DCT

1:22-cv-03575

EscapeX IP LLC v. Block Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03575, S.D.N.Y., 05/23/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of New York, conducts substantial business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Tidal music service infringes a patent related to systems and methods for generating artist-specified dynamic albums.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of digital music distribution, specifically technologies that allow artists to dynamically control and update music collections delivered to users.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of the filing date of the lawsuit, reserving the right to amend to allege pre-suit knowledge if discovered.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113 Priority Date
2015-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113 Issued
2022-05-23 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING ARTIST-SPECIFIED DYNAMIC ALBUMS", issued April 14, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a music industry environment where artists experience diminishing financial returns and lack control over their content once it is downloaded or streamed by users. It notes that conventional models fail to integrate music with other artist content (like social media) and provide little connection between user playback and artist income. (’113 Patent, col. 1:28-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on an "artist specific application" installed on a user's device. This application manages a "dynamic album"—a set of songs stored locally on the user's device. The central system, controlled by the artist, can send instructions to the application to modify this album by adding, removing, replacing, or re-arranging songs, all "without intervention by a user." This allows the artist to maintain ongoing control over the user's listening experience and potentially monetize it through a "music lease" model. (’113 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-59).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide artists with a new paradigm for content delivery, giving them direct control over their music library on a fan's device and creating new monetization and engagement opportunities beyond simple downloads or streams. (’113 Patent, col. 5:3-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-30. (Compl. ¶9). The key independent claims are 1 (a method performed on a user device), 14 (a system corresponding to the user device), and 27 (a method performed by a central computer system).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • receiving, by the user device, one or more album parameters that specify a change to be made to the dynamic album
    • accessing the information encoding the plurality of songs
    • modifying the information encoding the plurality of songs based on the album parameters to change the dynamic album without intervention by a user
    • storing the modified information
    • playing at least some of the dynamic album through the artist specific application
  • Independent Claim 14 (System):
    • A user device with one or more processors programmed to perform the steps of receiving parameters, accessing song data, modifying the song data without user intervention, storing the modified data, and playing the album through an artist specific application.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "products and services" offered by "Block, Inc. dba Tidal," specifically the Tidal music streaming platform. (Compl. ¶1, ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Tidal "sells and offers to sell products and services throughout New York" that "perform infringing methods or processes." (Compl. ¶3). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Tidal service. It alleges generally that Tidal operates "systems and methods that infringes one or more claims of the ‘113 patent." (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the filed document. (Compl. ¶10). The narrative allegations state that Tidal's systems and methods infringe one or more of claims 1-30 of the ’113 patent. (Compl. ¶9). The core theory appears to be that the Tidal service provides functionalities that constitute a "dynamic album" that can be modified in a way that infringes the patent. However, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping features of the Tidal service to the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the Tidal platform, a multi-artist service, can be considered an "artist specific application" as the patent appears to describe it. The patent specification frequently refers to a distinct application created for an individual artist. (e.g., ’113 Patent, col. 3:56-64). The case may turn on whether an artist's dedicated page or a curated playlist within the general Tidal application meets this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what feature within Tidal constitutes a "dynamic album." It raises the question of whether a standard, modifiable playlist (whether curated by the artist or the user) performs the same function as the "dynamic album" described in the patent, which is stored locally and modified by artist-pushed parameters "without intervention by a user." (’113 Patent, col. 36:38-41). The court will need to determine if the technical operation of updating a cloud-based playlist on Tidal is equivalent to the claimed method of modifying locally stored, application-integrated song information.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dynamic album"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on whether a feature of the Tidal service, such as an artist-curated playlist, meets this definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not narrowly define the term, referring to it as a "set of songs stored in relation to and played by an artist specific application." (’113 Patent, col. 36:19-22). This could be argued to encompass any collection of songs managed within an artist's section of a larger application.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the dynamic album as being "stored at a user device" and potentially subject to a "music lease" that can expire, rendering the songs unplayable. (’113 Patent, col. 2:36-42). This suggests a model tied to local storage and specific access rights, which may be different from a cloud-based streaming playlist.

  • The Term: "artist specific application"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused Tidal service is a general-purpose music application for many artists, whereas the patent repeatedly describes a system where each artist has their own branded application.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that an "artist specific application may be created and branded for an artist that provides artist content such as music to users through the artist specific application." (’113 Patent, col. 2:28-30). Plaintiff may argue that an artist's dedicated space within the Tidal app functions as such an "application."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses users downloading an "ASA (as well as other ASAs of other artists)," which implies that each ASA is a distinct, downloadable entity. (’113 Patent, col. 3:59-62). This supports a construction requiring a standalone application for each artist, which would not read on the Tidal service.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it asserts that Tidal "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its services to cause infringement. (Compl. ¶11). For contributory infringement, it alleges there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for Defendant's products. (Compl. ¶12). Both allegations are supported by the claim that Defendant has known of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). The basis for this claim appears to be the allegation of post-suit knowledge of the patent. (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "artist specific application", which the patent repeatedly describes as a distinct, downloadable application for an individual artist, be construed to cover an artist's dedicated page or profile within the multi-artist Tidal platform?
  • A second key issue will be one of technical and functional equivalence: does the standard functionality of a cloud-based, modifiable playlist within the Tidal service meet the claim limitations for a "dynamic album", particularly the requirements of modifying locally stored information "without intervention by a user" as described in the patent?
  • An overarching evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce specific evidence showing how the Tidal platform technically operates to meet each element of the asserted claims, a level of detail absent from the current complaint.