DCT

2:10-cv-00035

Fowler Woods LLC v. Internet Radio Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00035, E.D. Tex., 02/01/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because each Defendant has minimum contacts with the district, purposefully avails itself of the privileges of conducting business there, and has paying customers who are residents of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ various internet radio, online gaming, and mobile application services infringe a patent related to a system for displaying advertisements while other data, such as audio, is being played.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the monetization of digital media, a significant commercial challenge that emerged with the widespread distribution of content like MP3 music files over the internet.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff asserts it is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit was subject to a Certificate of Correction issued in March 2011, after the complaint was filed, which altered the language of several independent claims, including Claim 1.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,351,736
2002-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,351,736 Issued
2010-02-01 Complaint Filed
2011-03-15 Certificate of Correction for U.S. Patent No. 6,351,736 Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,351,736 - "System and Method for Displaying Advertisements with Played Data"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of protecting digital content, such as music in MP3 format, from unauthorized copying and distribution over the Internet, which results in lost revenue for rights holders (’736 Patent, col. 1:20-34). It posits that copy protection mechanisms are vulnerable and not a "useful solution to the problem of the theft of such data" ('736 Patent, col. 1:50-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an alternative business model to generate revenue. It describes a system that plays a "first type of data" (e.g., an audio file) for a user while simultaneously displaying an advertisement of a "second type of data" (e.g., a visual ad) ('736 Patent, Abstract). By separating the advertisement (e.g., video data) from the primary content (e.g., audio data), the system creates a revenue source that does not interfere with the user's enjoyment of the primary content and does not rely on preventing copying ('736 Patent, col. 2:2-15). Figure 1 illustrates a user computer (12) containing both an "audio display module" (18) and an "advertisement management module" (28) that can retrieve content and ads from a server (30) ('736 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for monetizing the free or low-cost distribution of digital media through advertising, an alternative to direct sales or subscription models that were difficult to enforce in the early 2000s ('736 Patent, col. 1:54-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • a user computer for receiving and playing a first data type and for receiving and displaying an advertisement of a second data type;
    • a first data type display module for driving the user computer to play the first data type; and
    • an advertisement module for receiving the advertisement and driving the user computer to display it, "such that playing the data of the first data type is coupled to displaying the advertisement."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the online services and mobile applications provided by the numerous defendants, including the internet radio services of Pandora Media, Inc. ("pandora.com") and Slacker, Inc. ("slacker.com"), and the online gaming services of PopCap Games, Inc. ("popcap.com") (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these services constitute "systems and methods for displaying advertisements with played data" (Compl. ¶¶ 18-27). These services operate by providing users with primary content (e.g., streaming music, interactive games) while concurrently displaying visual advertisements, such as banner ads, on the same user interface. For example, the Pandora service is alleged to play audio data for a user while displaying advertisements on its website (Compl. ¶27). The complaint asserts these services are offered to customers in the United States, including in the state of Texas (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. It makes broad allegations that the defendants' services infringe by "making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling... systems and methods for displaying advertisements with played data" (Compl. ¶¶ 18-27). The central theory of infringement appears to be that the defendants' services, which play primary content like music or games while displaying separate advertisements, embody the system claimed in the ’736 patent. For example, the streaming music on Pandora would be the "first data type," and the visual banner ads would be the "second data type," with the system's operation allegedly meeting the "coupled to" limitation of the claims (Compl. ¶27; ’736 Patent, col. 7:4-5).

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the meaning of "coupled to." Does this limitation require a direct, causative link where the primary content file contains data that triggers a specific advertisement, or is the concurrent but technically separate presentation of content and ads sufficient? The defendants could argue their ad-serving logic is independent of the content-streaming logic.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the "playing" of music on a service like Pandora is what causes the "displaying" of a specific advertisement? The complaint lacks specific factual allegations on this point. The case may turn on whether the accused systems use an "advertisement identifier" associated with the content, as described in one embodiment of the patent ('736 Patent, col. 6:5-10), or if they use more generalized ad-serving technology based on user data or session timing, which may not satisfy the "coupled" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "coupled to" (from Claim 1: "such that playing the data of the first data type is coupled to displaying the advertisement")
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the required relationship between the primary content and the advertisement. The case's outcome may depend on whether the defendants' potentially independent ad-serving and content-delivery systems are "coupled" in the manner required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the main point of novelty and the likely center of any non-infringement argument.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "link" referred to by "coupled" may include "simultaneously playing the data of the first data type and the advertisement" ('736 Patent, col. 2:47-49). This language could support a plaintiff's position that concurrent display is sufficient to meet the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A preferred embodiment describes a more specific link where the "audio file... features an advertisement identifier," which an "advertisement management module" then uses to "select an advertisement according to the identifier" ('736 Patent, col. 6:5-10). A defendant could argue this disclosure limits the term "coupled to" to a more direct, programmatic link where the primary content file contains instructions for selecting the ad.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations that each defendant has "contributed to the infringement... and/or actively induced others to infringe" (Compl. ¶18). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as citing user manuals or instructions that direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness "from the time that Defendants became aware of the infringing nature of their actions, which is the time of filing of Plaintiff's Original Complaint at the latest" (Compl. ¶9(C)). The complaint also alleges constructive notice via 35 U.S.C. § 287 but does not plead facts indicating pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶28). This suggests the willfulness claim is primarily based on alleged post-filing conduct.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court interpret the phrase "coupled to"? Will the term be construed broadly to cover any system that contemporaneously presents primary content and advertisements, or will it be narrowed to require a specific technical link, such as an identifier in the content file that dictates the selection or timing of the advertisement?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causality: what proof can the plaintiff offer to establish that the accused systems' display of an advertisement is directly dependent on the "playing" of the primary content, as opposed to being the result of a parallel, independent ad-serving process that is merely coincident in time?