DCT

2:17-cv-01488

Progme Corp v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Progme Corporation (Michigan)
- Defendant: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of David A. Reams, P.C.
Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01488, E.D. Pa., 01/29/2018
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant Comcast conducts substantial business, has continuous contacts, and provides cable television services within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable television delivery system, which utilizes specific Java-based code, infringes a patent related to generating and processing hyperlink address strings embedded within program signals.
Technical Context: The technology concerns a method for embedding hyperlinks in media streams (e.g., cable television) that, when activated, can trigger a pre-defined printing or display action for associated content.
Key Procedural History: This Fourth Amended Complaint follows an original complaint and several amendments. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had constructive notice of the patent-in-suit via website marking and actual notice via service of the original complaint and subsequent amendments, forming the basis for willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-04-20	’425 Patent Priority Date
2014-04-29	’425 Patent Issue Date
2014-05-27	Alleged Constructive Notice via Website Marking
2015-11-16	Alleged Actual Notice via Service of Original Complaint
2016-02-22	Alleged Actual Notice via Service of First Amended Complaint
2016-04-08	Alleged Actual Notice via Service of Second Amended Complaint
2018-01-29	Fourth Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,713,425 - "AUDIO/VIDEO PROGRAM-RELATED HYPERLINK PRINTER"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,713,425, "AUDIO/VIDEO PROGRAM-RELATED HYPERLINK PRINTER," issued April 29, 2014.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where activating a hyperlink related to program material and activating a print function for that material were separate actions. Further, prior systems did not readily allow for printing only a pre-defined, specific portion of the hyperlinked content. (’425 Patent, col. 1:33-47).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that integrates these functions. It generates a single hyperlink address string that contains two key attributes: a first attribute indicating the hyperlink address to the content, and a second attribute that defines a pre-defined, printable output from that content. (’425 Patent, Abstract). This allows a single user interaction to both navigate to the content and trigger the printing of just the specifically designated portion. The specification describes embodiments using Java servlets and PrintWriter methods to implement this functionality. (’425 Patent, col. 13:17-14:68).
Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline user interaction with interactive television content by combining the distinct steps of linking and printing into a single, efficient process. (’425 Patent, col. 2:50-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts claims 14-25, with independent claim 14 being central to the allegations. (Compl. ¶122).
Independent Claim 14 (Apparatus Claim):
- An apparatus with a processor for processing a hyperlink address string.
- "means for receiving" program-related signals, which includes receiving a hyperlink address string.
- The string includes a "first attribute" (a predetermined hyperlink address) and a "second attribute" (indicating parameters that define a predetermined printable output).
- "means for processing" the string, which is operably coupled to the receiving means.
- The processing means is configured for: A) "processing said predetermined hyperlink address" to hyperlink to a resource, and B) "processing said one or a plurality of predetermined parameters" for hyperlinking to print the predetermined printable output. (’425 Patent, col. 26:14-65).
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 14-25 inherently includes dependent claims. (Compl. ¶122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant Comcast's "cable television delivery system" and the associated set-top boxes leased to subscribers. (Compl. ¶19, ¶124).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Comcast’s system deploys Java servlets, specifically identifying code referred to as "Comcast Message Bus or Cloud Message Bus code" ("CMB code"), which was allegedly made available on github.com. (Compl. ¶19-20). This code is alleged to run on a system of frontend and backend Java Virtual Machines (JVMs), with the backend JVM residing on subscriber set-top boxes. (Compl. ¶15, ¶125).
The core accused functionality involves the generation of print() and println() statements via the Java PrintWriter method. These statements are allegedly transmitted in conjunction with program signals to subscribers. (Compl. ¶32, ¶49).
The complaint alleges that this infringing activity provides a "performance advantage" that drives consumer demand for Comcast's cable service and equipment. (Compl. ¶132).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’425 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A computer-implemented apparatus having a processor for processing an hyperlink address string... comprising: means for receiving program-related signals for receiving said hyperlink address string...	Comcast’s set-top boxes deploy a Java Virtual Machine, enabling them to receive and process program signals containing the accused hyperlink strings.	¶125	col. 9:36-44
...including a first attribute indicating a predetermined hyperlink address comprising said resource identifier to hyperlink to said resource in the initial array position...	The `print()` or `println()` statements allegedly generated by Comcast's system contain a first attribute, which is a hyperlink address (e.g., a URL in an HTML tag) that identifies and links to a resource.	¶34, ¶56	col. 10:22-26
...and a second attribute indicating one or a plurality of predetermined parameters defining said predetermined printable output of said resource in the initial array position...	The same `print()` or `println()` statements allegedly contain a second attribute, which is the parameter instructing the `PrintWriter` to print a predetermined output of the identified resource.	¶34, ¶56	col. 10:26-30
means for processing... A) processing said predetermined hyperlink address... to hyperlink to said resource... and B) processing said one or a plurality of predetermined parameters... for... printing said predetermined printable output...	Comcast's set-top boxes allegedly deploy a JVM that processes the received `PrintWriter` statements, thereby executing the hyperlink and printing the defined output. The complaint identifies numerous specific Java files and code snippets as evidence of this processing.	¶70, ¶85, ¶125	col. 9:51-65

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that a server-side PrintWriter method call is the claimed "hyperlink address string" (Compl. ¶11). The patent's figures and abstract, however, depict the "hyperlink address string" as the resulting data structure (e.g., an HTML <area> tag) that is transmitted to the client ('425 Patent, Fig. 2-3). This raises the question of whether the server-side Java code that generates the string can be considered the "string" itself as recited in the claims.
Technical Questions: Claim 14 is an apparatus claim directed to a receiver. The complaint's factual allegations focus heavily on the generation of println() statements by Comcast's server-side code (Compl. ¶19-21, ¶32). A potential point of contention is whether evidence of code generation on a server is sufficient to prove infringement of a claim directed to a receiving apparatus (the set-top box) that must perform specific processing functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "hyperlink address string"

Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory rests on the definition of this term. The complaint asserts that Java PrintWriter statements generated by Comcast's servers constitute this "string" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this term can be construed to cover server-side code instructions, rather than just the client-side data output by those instructions.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description includes an embodiment involving servlets and PrintWriter parameters, which could be argued to support a construction that encompasses the underlying code logic. ('425 Patent, col. 13:17-14:68).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and figures explicitly show the "hyperlink address string" as an HTML tag (e.g., <area href=... >) that is encoded for transmission and processed by a receiver. This suggests the "string" is the data received by the client, not the server-side code that created it. ('425 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 2-3).

The Term: "means for processing"

Context and Importance: This term in claim 14 is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA), requiring its scope to be limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The infringement analysis will require a comparison of the accused structure to the disclosed structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the structural equivalence analysis is often case-dispositive.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges the accused set-top boxes use a "Java Virtual Machine" to perform the claimed functions (Compl. ¶125). A plaintiff may argue that a JVM is a modern, software-based equivalent to the general-purpose processor disclosed in the patent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses the structure corresponding to this function as a MICROPROCESSOR 24 operatively coupled with a WEB BROWSER/PRINTER 35. ('425 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:51-57). A defendant may argue that the accused JVM is not structurally equivalent to this specific hardware-software combination.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint's seven counts are all for "Direct Infringement." No specific allegations supporting induced or contributory infringement are made.
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both constructive and actual notice. It alleges constructive notice as of May 27, 2014, from a webpage marking (Compl. ¶134), and actual notice from the service of the original complaint on November 16, 2015, and subsequent amended complaints. (Compl. ¶30, ¶52, ¶60). The complaint asserts that Comcast's infringement continued after receiving this notice. (Compl. ¶31, ¶53).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hyperlink address string", which the patent illustrates as a client-side data structure like an HTML tag, be construed to cover the server-side Java PrintWriter code that generates it, as alleged in the complaint?
A second central question will be one of structural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6: for the "means for processing" limitation in apparatus claim 14, is the accused "Java Virtual Machine" in Comcast's set-top boxes structurally equivalent to the specific MICROPROCESSOR and WEB BROWSER/PRINTER combination disclosed in the patent's specification?
A key evidentiary question will concern the locus of infringement: does the complaint's evidence, which focuses heavily on the generation of code on Comcast's servers, sufficiently map onto the limitations of an apparatus claim directed to a receiver that must perform the claimed processing steps?