DCT

1:11-cv-06697

Realtime Data LLC v. CME Group Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:09-cv-327, E.D. Tex., 07/22/2009
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have regularly conducted business in the Eastern District of Texas and the acts of infringement occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that data compression products and services used by the Defendant financial exchanges infringe four patents related to methods for content-aware and content-independent data compression.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for efficiently compressing data streams, a critical function for industries like financial services that transmit massive volumes of time-sensitive market data.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The patents-in-suit indicate they are subject to terminal disclaimers, which may limit their effective term to that of an earlier-expiring patent in the family and could impact the calculation of damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-11 ’761 and ’506 Patents Priority Date
2000-10-03 ’274 and ’568 Patents Priority Date
2003-09-23 ’761 Patent Issue Date
2007-01-09 ’506 Patent Issue Date
2008-07-15 ’274 Patent Issue Date
2008-08-26 ’568 Patent Issue Date
2009-07-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761 - "Content Independent Data Compression Method and System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression Method and System,” issued September 23, 2003 (the ’761 Patent). (Compl. ¶12)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that the effectiveness of conventional lossless data compression techniques is often highly "content sensitive," meaning a compression algorithm may perform well on one type of data but poorly on another, sometimes even expanding the data size. (’761 Patent, col. 1:15-34)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "content independent" system that addresses this problem by processing an incoming data block with a plurality of different encoders simultaneously or sequentially. The system then compares the compression ratio achieved by each encoder and selects the output from the encoder that performed best. A descriptor indicating the "winning" compression method is appended to the compressed data block to enable proper decompression. (’761 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 8:50-65)
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to achieve consistently high compression ratios for data streams containing mixed or unknown data types, without requiring a preliminary step to analyze and identify the data's content. (’761 Patent, col. 2:50-58)

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’761 Patent. (Compl. ¶19) Independent claim 1, as it existed at the time of filing, is representative and recites:
    • analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a data type of the data block, the input data stream comprising a plurality of disparate data types;
    • performing content dependent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is identified;
    • performing content independent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is not identified.

U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 - "Systems and Methods for Data Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506, entitled “Systems and Methods for Data Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression,” issued January 9, 2007 (the ’506 Patent). (Compl. ¶13)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’761 Patent, the ’506 Patent addresses the problem of "data dependency," where the compression ratio achieved by a single lossless technique is highly contingent upon the specific content of the data being compressed. (’506 Patent, col. 2:20-28)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a hybrid system that first analyzes a data block to identify its data type. If the data type is recognized, the system applies a specialized "content dependent" compression algorithm suited for that type. If the data type is not recognized, it applies a "content independent" compression process, such as the multi-encoder approach detailed in the ’761 Patent. (’506 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:47-59)
  • Technical Importance: This two-tiered approach sought to combine the superior performance of specialized compression algorithms on known data with the robust, universal applicability of a content-independent method for unknown or mixed data. (’506 Patent, col. 4:47-59)

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’506 Patent. (Compl. ¶23) Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the core steps of:
    • analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify one or more data types of the data block...
    • performing content dependent data compression; if a data type of the data block is identified;
    • performing data compression with a single data compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified.

U.S. Patent No. 7,400,274 - "System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,400,274, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption,” issued July 15, 2008 (the ’274 Patent). (Compl. ¶14)
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’274 Patent describes methods to accelerate the transmission of broadcast data, such as financial data feeds, over a communication channel. The invention achieves this "acceleration" by using data compression to increase effective bandwidth and reduce latency, and it notes that specific encoders can be associated with and selected for particular fields within data packets to optimize the compression. (’274 Patent, Abstract)
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim." Independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶28)
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants’ "data compression products and/or services" used in connection with financial data feeds. (Compl. ¶28, ¶2-7)

U.S. Patent No. 7,417,568 - "System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,417,568, entitled “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption,” issued August 26, 2008 (the ’568 Patent). (Compl. ¶15)
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’568 Patent, related to the ’274 Patent, similarly discloses a system for accelerating data transmission, particularly for broadcast data like financial news. The invention uses compression and decompression to provide what it terms a "transparent multiplication of communication bandwidth," with a focus on selecting appropriate encoders for specific data fields to improve efficiency. (’568 Patent, Abstract)
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim." Independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶33)
  • Accused Features: Infringement is alleged based on Defendants’ use of "data compression products and/or services" for handling financial data feeds. (Compl. ¶33, ¶2-7)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific products by name. It broadly accuses "one or more data compressions products and/or systems" and "data compression products and/or services" that are made, used, sold, or offered for sale by the Defendants. (Compl. ¶17, ¶19)

Functionality and Market Context

The Defendants are major financial exchanges and reporting authorities. (Compl. ¶2-7) The complaint alleges that these entities use the accused products and services in their business operations, which heavily involve the high-speed transmission of market data. (Compl. ¶1, ¶2-7) The context suggests the accused instrumentalities are the technologies used by Defendants to compress and distribute large volumes of financial data to subscribers and other market participants.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. Filed prior to the heightened pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the complaint offers only general allegations of infringement without mapping specific features of any accused instrumentality to the elements of the asserted claims.

The infringement theory for the ’761 and ’506 Patents appears to be that the data compression technologies used by the Defendant financial exchanges to manage and transmit market data feeds inherently practice the patented methods. For the ’761 Patent, this would require showing that an accused system processes a data block using multiple different encoders and selects an output based on the best-performing encoder. (Compl. ¶19) For the ’506 Patent, the theory would require evidence that an accused system first analyzes a data block's content to select a specialized "content dependent" encoder and, failing that, defaults to another compression method. (Compl. ¶23)

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint's allegations are made "on information and belief" and lack technical specifics. A central question for the court will be whether discovery yields evidence that the accused systems actually perform the multi-encoder comparison required by the ’761 Patent's teachings or the bifurcated analysis required by the ’506 Patent's claims.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of analyzing a "data block." A question for the court could be whether applying different compression algorithms to different files (e.g., based on file extension) constitutes analyzing a "data block of an input data stream" as recited in the claims, or if the claims require a more granular, real-time analysis of data within a continuous stream.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "content independent data compression" (’761 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’761 Patent. The scope of infringement will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any method that works on unknown data, or narrowly to require the specific multi-encoder, "bake-off" style process described in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from prior art that required pre-analysis of data content.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and could be argued to encompass any compression method that does not rely on pre-identified characteristics of the data content.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "content independent" process as one involving a "plurality of encoders" processing the same data block, followed by a comparison of the resulting compression ratios to select the optimal output. (’761 Patent, col. 4:56-65; Fig. 2) A party could argue that this detailed description limits the claim term to that specific embodiment.

  • The Term: "analyzing a data block... to identify a data type" (’506 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase acts as the trigger for the "content dependent" compression path in the ’506 Patent. The case may hinge on what level of "analyzing" is required. A key question will be whether a simple check of a file extension or header information meets this limitation, or if a more substantive inspection of the data's structure or format is necessary.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not specify the method or depth of analysis, potentially allowing for a wide range of identification techniques.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a relatively sophisticated analysis, referencing the recognition of "data types, data structures, data block formats, file substructure, and/or file types." (’506 Patent, col. 4:36-40) This language may support an argument for a more detailed analysis than a superficial check.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of inducement and contributory infringement for each patent. (Compl. ¶19, ¶23, ¶28, ¶33) However, it provides no specific factual allegations to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as identifying instructions, user manuals, or marketing materials that direct others to infringe.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint contains a conditional count for willful infringement, stating that Plaintiff "reserves the right to request such a finding" if "facts learned in discovery show that Defendants' infringement ... is or has been willful." (Compl. ¶38) This allegation does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents or any specific facts that would support a claim of egregious conduct.

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence demonstrating that the Defendants' data compression systems for financial data feeds operate in the specific manner claimed by the patents—namely, by either running a competitive "bake-off" among multiple encoders on the same data block (’761 Patent) or by performing a bifurcated analysis to choose between content-dependent and content-independent pathways (’506 Patent)?
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "content independent data compression" be limited to the multi-encoder comparison process detailed in the ’761 Patent’s specification, or will it be given a broader meaning? The outcome of this construction will be critical in determining the reach of the claims over different types of compression technologies.
  • A further question will be one of functional operation: Does the analysis performed by the accused systems rise to the level of "analyzing a data block... to identify a data type" as required by the ’506 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the high-level, file-based decisions made by some systems and the more granular, stream-based analysis described in the patent?