Err Content IP LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ERR Content IP, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09447, S.D.N.Y., 02/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of New York and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MLB app system infringes a patent related to methods for providing supplementary "extra content" to a user in conjunction with a primary media stream.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delivering interactive or additional data to viewers of broadcast or streamed media, a key feature in modern digital content consumption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these licenses did not pertain to the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 - Method and device for providing a main content and an extra content to a user through reference item

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542, issued July 21, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in existing systems where a user must navigate away from a primary media broadcast (the "main content") to access related additional information (the "extra content"), forcing the user to choose between viewing one or the other ('542 Patent, col. 1:47-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where "metadata" is broadcast together with the main content from a first source. This metadata provides a link to extra content stored on a different, second source. A user can then employ a second device (like a smartphone) to scan the metadata from the first device's screen (like a TV), causing the second device to retrieve and display the extra content while the main content continues uninterrupted on the first device ('542 Patent, abstract; '542 Patent, col. 6:25-39; '542 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for a "second screen" experience, enabling viewers to access supplementary data, statistics, or advertisements without interrupting the primary program, thereby enhancing user engagement.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶17; Compl. ¶22
• Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying the main content on a first device.
  • The metadata and main content are broadcasted together from the first source.
  • The metadata links the main content with an extra content.
  • Forwarding the metadata to a second device, where the forwarding is executed by scanning the metadata with the second device.
  • The second device receives the extra content from a second, different source.
  • The main content is displayed on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-14 Compl. ¶23

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "MLB app system and related systems (e.g. https://www.mlb.com/)" are identified as the Accused Instrumentalities Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities provide "enhanced content distribution" Compl. ¶23; Compl. ¶24 However, it does not describe the specific technical features or operational steps of the MLB app system that are alleged to be infringing. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint asserts the products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States Compl. ¶20

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that purportedly details the infringement of claim 1 (Compl. ¶22). However, this exhibit was not provided. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling the Accused Products, which practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations that map features of the MLB app system to the individual elements of claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how the MLB app system performs the claimed step of "forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device." This raises the question of whether the accused system involves any form of optical scanning (as described in the patent) or if Plaintiff will argue for a broader interpretation of "scanning."
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the data protocols used by the MLB app system constitute "metadata" that is "broadcasted together" with the "main content" from a "first source," as those terms are used in the patent. It is unclear from the complaint how a modern streaming architecture maps onto the patent's "first source" and "second source" framework.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central mechanism for transferring the metadata link from the primary viewing device to the secondary device. Its construction will be critical, as the viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term can encompass a non-optical, purely digital data transfer within a software application, or if it is limited to the physical act of scanning.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 does not explicitly limit "scanning" to an optical method. An argument could be made that in the context of software, "scanning" can refer to reading or parsing data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly provides examples of visual codes, stating the method is "particularly advantageous when using existing visual codes systems, such as QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" '542 Patent, col. 4:6-10 This language may support an interpretation that limits "scanning" to optical or machine-vision processes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that MLB "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products for "enhanced content distribution" Compl. ¶23 Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶24). Knowledge for both is alleged to exist from at least the filing date of the lawsuit Compl. ¶23; Compl. ¶24
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported knowledge of the patent from at least the lawsuit's filing date Compl. ¶23; Compl. ¶24 The complaint also asserts, on information and belief, that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" '542 Patent, ¶18

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of two fundamental questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "scanning said metadata," which the patent specification links to optical QR codes, be construed broadly enough to read on the likely software-based data transfers within the accused MLB app system?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the MLB app's architecture actually separates "main content" and "extra content" into distinct first and second sources, and that it transmits "metadata" that is "broadcasted together" with the main video stream in the manner required by the claim? The complaint currently lacks the technical detail to assess this alignment.