DCT

1:18-cv-10056

Veveo Inc v. Comcast Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-10056, D. Mass., 01/10/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendants operate numerous physical "Xfinity stores," maintain offices and facilities, employ thousands of residents, and conduct continuous and systematic business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Xfinity X1 interactive program guide infringes patents related to performing searches on television systems using remote control numeric keypads with overloaded keys.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of entering text on input-constrained devices like television remotes, aiming to make searching large libraries of video content faster and more intuitive.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a significant history between the parties, beginning with a 2010 software license agreement for the patented technology. Plaintiff alleges Comcast terminated the license in 2013 and developed a replacement system using Veveo's intellectual property. A prior lawsuit on the same patents was filed in 2013 and later dismissed. The complaint also references a 2016 ITC action brought by Plaintiff's parent company, Rovi, which resulted in an exclusion order against certain Comcast set-top boxes. After the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against both asserted patents, which resulted in the cancellation of all claims of both patents in October 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-08-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,779,011 and 7,937,394
2010-06-10 Veveo and Comcast execute software license agreement
2010-08-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,779,011 issues
2011-04-01 Comcast launches Xcalibur system utilizing Veveo technology
2011-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,937,394 issues
2012-05-01 Comcast launches X1 interactive program guide nationwide
2013-04-30 Comcast terminates the Veveo software license
2013-08-07 Veveo files first patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast
2016-03-31 Comcast's license to Rovi's patent portfolio (including Veveo's) expires
2016-04-06 Rovi initiates ITC action against Comcast
2017-11-01 ITC issues orders barring import of certain Comcast set-top boxes
2018-01-10 Complaint Filing Date
2022-10-12 All claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,779,011 cancelled via IPR
2022-10-12 All claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,937,394 cancelled via IPR

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,779,011 - "Method and System for Dynamically Processing Ambiguous, Reduced Text Search Queries and Highlighting Results Thereof," issued August 17, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of text entry on devices with limited, "overloaded" keypads, such as TV remotes where a single numeric key corresponds to multiple letters (’011 Patent, col. 1:30-35). Prior solutions like "multi-press" (tapping a key multiple times for one letter) were described as tiresome, while "vocabulary based" systems (like T9) were ill-suited for search applications because they required users to explicitly disambiguate each word before proceeding ('011 Patent, col. 1:46-2:7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention enables a user to perform a search by pressing each overloaded key only once per intended character. As the user enters this ambiguous sequence, the system dynamically identifies and displays matching items from a database ('011 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the solution is highlighting the specific characters within the displayed results that correspond to the user's ambiguous keystrokes, thereby illustrating to the user how the system interpreted the input and allowing for more efficient refinement of the search ('011 Patent, col. 7:41-48). The system also orders the results based on criteria such as temporal relevance or popularity to further improve user experience ('011 Patent, col. 5:26-34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make content discovery on television platforms significantly faster and more intuitive by reducing the number of required keystrokes and providing immediate visual feedback to resolve ambiguity (Compl. ¶ 53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (Compl. ¶ 94). The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
    • Indexing items by directly mapping them to corresponding strings of unresolved keystrokes.
    • Determining which letters/numbers in an item's description caused it to be associated with a keystroke string.
    • Receiving an ambiguous search query from a user.
    • In response to each keystroke, identifying and displaying the subsets of items associated with the keystroke string.
    • Highlighting the specific letters/numbers in the displayed results that were determined to match the user's keystrokes.
    • Ordering the displayed items according to given criteria.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 94).

U.S. Patent No. 7,937,394 - "Method and System for Dynamically Processing Ambiguous, Reduced Text Search Queries and Highlighting Results Thereof," issued May 3, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '011 Patent, the ’394 Patent addresses the same technical problem of cumbersome search on devices with overloaded keypads ('394 Patent, col. 1:49-2:7).
  • The Patented Solution: The '394 Patent describes the same core solution: receiving ambiguous, single-press-per-character keystrokes and dynamically displaying results ('394 Patent, Abstract). It similarly emphasizes the step of highlighting the corresponding characters in the results to provide visual feedback and "illustrate to the user how the unresolved keystrokes entered match the information associated with the displayed items" ('394 Patent, Claim 1; col. 3:38-45).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides an unconventional solution to problems arising in electronic display devices with integrated program guides and search functionality (Compl. ¶ 120).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 123). The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
    • Providing access to an index that maps subsets of items to strings of unresolved keystrokes.
    • Determining which letters/numbers in an item's description caused the association.
    • Receiving an ambiguous search query from a user.
    • Identifying and displaying the associated subsets of items.
    • Highlighting the specific letters/numbers in the displayed results that match the user's keystrokes to illustrate the match.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Comcast’s Xfinity X1 Platform systems, which include digital video receivers (e.g., ARRIS XG1v1, Pace XG1v3), associated Interactive Program Guide (IPG) software, remote controls, and the X1 Remote App (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Xfinity X1 system allows users to search for content by entering search terms using the alphanumeric keys on a remote control keypad (Compl. ¶ 98). For example, a user can search for the program "NOVA" by pressing the keys "6682" (Compl. ¶ 98). The complaint positions Comcast as the "lone holdout" among major Pay-TV providers in licensing Rovi's (Veveo's) patented technology, while continuing to offer search functionalities allegedly covered by the patents (Compl. ¶ 75). Figure 6B from the patents is referenced as an exemplar of the accused functionality, showing a display with results like "8MM" and "Twelve Monkeys" for the numeric input "866" (Compl. ¶ 85).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Comcast's X1 system performs the methods claimed in the '011 and '394 patents. The complaint alleges that when a user enters an ambiguous search query (e.g., "6682" for "NOVA") using an Xfinity remote, the X1 system receives the unresolved keystrokes, dynamically identifies matching content, and displays a list of results (Compl. ¶¶ 93, 98, 122). The central feature of the alleged infringement is that the X1 system performs the claimed "highlighting" step, which the patents describe as visually indicating the specific characters in the search results that correspond to the user's ambiguous input ('011 Patent, Claim 1; '394 Patent, Claim 1). This highlighting is alleged to "illustrate to the user how the unresolved keystrokes match information associated with the displayed items" (Compl. ¶¶ 87, 116).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A primary factual dispute may concern the specific operation of the "highlighting" feature in the accused X1 system. The key question is whether the X1 system's functionality, if any, for emphasizing search terms in results performs the specific function required by the claims—namely, to "illustrate to the user how the unresolved keystrokes entered match the information" ('011 Patent, col. 9:8-12). The analysis would require evidence of how the accused system actually operates, as the complaint does not contain screenshots of the accused product's interface.
    • Scope Questions: Claim construction may focus on the meaning of "directly mapped" in claim 1 of the '011 Patent. The parties could dispute whether Comcast's indexing and search system creates a "direct" mapping between keystroke strings and content items, or if its algorithmic approach is sufficiently different to fall outside this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "highlighting" (and its variations)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both patents and is central to the invention's stated purpose of resolving ambiguity for the user. Its construction is critical because it defines the specific action that must be performed on the displayed search results.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '011 Patent specification provides a non-limiting list of examples, stating highlighting can include "bolding, italicizing, coloring, underlining, or changing font of... the characters of interest" ('011 Patent, col. 7:51-56). This language could support an argument that any method of making the matching characters visually distinct meets the claim limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves tie the "highlighting" to a specific function: "to illustrate to the user how the unresolved keystrokes entered match the information associated with the displayed items" ('011 Patent, Claim 1). The detailed description of Figure 6B, which explains how highlighting clarifies that the "8" key was matched to a "T" in "Twelve Monkeys," reinforces this functional requirement, suggesting that mere emphasis of the search query as a whole might not suffice ('011 Patent, col. 7:16-48).

  • The Term: "directly mapped"

    • Context and Importance: This term, found in claim 1 of the '011 Patent, defines the required relationship between the indexed content and the keystroke strings. Its definition will determine what kind of indexing architecture infringes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "directly mapped" simply requires a computationally determined association between a keystroke string and a subset of items, without intervening manual steps.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this mapping to the system's ability "to incrementally retrieve results matching the ambiguous alphanumeric input query, as the user types in each character" ('011 Patent, col. 3:52-55). This may support a narrower construction where the "direct" nature of the mapping is what enables this specific, incremental functionality, potentially excluding more complex, multi-factor search algorithms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It alleges Comcast had knowledge of the patents and intentionally encouraged infringement by providing the accused X1 system to subscribers along with instructions on how to use the infringing search functionality, citing Comcast's own support website (Compl. ¶¶ 97-98, 126-127).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. The alleged bases for knowledge include a 2010 license agreement for the patented technology, a 2013 lawsuit filed by Veveo on the same patents, and a 2015 communication from Rovi to Comcast that explicitly identified the '011 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 96, 125). Plaintiff further alleges that Comcast intentionally designed a replacement for Veveo's system with full knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 68).

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

  • The ultimate issue in this case, arising subsequent to the complaint's filing, is one of patent viability. Inter Partes Review proceedings initiated by Comcast resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of both the '011 and '394 patents. The continuation of the litigation would therefore depend entirely on the finality of those cancellation decisions.
  • Assuming the patents had remained valid, a key evidentiary question would have been one of technical implementation. Does the accused Xfinity X1 system perform the specific "highlighting" function required by the claims—that is, visually indicating to the user how their ambiguous, overloaded keypresses were resolved—or does it utilize a different visual emphasis technique that falls outside the claimed functional purpose?
  • Finally, the extensive and contentious history between the parties, including a prior license, a prior lawsuit, and allegations of copying, would have raised a central question of culpability and damages. The analysis would have focused on whether Comcast's actions constituted willful infringement, and how the prior business relationship would inform the calculation of a reasonable royalty.