DCT
1:25-cv-09450
Err Content IP LLC v. NFL Enterprises LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ERR Content IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: NFL Enterprises, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09450, S.D.N.Y., 11/17/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s NFL app system infringes a patent related to methods for providing supplemental content on a second device that is synchronized with primary content being viewed on a first device.
Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the "second-screen" experience, where viewers use devices like smartphones or tablets to access interactive, supplemental data related to a primary media broadcast, such as a live sporting event on television.
Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and addresses the issue of patent marking by asserting that prior settlement licenses with other entities did not require marking because they did not involve the production of a patented article or an admission of infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-04-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 Priority Date |
| 2020-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 Issues |
| 2025-11-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
I. 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 describes a problem in which users accessing supplemental information related to a primary broadcast (e.g., a TV show) were forced to "leave the main content" to view the supplemental data, often on the same device, leading to a disjointed user experience (ʼ542 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to decouple the main content from the supplemental "extra content" by using two separate devices. A first device (e.g., a TV) displays the main content received from a first source (e.g., a broadcaster). Metadata, or a "reference item," is broadcast along with the main content. This metadata is then forwarded to a second device (e.g., a smartphone), which uses it to retrieve the extra content from a second, different source (e.g., an internet server) and display it. This allows the user to interact with supplemental data on the second screen without interrupting the primary viewing experience on the first screen (ʼ542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-38).
- Technical Importance: This technological approach facilitates a synchronized second-screen experience, enabling content providers to offer enriched, interactive content to viewers on a personal device that complements a primary broadcast.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying the main content on a first device, where the metadata and main content are broadcasted together and the metadata links the main content to an extra content.
- Forwarding the metadata to a second device, which is accomplished by the second device "scanning" the metadata.
- The second device then receives the extra content from a different, second source.
- The main content continues to be displayed on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
- The extra content changes in correspondence to changes in the main content.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
I. Product Identification
- The "NFL app system and related systems (e.g. NFL.com)" are identified as the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶15).
II. Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused systems provide "enhanced content distribution" (Compl. ¶23). Based on the infringement allegations against the ’542 Patent, the accused functionality involves the NFL's mobile application providing users with supplemental content (such as player statistics, alternate camera angles, or replays) on a second device (e.g., a smartphone) that is synchronized with a live NFL game broadcast being viewed on a first device (e.g., a television). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused system.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an attached Exhibit B, which was not included with the pleading document (Compl. ¶22). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for claim 1 as it can be inferred from the complaint's identification of the accused product and the patent’s claim language.
I. U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 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 from the first source... | A user views an NFL game broadcast (main content) on a television (first device), where the broadcast signal (first source) allegedly includes metadata or on-screen cues. | ¶¶15, 17 | col. 9:48-56 |
| forwarding said metadata to a second device, wherein: the forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device... | The user allegedly employs the NFL app on a smartphone (second device) to scan a visual cue (metadata) displayed on the television screen during the broadcast. | ¶¶15, 17 | col. 9:57-61 |
| the second device receives said extra content from a second source... | The NFL app on the smartphone uses the scanned data to connect to NFL servers (a second source) and retrieve supplemental content, such as player statistics or replays. | ¶¶15, 17 | col. 9:62-64 |
| said specific main content is displayed on said first device while said extra content is displayed on said second device; | The NFL game continues to play on the television while the supplemental statistics and replays are displayed within the NFL app on the smartphone. | ¶¶15, 17 | col. 9:65-67 |
| wherein the extra content changes in correspondence to a change of the specific main content... | The content within the NFL app updates in real-time to reflect events occurring in the live game being broadcast on television. | ¶¶15, 17 | col. 10:3-5 |
II. Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the accused NFL app system actually requires a user to perform a "scanning" action. The complaint does not provide evidence that the app uses a smartphone's camera to scan an on-screen visual cue (such as a QR code) to synchronize content. Alternative synchronization methods, such as audio content recognition (ACR) or server-based timing, may raise the question of whether such functionality meets the "scanning" limitation.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the data that links the broadcast to the app content qualifies as "metadata... broadcasted together" with the main content from the "first source." This raises the question of whether the data must be technically embedded in the broadcast stream itself or if being made available concurrently by the broadcaster is sufficient.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
I. The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to define the specific mechanism for transferring the linking information from the first screen to the second. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend entirely on the construction of this term, as it dictates the required user action and system functionality.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue for a narrow construction limited to optical scanning, pointing to the specification’s examples of "QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" as the type of reference item to be processed (ʼ542 Patent, col. 4:8-10). The description of this step as "scanning said reference item by means of said second device" further suggests a direct action by the second device on a visually presented item (ʼ542 Patent, col. 5:39-43).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may contend that "scanning" should not be limited to optical methods and could be interpreted more broadly to encompass any method where the second device actively acquires data presented by the first, such as receiving a localized data transmission or an audio watermark.
II. The Term: "metadata ... broadcasted together from the first source"
- Context and Importance: This term establishes the necessary relationship between the main video content and the data that enables the second-screen link. It is critical for determining whether the accused system’s architecture meets the claim, specifically concerning the origin and timing of the linking data relative to the primary broadcast.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "broadcasted together" requires the metadata to be technically integrated into the same transmission stream as the main audio/video content, citing the patent’s background discussion of broadcast content containing "additional information or references... as a subtitle, metadata, teletext or the like" (ʼ542 Patent, col. 1:28-32).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might assert that the term only requires the metadata to originate from the same entity (the first source, e.g., the broadcaster) and be made available contemporaneously with the main content, without mandating technical multiplexing into a single data stream.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant encourages infringement by providing instructions on how to use its products and services (e.g., via the NFL Apps page) and that there are no substantial non-infringing uses for the accused services (Compl. ¶¶23-24). Knowledge for both forms of indirect infringement is alleged to exist "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for relief seeking a declaration of willful infringement and an award of treble damages, which appears to be predicated on alleged post-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 9, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused NFL app system practices the specific "scanning" step recited in Claim 1? The case may hinge on whether the system's method of synchronization involves a user action that can be fairly characterized as "scanning," as opposed to alternative methods like audio recognition or server-side synchronization, which may not align with the claim language.
- The case will also present a key question of claim scope: can the term "scanning said metadata" be construed broadly enough to cover modern second-screen synchronization techniques that do not rely on optical scanning of visual codes? The court's interpretation of this term, based on the intrinsic evidence within the ʼ542 Patent, will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.