Synchview Tech LLC v. Altice USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Synchview Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Altice USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00643, E.D.N.Y., 02/01/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having committed acts of infringement and maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Digital Video Recorder (DVR) products and associated services infringe a patent related to the concurrent digital storage of multiple television programs with time information to enable synchronized, time-shifted viewing.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses foundational DVR capabilities that allow users greater flexibility than legacy VCR technology, specifically by enabling the simultaneous recording of multiple channels and time-based navigation of recorded content.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement prior to filing the lawsuit, and that subsequent communications between the parties did not lead to a resolution.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-04-17	’882 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2004-09-07	’882 Patent Issue Date
2019-02-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,788,882, "Systems and Methods for Storing a Plurality of Video Streams on Re-Writable Random-Access Media and Time- and Channel-Based Retrieval Thereof," Issued September 7, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of prior art video cassette recorders (VCRs), which used sequential magnetic tape and offered limited flexibility. Specific problems identified include the inability to watch a recorded program while simultaneously recording another on a single device and the constraint of being able to "surf" channels only in real-time. (’882 Patent, col. 1:24-48; Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a digital video recorder (DVR) that overcomes these limitations by using a random-access mass storage medium (e.g., a computer hard disk) to "concurrently and continuously" record multiple television channels. (’882 Patent, col. 1:65–2:2). These stored programs are saved with associated "time information," which allows them to be synchronized. This enables a user to perform time-based "surfing" of pre-recorded content, switching between different programs and different points in time in a way that mimics real-time channel surfing. (’882 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
• Technical Importance: The technology described provided a framework for moving beyond the linear, single-stream limitations of VCRs, offering a "fundamental increase in the flexibility afforded a user in viewing programs aired over multiple channels." (’882 Patent, col. 1:56-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 19 (a method). (Compl. ¶22, ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) Elements:
  • A mass data storage unit that concurrently and continuously receives and digitally stores a plurality of television broadcast programs together with time information to allow the stored programs to be synchronized.
  • A channel viewer, coupled to the storage unit, that retrieves a portion of a stored program based on a command and presents it on a display.
• Independent Claim 19 (Method) Elements:
  • Receiving a plurality of television broadcasts.
  • Concurrently and continuously digitally storing the plurality of broadcasts on a mass data storage unit together with time information to allow the stored broadcasts to be synchronized upon replay.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims. (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities include Defendant's DVR products and corresponding television services offered under its Optimum and Suddenlink brands. (Compl. ¶36). Specific products named are the "Scientific Atlanta/Cisco 8300 DVR" and "TiVo Premiere DVRs," as well as other DVRs with functionality described in the "Inside i-Guide User's Reference Manual." (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these products are DVRs provided as part of Defendant's cable television services. (Compl. ¶36). Their accused functionality is the ability to record and play back television programming, which the complaint alleges embodies the patented invention. (Compl. ¶38).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference preliminary claim charts (Exhibits B, C, and D) that were not publicly filed with the initial pleading. (Compl. ¶39). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe claims 1 and 19 of the ’882 Patent. (Compl. ¶37). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant's DVRs, such as the Scientific Atlanta/Cisco 8300 and TiVo Premiere models, perform the functions recited in the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶38).

For system claim 1, the complaint alleges the accused DVRs contain a "mass data storage unit" (e.g., an internal hard drive) that "concurrently and continuously receives and digitally stores a plurality of television broadcast programs" along with "time information" for synchronization. (Compl. ¶22, ¶38). It further alleges the DVRs include a "channel viewer" (the user interface) that allows a customer to retrieve and watch these recordings. (Compl. ¶22, ¶38). For method claim 19, the complaint alleges that the operation of the DVRs involves the claimed steps of receiving multiple broadcasts and storing them concurrently with time information. (Compl. ¶23, ¶40).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of "concurrently and continuously... stores." The court may need to determine if this requires the indiscriminate recording of all available channels, as one embodiment suggests, or if it reads on a standard multi-tuner DVR that records a limited number of user-selected programs at once. The patent’s own definition of "continuously" notes that it "does not preclude interruption." (’882 Patent, col. 2:22-23).
• Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is whether the accused DVRs store content "together with time information to allow said plurality of stored television broadcast programs to be synchronized with respect to one another" as claimed. (’882 Patent, col. 6:29-32). The analysis will require evidence of how the accused systems technically implement time-data and whether that implementation enables the specific cross-channel, time-based "surfing" functionality that the patent describes as a key feature. (’882 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"concurrently and continuously... stores" (from claims 1 and 19)

• Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the claimed invention, distinguishing it from prior art VCRs. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the functionality of modern multi-tuner DVRs, which can record a fixed number of programs simultaneously, falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the "broad concept of capturing multiple channels concurrently" and states the invention "remedies the shortcomings of traditional video recording methods." (’882 Patent, col. 2:6-8, 10-11). This language may support an interpretation covering any system that records more than one channel at a time.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes an embodiment where the DVR records "as a matter of course, and without being specifically prompted," which could be argued to require an "always-on," indiscriminate recording of multiple channels, rather than only user-selected programs. (’882 Patent, col. 2:35-37). The definition of "continuously" also contains potentially limiting nuances, noting it "may connote indiscriminate inclusion of commercials," but that in other embodiments, commercials "may not be recorded." (’882 Patent, col. 2:20-27).

"time information to allow said plurality of stored television broadcast programs to be synchronized" (from claims 1 and 19)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the purpose and capability of the stored "time information." The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused products' timing data achieves the specific "synchronization" functionality described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes synchronization as allowing for "rapid switching from one channel at a given time to another channel at a different time," which could be argued to broadly cover general time-based navigation between any two recorded programs. (’882 Patent, col. 14:42-45).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more specific function: to "surf synchronized, prerecorded channels in a way that imitates the real-time channel surfing." (’882 Patent, col. 3:1-4). A defendant might argue this requires a specific data structure that directly links content recorded at the same broadcast moment across multiple channels, a feature their system may not be designed to perform.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that Defendant had prior knowledge of the ’882 Patent and intentionally encouraged infringement by providing customers with Accused Products and instructing them on how to use the infringing features, citing user manuals as evidence. (Compl. ¶47-48). The complaint also alleges that customers "must necessarily operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner due to the design of the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶41).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement. This allegation is based on Defendant having received "actual knowledge of the '882 Patent and Plaintiff's claims of infringement prior to the filing of this action," referencing pre-suit communications between the parties. (Compl. ¶34, ¶44-45).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "concurrently and continuously... stores," which the patent contrasts with single-channel VCRs, be construed to read on the functionality of modern multi-tuner DVRs that record a limited, user-selected number of simultaneous programs?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional capability: does the "time information" used in Defendant's DVRs enable the specific "synchronization" for cross-channel, time-based surfing as envisioned by the patent, or is there a material difference in the technical operation and user experience?
• A central question for potential damages will be willfulness: given the allegation of pre-suit notice, the court will likely examine the substance of the parties' prior communications to determine if Defendant's conduct after being notified of the patent constituted objectively reckless disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights.