DCT
1:25-cv-09447
Err Content IP LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 11/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MLB app system infringes a patent related to methods for displaying supplementary content on a second device (e.g., a tablet) that is synchronized with primary content being shown on a first device (e.g., a television).
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for creating "second-screen" user experiences, where viewers can interact with data related to a primary media broadcast on a separate personal device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in the past, a factor that may be relevant to potential damages calculations or patent marking defenses.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-04-26 | ’542 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-07-21 | ’542 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
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, "Method and device for providing a main content and an extra content to a user through reference item," issued July 21, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a limitation in then-current systems where a user viewing "main content" (e.g., a television program) would be forced to navigate away from that content to access related "extra content" (e.g., additional information), particularly when the two content types originated from different sources, such as a broadcaster and an internet server ('542 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the main content is broadcast from a first source to a first device together with "metadata." This metadata can be forwarded to a second device, which then uses it to retrieve and display the related "extra content" from a different, second source. This allows the user to view both the main content on the first device and the synchronized extra content on the second device simultaneously ('542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-38). Figure 3 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing a television (104) displaying main content while a separate tablet device (106) displays related extra content retrieved from a different source ('542 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This technological approach provided a framework for enabling "second-screen" applications, allowing viewers to engage with supplementary data like interactive statistics or alternative camera angles without interrupting the primary broadcast experience ('542 Patent, col. 1:16-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent claim 1 ('542 Patent, Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying the main content on a first device;
- wherein the metadata and main content are broadcasted together and the metadata links the main content with an extra content;
- forwarding the metadata to a second device by scanning the metadata with the second device;
- the second device receiving the extra content from a second source, different from the first source;
- displaying the main content on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device;
- wherein the extra content changes in correspondence to a change of the specific main content.
- The complaint notes that Defendant’s actions cause infringement of claims 1-14, suggesting that dependent claims may also be asserted (Compl. ¶23-24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "MLB app system and related systems" are identified as the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused system provides for "enhanced content distribution" but does not provide specific details regarding its technical operation or architecture (Compl. ¶23). The functionality is broadly accused of infringing the patent, which relates to providing supplemental content alongside a primary media stream (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an infringement claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not included with the filed document; therefore, the following summary is based on the complaint's general allegation that the elements of claim 1 are met by the Accused Products (Compl. ¶22).
’542 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying said specific main content on a first device... wherein said metadata and said specific main content are broadcasted together... | The MLB app system delivers a live game broadcast (main content) along with associated data signals (metadata) to a user's primary viewing device, such as a television. | ¶22 | col. 8:50-54 |
| ...and wherein said metadata links said specific main content with an extra content; | The broadcast's metadata provides a link to supplementary information, such as player statistics or video replays (extra content), related to the live game. | ¶22 | col. 8:55-56 |
| forwarding said metadata to a second device, wherein: the forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device... | A user employs a second device, such as a smartphone, to scan an on-screen graphic (e.g., a QR code) containing the metadata from the first device's screen. | ¶22 | col. 8:57-60 |
| ...the second device receives said extra content from a second source... | The second device uses the scanned metadata to retrieve the extra content (e.g., stats) from Defendant's internet servers (the second source). | ¶22 | col. 8:60-62 |
| ...and said specific main content is displayed on said first device while said extra content is displayed on said second device; | The live game continues to be displayed on the first device while the supplementary stats or replays are displayed on the second device. | ¶22 | col. 8:62-64 |
| wherein the extra content changes in correspondence to a change of the specific main content; | The extra content on the second device updates in real-time to correspond with events in the main content (e.g., a new batter's statistics appear). | ¶22 | col. 9:1-2 |
| wherein the first source is different from the second source; | The live video broadcast feed (first source) is distinct from the internet-based servers that provide the supplementary data (second source). | ¶22 | col. 9:3-4 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether a visual on-screen graphic, such as a QR code, constitutes "metadata" that is "broadcasted together" with the main content, as required by the claim. The interpretation of "broadcasted together" could be central to determining if this element is met.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to depend on the specific act of "scanning" to transfer metadata between devices. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused MLB app system uses this particular camera-based mechanism, as opposed to alternative synchronization methods such as user account logins or local network discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "metadata"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "metadata" is critical, as it forms the technological link between the main and extra content. The case may turn on whether the data allegedly used by the MLB app system falls within the patent's definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of what may constitute a "reference item" containing metadata, including "a URL, an encrypted data, a hyperlink, a QR-code, a bar code, machine-readable data or optical machine-readable data," which could support a broad reading ('542 Patent, col. 3:57-61).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of being "broadcasted together with the broadcasted main content" could be argued to limit the term to data formally embedded in the broadcast transport stream, rather than a visual element superimposed on the video picture ('542 Patent, col. 1:33-34).
The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific action required to link the two devices. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on proof that the accused system performs this exact step. Practitioners may focus on this term because alternative, non-scanning synchronization methods are common in second-screen applications.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of scanning "QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" provides clear examples of the intended function, suggesting that any optical capture of on-screen data by the second device could be considered "scanning" ('542 Patent, col. 5:40-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's use of "executed by scanning" could be construed as a mandatory process limitation. An argument could be made that if the accused system links devices via a different method (e.g., network pairing or account synchronization), it does not practice this element, even if the end result is similar.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its services in a way that infringes, specifically for "enhanced content distribution" (Compl. ¶23). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for Defendant's products and services (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the '542 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint also asserts that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" and lacked a reasonable basis to believe the patent was invalid, which may support a claim of willful infringement (Compl. ¶18-19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused MLB app system links a primary and secondary device via the specific act of "scanning... metadata," as required by claim 1, versus other non-infringing methods of synchronization such as account-based or network-based pairing?
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "metadata... broadcasted together" with main content be construed to encompass visual information displayed on a screen, or is its meaning restricted to data technically embedded within the broadcast signal itself, a distinction that could be dispositive for the infringement analysis?