DCT
1:18-cv-01348
Global Interactive Media Inc v. Cogeco Communications Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Global Interactive Media, Inc. (Belize)
- Defendant: Cogeco Communications, Inc. (Canada) and Atlantic Broadband (Delmar), LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Butzel Long PC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01348, D. Md., 05/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Atlantic Broadband maintaining a regular and established place of business within the District of Maryland.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online television program guide services, the "Atlantic Lineup" and "Atlantic Listings," infringe three patents related to systems for accessing information about broadcast content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for linking users with information about broadcast programming (e.g., radio, television) by using geographic and content-based identifiers to query a central database.
- Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit are part of the same family; U.S. Patent No. 7,574,721 and U.S. Patent No. 8,032,907 are continuations of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 6,314,577. The '577 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-10-27 | Earliest Priority Date ('577, '721, '907 Patents) |
| 2001-11-06 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 6,314,577 |
| 2009-08-11 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,574,721 |
| 2011-10-04 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,032,907 |
| 2018-05-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,574,721 - “Apparatus And Method To Generate And Access Broadcast Information,” issued August 11, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty radio listeners and television viewers face when they want to act on an impulse to purchase or learn more about content they have just heard or seen (’577 Patent, col. 1:30-51). The process of remembering an artist and song title, traveling to a store, and finding the product is inconvenient and often extinguishes the "impulse impetus" (’577 Patent, col. 1:62-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system where a user can connect to a central database, for instance via a telephone, to get more information (’577 Patent, Abstract). The system identifies the user's general location (e.g., via a zip code or telephone area code) and uses other user-provided "broadcast identifiers" to retrieve relevant data, such as program schedules or provider information, from a database that correlates geographic areas with broadcast content (’721 Patent, Abstract; ’577 Patent, FIG. 7).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create an automated bridge between passive broadcast consumption and active e-commerce, a precursor to modern interactive program guides and second-screen applications.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Digitally storing geographic identification codes associated with broadcast reception areas in a database.
- Digitally storing broadcast identifiers associated with broadcast providers in the database.
- Receiving a user-related geographic identification code.
- Receiving a user-related broadcast identifier.
- Using a processor to determine a subset of data from the database based on the received geographic code.
- Using the processor to identify a broadcast provider using both the determined subset of data and the received broadcast identifier.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other of the patent's 35 claims (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 8,032,907 - “System to Syncronize and Access Broadcast Information,” issued October 4, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating and maintaining an accurate, real-time link between a live broadcast and its corresponding descriptive data (’577 Patent, col. 3:49-54). Manually inputting and tracking program schedules for numerous stations is described as time-consuming, unmanageable at scale, and prone to error (’577 Patent, col. 3:55-col. 4:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for synchronizing program information (e.g., a "program description file") with the actual broadcast (’907 Patent, cl. 18). This can be accomplished through various means, including using a synchronized time schedule or embedding signals (like tones or pulses) in the broadcast itself, which can be detected to trigger the recording or display of corresponding information (’577 Patent, col. 4:35-49, col. 9:11-34).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for automating the link between a live media stream and related digital data, a core concept in modern real-time interactive television and content recognition services.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of claim 18 include:
- Broadcasting program material.
- Receiving user inquiries that include broadcast identifier information.
- Creating a program description file with information about future broadcast material.
- Communicating the program information into a data processor.
- Synchronizing the communicated program information with the broadcast program material.
- Using the data processor to communicate program information to the user that corresponds to their inquiry.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other of the patent's 90 claims (Compl. ¶14).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,314,577
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,314,577, “Apparatus And Method To Generate And Access Broadcast Information,” issued November 6, 2001.
- Technology Synopsis: As the parent of the other patents-in-suit, this patent discloses the foundational system for allowing broadcast listeners or viewers to access automated information about program material. It describes a user employing a device like a telephone to query a database that is indexed by program schedules, allowing the user to identify, preview, and even purchase items associated with broadcast content (’577 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 94 (Compl. ¶18).
- Accused Features: The "Atlantic Listings service" is accused of infringing by providing automated information to viewers about television programs, including receiving user inquiries and communicating program descriptions and schedules from a data processor (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Atlantic Lineup" and "Atlantic Listings" services, which appear to refer to the online channel lineup and program guide functionalities offered to customers of Defendant Atlantic Broadband (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused services are web-based tools that allow a user to determine television service availability and view program listings (Compl. ¶11). The functionality described includes a user entering a zip code to identify service offerings in their area (Compl. ¶12.c, ¶12.d).
- Users can allegedly select a genre of programming (e.g., "News, Sports, Movies, Kids") to identify a broadcast provider (Compl. ¶12.e). The services are also alleged to provide viewers with automated information about programs, including descriptions and schedules, in response to user inquiries (Compl. ¶15.a, ¶18.a).
- The complaint positions these services as part of the standard cable and internet offerings provided by Atlantic Broadband, which is alleged to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cogeco Communications (Compl. ¶7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’721 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| digitally storing, in a database, one or more geographic identification codes that are each associated with at least one area or location in which a broadcast is receivable from at least one broadcast provider | The Atlantic Lineup service stores zip codes in a database, which are associated with areas where broadcasts are available. | ¶12.a | col. 12:1-15 |
| digitally storing, in the database, one or more broadcast identifiers that are each associated with at least one broadcast provider | The service stores broadcast identifiers (e.g., ESPN, Nickelodeon) in a database corresponding to broadcast providers. | ¶12.b | col. 12:35-57 |
| receiving at least one user related geographic identification code | The service receives a zip code (e.g., 21638) entered by a user on its website. | ¶12.c | col. 14:4-10 |
| receiving at least one user related broadcast identifier | The service receives an identifier when a user selects a programming genre (e.g., Kids, News, Sports). | ¶12.e | col. 14:11-19 |
| determining, by a processor, a subset of data from the database using the received at least one user related geographic identification code, the subset of data comprising at least one of the stored one or more broadcast identifiers... | The service uses the user's zip code to determine a subset of data comprising broadcast identifiers (e.g., ESPN) available in the user's service area. | ¶12.d | col. 12:59-68 |
| identifying, by the processor, at least one broadcast provider using at least both the subset of data and received at least one user related broadcast identifier | The service uses the data subset (from the zip code) and the user-related identifier (genre selection) to identify a provider (e.g., PBS for the program Wild Kratts). | ¶12.f | col. 14:41-49 |
’907 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| broadcasting program material in at least one broadcast | The Atlantic Listings service provides automated information about television programs broadcast by Atlantic. | ¶15.a | col. 1:10-14 |
| receiving one or more user inquiries from one or more recipients of said at least one broadcast, said one or more inquiries including broadcast identifier information | A user accesses the service's website to inquire about program material, such as the Wild Kratts episode "Sea Otter Swim." | ¶15.b | col. 3:21-28 |
| creating a program description file comprising program information related to program material to be broadcast in the future | A user inquiring about the Wild Kratts episode would learn program details, such as "Martin and Chris help Jimmy become a better swimmer..." | ¶15.c | col. 3:15-28 |
| communicating the program information into a programmed data processor | Atlantic communicates program information to the Atlantic Listings service's data processor. | ¶15.d | col. 6:15-20 |
| synchronizing said communicated program information with said program material of said at least one broadcast | Atlantic is alleged to synchronize the program information with the broadcast of "Sea Otter Swim." | ¶15.e | col. 4:50-55 |
| using said data programmed data processor to communicate... program information that corresponds to the broadcast identifier information included in said one or more inquiries... | The service communicates the "Sea Otter Swim" program information to the user. | ¶15.f | col. 5:5-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’721 Patent raises a question of claim scope regarding the term "broadcast identifier". The complaint alleges that a user's selection of a broad programming genre like "Kids" satisfies this limitation (Compl. ¶12.e). The defense may argue that the patent’s context, which often refers to specific station call letters (e.g., '577 Patent, col. 12:44), requires a more specific identifier of a broadcast source rather than a content category.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question for the ’907 Patent is what evidence supports the allegation of "synchronizing" (Compl. ¶15.e). The complaint offers a conclusory statement without factual support. The patent specification describes specific technical implementations for synchronization, such as using tones inserted into the broadcast signal ('577 Patent, col. 4:40-46). The court will have to determine whether simply providing a pre-set program schedule that aligns with the time of day meets the "synchronizing" limitation as described and claimed in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "broadcast identifier" (’721 Patent, cl. 1)
Context and Importance
This term's construction is critical to infringement of the ’721 Patent. Plaintiff’s theory depends on a user's selection of a broad programming genre qualifying as a "broadcast identifier." If the court construes this term more narrowly to mean an identifier of a specific broadcast source (e.g., call letters, channel number), the infringement allegation for this element may be more difficult to prove.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 21 of the parent '577 Patent, which depends from a similar method claim, lists "a music genre" as one possible type of "broadcast identifier," which may support the argument that the term is not limited to source-specific identifiers ('577 Patent, col. 19:11-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the '577 Patent, incorporated by reference, repeatedly uses specific station call letters (e.g., "WTAM FM," "WPAT AM") as the primary example of what a user would input to identify the broadcast source ('577 Patent, col. 5:58-68, col. 12:44). This focus on specific station identification could be used to argue for a narrower meaning.
Term: "synchronizing" (’907 Patent, cl. 18)
Context and Importance
This term is the technological core of the asserted claim in the ’907 Patent. The complaint's infringement allegation is entirely conclusory on this point. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine what level of technical proof is required. A broad definition (e.g., "temporally aligning") might favor the plaintiff, while a narrower, more technical definition (e.g., "linking via a real-time signal") would require more substantial evidence.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "synchronizing," which may leave room for arguing a broad, plain-and-ordinary meaning that could encompass aligning a schedule with a clock.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific, active methods for achieving synchronization. One embodiment describes "inserting a signal such as a tone or pulse at the beginning of each music piece broadcast" which is then detected to trigger a recording ('577 Patent, col. 4:40-46). Another method involves using a "synchronized time schedule" where the system clock and program schedule are initiated at the same time ('577 Patent, col. 4:50-55). This detailed disclosure of technical mechanisms for active synchronization may support a narrower construction that excludes merely displaying a static, pre-loaded schedule.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "broadcast identifier", which the patent exemplifies with specific station call letters, be construed broadly enough to cover a user's selection of a high-level content "genre" as alleged in the complaint?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Does the accused service's display of a pre-set program guide constitute "synchronizing" as required by the '907 patent, or does that term, in light of the specification's disclosure of signal-based triggers, require evidence of a more active, real-time technological link between the broadcast and the provided data?
A further question relates to the adequacy of the pleadings: Given the conclusory nature of the allegations, particularly regarding the "synchronizing" element, the case may face an early test of whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Iqbal/Twombly standard.