DCT
8:20-cv-03338
Rothchild Broadcast Distribution Systems LLC v. CuriosityStream Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: CuriosityStream, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Price Benowitz LLP; Kizzia & Johnson, PLLC
- Case Identification: 8:20-cv-03338, D. Md., 11/17/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Maryland because Defendant is deemed a resident of the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand streaming service infringes a patent related to methods for receiving user requests and selectively storing or delivering media content in a cloud-based environment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of video-on-demand (VOD) systems, particularly the server-side logic for handling user requests to either stream content immediately or save it for later viewing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegation of willfulness is based on knowledge of the patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which would limit such claims to post-filing conduct.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-29 | ’221 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-10-07 | ’221 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 - System and Method for Storing Broadcast Content in a Cloud-Based Computing Environment
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221, “System and Method for Storing Broadcast Content in a Cloud-Based Computing Environment,” issued October 7, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the high cost and inefficiency of on-demand media systems that must store vast libraries of content, much of which may never be watched. It notes that flat-rate subscription models can be unfair to consumers who stream little content, while per-video fees can be unattractive for short content. (’221 Patent, col. 1:28-col. 2:15). The stated goal is an on-demand system that can "tailor cost to each consumer based on the requested media content and each consumer's needs." (’221 Patent, col. 2:16-19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system that distinguishes between two types of user requests: a "storage request message" and a "content request message." (’221 Patent, col. 10:59-61). When a user sends a "storage request," the system verifies the content's availability, potentially downloads it from a broadcast source to its own storage, and holds it for a specified time. When a user sends a "content request," the system initiates immediate delivery (streaming) of content already stored on the server. (’221 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:21-col. 6:43). This architecture allows the service to store content only when explicitly requested by a user, rather than storing an entire library by default.
- Technical Importance: This approach suggests a model for media delivery that could reduce data storage overhead for providers by shifting from a "just-in-case" library model to a "just-in-time" storage model driven by individual user requests. (’221 Patent, col. 2:20-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 7 are:
- Receiving a request message with data for the requested media and a consumer device identifier.
- Determining if the device identifier corresponds to a registered device.
- If registered, determining if the request is a "storage request message" or a "content request message."
- If it is a "storage request message," determining if the content is available for storage.
- If it is a "content request message," initiating delivery of the content to the device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 7." (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "CuriosityStream streaming platform," which includes its website and mobile applications for Android and iOS devices (the "Product"). (Compl. ¶¶ 17, p. 4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Product as an on-demand streaming service for documentary programming. (Compl. ¶18, p. 5). Key functionalities alleged include user registration and login, streaming content to multiple devices, and an "offline viewing" feature where users can "save" content to their device. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, p. 4). The complaint presents this "offline viewing" feature, which allows users to "take your favorite documentaries with you on the go," as a central part of its service offering. (Compl. p. 4). The screenshot provided in the complaint indicates users can initiate this process by hitting a "SAVE button." (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’221 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a request message including media data indicating requested media content and a consumer device identifier corresponding to the consumer device; | The Product's infrastructure receives requests from a user's device (e.g., a smartphone) that identify the specific content to be streamed or stored, with user credentials serving as the device identifier. | ¶19 | col. 10:46-51 |
| determining whether the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device; | The Product requires users to be registered and sign in with credentials, thereby determining if the request comes from a registered user before providing services. The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Sign In" page. | ¶20 | col. 10:52-54 |
| determining, whether the request message is one of a storage request message and a content request message; | After a user logs in, the Product's servers necessarily determine if the user's request is to store content (e.g., for offline viewing via the "SAVE" button) or to stream content for immediate viewing. | ¶21 | col. 11:4-8 |
| if the request message is the storage request message, then determining whether the requested media content is available for storage; | When a user requests to save content, the Product allegedly verifies the content is available for storage, which may be limited by factors like the user's subscription level or existing memory usage. | ¶22 | col. 11:9-11 |
| if the request message is the content request message, then initiating delivery of the requested media content to the consumer device. | If a user requests to watch content, a processor within the Product initiates the delivery (streaming) of that content to the user's device. | ¶23 | col. 12:11-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of a "storage request message." The complaint equates clicking a "SAVE" button for offline viewing with the patent's "storage request." (Compl. p. 4). A court may need to decide if this term covers a user's request to cache or download a file already in the service's library to a local device, or if it is limited to a more specific request for the service to acquire and store content on its own servers on the user's behalf, as described in the patent's detailed embodiment. (’221 Patent, col. 5:21-45).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Product "verifies that media content... is available for storage" by checking user subscription limits or memory usage. (Compl. ¶22). A technical question is whether this alleged function corresponds to the patent's teaching of determining availability, which involves checking the content's intrinsic characteristics and existence before downloading it to the server. (’221 Patent, col. 5:46-61). The evidence for this specific server-side verification step is not detailed in the complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"storage request message"
- Context and Importance: The distinction between a "storage request message" and a "content request message" is the central architectural choice in claim 7. Whether the accused "SAVE" button for offline viewing constitutes a "storage request message" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused feature could arguably be a simple local caching command rather than a request to provision server-side storage as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the location of the storage (server vs. client). One could argue any user-initiated request that results in content being stored for later use, rather than immediately played, qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a process where the "storage request message" triggers the server to download content (e.g., from a broadcast server) and store it in its own database for a user-defined length of time, for which a specific cost may be calculated. (’221 Patent, col. 5:16-20; col. 7:55-col. 8:29; Fig. 4). This context suggests the term refers to a request for the service to act as a "cloud DVR," not just a command to cache a file locally.
"available for storage"
- Context and Importance: This determination is the key step following a "storage request message". The complaint alleges this is met by checking subscription or memory limits. (Compl. ¶22). The case may turn on whether this term refers to business-rule checks (e.g., subscription tier) or technical-availability checks (e.g., does the content exist and can it be acquired by the server).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent mentions "predefined media restrictions set by the network administrator or account administrator," which could support an interpretation that includes subscription-level checks. (’221 Patent, col. 6:53-55).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes verifying the request by checking media content characteristics and existence, then downloading it. (’221 Patent, col. 5:46-col. 6:6). This suggests a technical verification that the content can be found and ingested by the server, a step that may not be performed when a user simply saves an already-hosted file for offline viewing.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for induced infringement. It provides a screenshot of Defendant’s website that includes explicit, step-by-step instructions for users on how to "save" content for offline viewing, which allegedly causes users to directly infringe the patented method. (Compl. p. 4).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the ’221 Patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint." (Compl. ¶14). This allegation, if proven, could only support a finding of post-suit willful infringement. The complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "storage request message", as defined by the patent, cover a request to save an already-hosted file for local offline viewing, or is it limited to a request for the service to acquire and store new content on its own servers on the user's behalf?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the CuriosityStream platform, when a user clicks "SAVE," actually perform the patent’s claimed step of first "determining whether the requested media content is available for storage" as a discrete server-side check on the content's existence and characteristics, or does it simply execute a command to cache a known-available file to the user's local device?
- The case will also likely examine the functional distinction between the accused system and the patented method. The resolution may depend on whether the accused platform's architecture for handling "offline viewing" is fundamentally different from the patent's bifurcated "storage request" vs. "content request" logic, or merely an implementation of it.