides the file to the requesting server for delivery to the end user. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges CloudFront also includes logging features to record user requests. (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’128 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a plurality of distribution centers, each including: | Amazon CloudFront maintains a plurality of distribution centers for the delivery of internet content and data. | ¶9 | col. 3:33-39 |
| 1) a network interface ... for connecting to a single one of the networks; | Amazon CloudFront servers include network interfaces that with an input and output for connecting to the internet service provider. | ¶10 | col. 4:20-28 |
| 2) a library including a plurality of data files; | Amazon CloudFront servers include a library of data files hosted for clients and customers. | ¶11 | col. 4:56-59 |
| 3) a library interface ... connected to said library; | Each Amazon CloudFront server includes a library interface for retrieving data files from... | ¶12 | col. 4:49-51 |
| 4) a processor connected to said network interface and said library interface, said processor for: | Amazon CloudFront servers include a processor connected to both the network interface and the library interface. | ¶13 | col. 4:45-48 |
| (a) receiving a request from a user via said input of said network interface... | Amazon CloudFront servers receive requests from users via the network interface... | ¶14 | col. 8:60-63 |
| (b) determining which of said requested data files are available in said library... | When an Amazon CloudFront server receives a request for a data file, the server determines whether the file is available in its library. | ¶15 | col. 8:64-68 |
| (c) transmitting said requested data files to said single one of the networks... | After retrieval from the origin server, the requesting server transmits the file to the end user via the network interface... | ¶16 | col. 8:8-13 |
| (d) recording request information indicative of said requested data file and said user address; | Amazon CloudFront includes logging features that record requests for data files... | ¶17 | col. 8:14-16 |
| b) a central controller directly connected to said network interface of each of said distribution centers for: | The Amazon CloudFront software is a central controller directly connected to the network interface of each edge distribution server... | ¶18 | col. 8:17-21 |
| 1) receiving file import requests from a requesting distribution center... | ...and receives file import requests from edge servers when end user requests are not available at that edge server. | ¶18 | col. 8:21-24 |
| 2) searching the library within at least one other of said distribution centers... and 3) instructing said other distribution center to retrieve and transmit the requested data file... | ...Amazon CloudFront searches the library of other distribution servers for the requested file and, if found, transmits the requested file to the requesting server. | ¶18 | col. 8:25-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether AWS's "origin server" (Compl. ¶15) qualifies as an "other of said distribution centers" as required by claim 2(b)(2). The patent describes a system of seemingly peer-like regional centers, whereas the complaint's description of CloudFront suggests a hierarchical architecture where edge locations fetch content from a central origin, not necessarily another peer edge location.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused CloudFront system, upon a cache miss at an edge server, actually performs the claimed step of "searching the library within at least one other of said distribution centers"? The complaint's allegation that it "searches the library of other distribution servers" (Compl. ¶18) may be in tension with its earlier, more specific description of sending a request to "another server (the origin server)" (Compl. ¶15), raising a question of whether the accused functionality matches the specific claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "central controller"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "central controller" and its specific functions are critical to the infringement analysis for claim 2. The dispute may turn on whether the AWS CloudFront management plane, which orchestrates cache-fills from origin servers, performs the same function as the claimed "central controller," which is described as searching the libraries of other peer distribution centers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "control center" in functional terms as determining "whether the requested data file is located in the libraries 20 in the other regional networks 14." (’128 Patent, col. 3:58-62). This could support an argument that any centralized component managing content location across a distributed network meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "control center 26" as a discrete component connected to a regional network, and its role is described as routing requests between different regional networks. (’128 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:35-45). This could support a narrower construction tied to a specific architecture of inter-regional, peer-to-peer communication, potentially distinguishing it from a hierarchical origin-to-edge architecture.
The Term: "distribution center"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory equates AWS's "edge locations" and potentially its "origin server" with the patent's "distribution centers." Practitioners may focus on this term because the architectural relationship between these components in the accused system (hierarchical) may differ from the relationship implied in the patent (regional peers).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A "distribution center" is broadly described as including a "library which stores a plurality of data files" and is connected to users. (’128 Patent, col. 3:37-40). This general language could arguably read on both an AWS edge location and an origin server.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently frames "distribution centers" as components of distinct "regional networks 14" that are populated based on the "demographic group endemic to the respective region." (’128 Patent, col. 4:1-10; Fig. 1). This context could support a narrower definition requiring a center to be part of a regional, peer-like structure, as opposed to a central origin server in a hierarchical system.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does AWS CloudFront's hierarchical CDN architecture, which relies on edge locations fetching content from a central "origin server," map onto the patent's claimed system of peer-like "regional distribution centers" whose libraries are searched by a "central controller"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused CloudFront system perform the specific claim step where the "central controller" actively "searches the library within at least one other of said distribution centers," or does it operate exclusively via a different mechanism, such as a direct fetch from a non-peer origin server, potentially creating a functional mismatch with the claim?
- A significant practical question involves the damages theory: Given the asserted infringement period is only three days for a patent that expired over six years ago, the case will test whether the asserted basis for damages is substantial enough to sustain complex and costly patent litigation.