DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Cincinnati Bell Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Cincinnati Bell Inc. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SERRA LLC; KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00332, S.D. Ohio, 05/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the grounds that Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Ohio and resides in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Fioptics+ digital media services, including its video recording features, applications, and chatbot system, infringe four patents related to personalized information delivery, remote media recording, and automated data exchange.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for personalizing and delivering digital content to users based on their profiles and behavior, as well as architectures for capturing and providing geographically or temporally restricted media on demand.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint devotes significant attention to the patent eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 8,160,980, citing a supportive expert declaration from David B. Lett. The declaration also references a prior, unidentified "New York Court's Order" that reached a contrary conclusion, suggesting that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be a central legal issue in this case. The complaint also references numerous patents that have cited the patents-in-suit as evidence of their non-obviousness and inventiveness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-27	’568 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-20	’220 Patent Priority Date
2001-05-25	’778 Patent Priority Date
2004-01-27	’220 Patent Issue Date
2004-10-19	’568 Patent Issue Date
2006-06-20	’778 Patent Issue Date
2007-07-13	’980 Patent Priority Date
2012-04-17	’980 Patent Issue Date
2023-05-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,160,980 - Information System Based On Time, Space And Relevance, Issued April 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the technical problems of reducing the delay between a user requesting common information and its display, and of intelligently generating suggested content from a large volume of available information based on a user’s profile (Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture comprising a client device with a user interface, a proxy to collect and parse data, a server to gather usage data, and a "data mining cluster." This cluster analyzes user activity based on time, space, and relevance to build a user profile, which is then used to generate automatic suggestions for new information channels, personalizing the content delivered to the user (Compl. ¶12). The specification explains this system was conceived as a "quality of life solution developed in view of residential housing complexes" using a touch-screen interface (Compl. ¶19, quoting '980 Patent, 2:30-41).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more dynamic and automated method for surfacing relevant information to a user in a domestic setting, moving beyond static content feeds or manual, user-initiated searches (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶13, ¶72).
• The essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
  • at least one client that displays information related to a plurality of information channels;
  • a data mining cluster which performs user profiling and time, space and relevance analysis;
  • wherein suggestions are provided to said at least one client based on a user profile and said time, space, and relevance analysis; and
  • wherein said plurality of information channels are updated based on said suggestions.
• The complaint asserts infringement of dependent claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, which add limitations such as a proxy, periodic updates, automatic suggestions, and the use of XML format (Compl. ¶¶ 15-18, 72).

U.S. Patent No. 7,065,778 - Method and System for Providing Media from Remote Locations to a Viewer, Issued June 20, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a disadvantage in television distribution where a viewer in one location does not have access to all programming broadcast throughout the world, preventing them from viewing content from remote cities, states, or countries (Compl. ¶37, quoting ’778 Patent, 1:59-2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user's device (a "receiver device" like a PVR) sends a request for a specific television show to a central server. The server then "locates via the Internet one or more personalized video recorders situated within a broadcast region of the requested television show" and instructs them to record the program. Once recorded, the show is transmitted from the remote recorder(s) to the requesting user's device (Compl. ¶40, quoting ’778 Patent, 2:9-28).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a system architecture for a distributed network capable of capturing and delivering geographically restricted broadcast content on demand, thereby overcoming the limitations of a user's local television provider (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 31 (Compl. ¶41, ¶77).
• The essential elements of independent claim 31 include:
  • a server computer receiving a request from a receiver device for a television show;
  • said server computer locating a plurality of digital video recorders capable of receiving a broadcast of said television show that satisfies said request;
  • each of said plurality of digital video recorders receiving a programming instruction from said server computer to record said television show;
  • at least one of said plurality of digital video recorders recording said television show; and
  • said receiver device receiving said television show recorded by said at least one of said plurality of digital video recorders.
• The complaint also asserts infringement of dependent claims 32, 33, and 37, which add limitations related to task lists, electronic programming guides, and the use of a cache server (Compl. ¶41, ¶77).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,684,220

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,684,220, Method and System for Automatic Information Exchange, issued January 27, 2004 (Compl. ¶45, ¶48).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of enabling automated, server-generated responses to customer inquiries, for example in an online chat system. The proposed solution involves a "loading engine" that retrieves a data model, automatically identifies the input and output variables of objects within that model, and creates object links between them, thereby enabling automated responses without requiring input from human support representatives (Compl. ¶51).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 10 (Compl. ¶52, ¶82).
• Accused Features: Defendant's chatbot system (Compl. ¶82).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,807,568

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,807,568, Recipient Selection Of Information To Be Subsequently Delivered, issued October 19, 2004 (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem users face when trying to obtain information (e.g., for a future concert) that is not yet available or scheduled. The invention describes a system where a user can make a request for information that is then stored and made available to information providers. These providers can later access the request and deliver the relevant information once it becomes available, shifting the burden of monitoring from the information seeker to the provider (Compl. ¶62, ¶63).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶65, ¶87).
• Accused Features: Defendant's Fioptics+ apps (Compl. ¶87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies Defendant's "Fioptics+" services, including its video recording features, associated applications ("Fioptics+ apps"), and a "chatbot system" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶72, ¶77, ¶82, ¶87).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Fioptics+ service provides personalized content suggestions, fulfilling the role of the system in the ’980 Patent (Compl. ¶72). The "Fioptics+ video recording" feature is alleged to perform the remote recording and delivery method of the ’778 Patent (Compl. ¶77). A "chatbot system" is accused of infringing the ’220 Patent's automated information exchange method (Compl. ¶82), and "Fioptics+ apps" are accused of infringing the ’568 Patent's method for requesting future information (Compl. ¶87). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference preliminary claim charts (Exhibits E, F, G, and H) that were not attached to the filing. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

• '980 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that the Fioptics+ service infringes at least claim 5 of the ’980 Patent by operating as an information system that provides personalized content (Compl. ¶72). The infringement theory suggests that the Fioptics+ service includes a client for displaying information, a back-end system that functions as a "data mining cluster" to analyze user behavior and create profiles, and a mechanism for providing suggestions that update the information channels presented to the user (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). The complaint refers to figures from the patent to illustrate the underlying process. Figure 4 from the '980 patent shows a table of user interaction data used for analysis (Compl. ¶20). Figure 5 from the '980 patent shows a table calculating weights for potential suggestions based on interaction time and probability (Compl. ¶21). These visuals are offered to explain the technical mechanism that Plaintiff alleges the accused services use.

• '778 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that the "Fioptics+ video recording" feature infringes at least claim 31 of the ’778 Patent (Compl. ¶77). The infringement theory posits that when a user requests a television show unavailable in their area, Defendant's server locates a "plurality of digital video recorders" in the correct broadcast region, instructs them to record the show, and then facilitates the transmission of the recorded content back to the requesting user's device, thereby practicing the patented method (Compl. ¶40, ¶41).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’778 Patent will be whether the accused Fioptics+ system utilizes a "plurality of digital video recorders" as claimed, which the patent describes as a distributed network, or if it uses a centralized recording architecture that may not fall within the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’980 Patent, a key technical question is whether the Fioptics+ personalization feature constitutes a "data mining cluster" that performs the specific "user profiling and time, space and relevance analysis" required by the claims. The degree of similarity between the accused system's algorithm and the detailed process described in the patent will be a focal point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "data mining cluster" (’980 Patent, claim 5)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core analytical component of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical, as Plaintiff alleges this element was added during prosecution to secure the patent and represents an inventive concept (Compl. ¶25). The definition will determine whether Defendant’s personalization engine, whatever its architecture, meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component's function in general terms, such as "a statistics analyzer to study the information and perform channel suggestions for each user" and a component that "allows analysis of users' usage and to perform profiles" (’980 Patent, col. 2:48-55). This could support an interpretation covering any system that analyzes usage data to suggest content.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a specific implementation: "The user profile is obtained resorting to Data Mining Clustering Techniques applied to the interaction records and their categories. Clustering is the partitioning of a data set into subsets (clusters)" (’980 Patent, col. 4:22-26). This language may support a narrower construction limited to systems that employ formal clustering algorithms.

• Term: "locating a plurality of digital video recorders" (’778 Patent, claim 31)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the distributed architecture that is central to the claimed method. The infringement analysis for the ’778 patent will depend on whether Defendant’s system performs this specific "locating" step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the ownership or nature of the recorders. The specification states the server "locates via the Internet one or more personalized video recorders" (’778 Patent, col. 2:19-21), which could be read to include servers or recorders owned by the Defendant itself, not just other subscribers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem addressed by the patent—accessing content unavailable from a user's own provider—suggests that the "plurality of digital video recorders" are distinct devices located in remote broadcast regions, implying a peer-to-peer or distributed network of third-party devices rather than a centralized, company-owned recording infrastructure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. While it makes general allegations of "making, using, selling" the inventions, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

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

This litigation will likely center on three key questions for the court's determination:

1. A foundational legal question will be one of patent eligibility: particularly for the ’980 patent, are the claims directed to a specific technological improvement in computer functionality, as Plaintiff argues, or are they an implementation of a patent-ineligible abstract idea of personalizing content, an issue the complaint indicates has been contested in prior proceedings?

2. A core factual issue for the ’778 patent will be one of architectural mismatch: does the accused Fioptics+ video recording service operate on a distributed model that "locat[es] a plurality of digital video recorders" as claimed, or does it rely on a centralized server-based architecture that functions in a technically different way?

3. A critical claim construction question for the ’980 patent will be one of definitional scope: can the term "data mining cluster," which the patent links to a specific clustering process, be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose personalization and recommendation engine allegedly used in the Fioptics+ service?