DCT

2:16-cv-00703

Blue Spike LLC v. Verance Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Blue Spike LLC v. Verance Corporation, et al., 2:16-cv-00703, E.D. Tex., 07/01/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in Texas, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have established substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts with the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital watermarking products and services, including Cinavia and ConfirMedia, infringe ten U.S. patents related to methods for inserting, protecting, and detecting digital watermarks in digital data.
  • Technical Context: Digital watermarking is a technology used to embed covert information into digital media files, primarily for copyright protection, content authentication, and tracking distribution.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural events such as prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing negotiations regarding the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-07-02 Priority Date for ’868, ’017, ’609, ’087, ’981, ’343, ’286, ’330, ’099, ’213 Patents
1999-03-30 U.S. Patent 5,889,868 Issued
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent 7,770,017 Issued
2011-01-25 U.S. Patent 7,877,609 Issued
2011-03-22 U.S. Patent 7,913,087 Issued
2011-05-31 U.S. Patent 7,953,981 Issued
2012-02-21 U.S. Patent 8,121,343 Issued
2012-04-17 U.S. Patent 8,161,286 Issued
2012-05-08 U.S. Patent 8,175,330 Issued
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent 8,225,099 Issued
2012-11-06 U.S. Patent 8,307,213 Issued
2016-07-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,889,868 - "Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digitized data"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a robust method to embed copyright and ownership information into digital media content in a way that resists removal without degrading the commercial value of the content, a challenge heightened by the ease of perfect digital copying ('868 Patent, col. 1:29-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes optimizing the parameters for inserting a digital watermark based on the specific characteristics of the digital signal itself ('868 Patent, col. 1:61-65). It describes a method of "amplitude independent encoding" where a watermark message is embedded by analyzing a window of samples, normalizing them, and then adjusting their "quantization level" to correspond to the bits of the message, thereby integrating the watermark closely with the content signal ('868 Patent, col. 3:56-col. 4:10).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to make the watermark an integral part of the signal's data structure rather than a superficial layer, forcing an attacker to cause significant, perceptible damage to the media if they attempt to remove the watermark ('868 Patent, col. 2:62-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶22). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method:

  • A method for amplitude independent encoding of digital watermark information in a signal, comprising steps of:
    • determining in said signal a sample window having a minimum and a maximum;
    • determining a quantization interval of said sample window;
    • normalizing the sample window to provide normalized samples;
    • analyzing the normalized samples to determine quantization levels;
    • comparing the message bits to the corresponding quantization level information;
    • when a bit conflicts with the quantization level, adjusting the quantization level of said sample window to correspond to the message bit; and
    • de-normalizing the analyzed normalized samples.

U.S. Patent No. 7,770,017 - "Method and System for Digital Watermarking"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for a system to embed identifying data within digital signals in a secure and economically feasible manner, placing control of copyrights in the hands of the content creator ('017 Patent, col. 2:10-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "human-assisted" system where a person, such as an audio engineer, can observe a representation of a digital signal and define an "envelope" or parameters for where and how a watermark should be applied ('017 Patent, col. 8:1-14). This information, along with a binary sequence, forms a "watermarking key" that determines the locations for encoding the watermark, thereby optimizing its placement to maximize robustness while minimizing audible or visible artifacts ('017 Patent, col. 7:17-25; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: By allowing expert human input to guide the automated, key-based placement of a watermark, the invention aims to create a more secure and less perceptible watermark than a purely automated system might achieve ('017 Patent, col. 8:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system:

  • An article of manufacture for authorized distribution of multimedia content, comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium with instructions for a process that includes:
    • receiving at least one copy of content to be imperceptibly encoded with at least one digital watermark;
    • encoding the digital watermark into one or more locations in the content utilizing a key associated with a plurality of functions describing how the digital watermark is to be encoded; and
    • detecting at least one digital watermark using the key.

U.S. Patent No. 7,877,609 - "Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digital data"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the '868 Patent and similarly describes methods for optimizing the insertion of digital watermarks based on the characteristics of the digital signal. It further discloses varying the encoding/decoding algorithms automatically during processing based on signal characteristics or a pseudo-random key ('609 Patent, col. 4:18-47).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '609 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 36).

U.S. Patent No. 7,913,087 - "Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digital data"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family as the '868 Patent, describes methods for encoding and decoding digital watermarks. It discloses pre-analyzing a digital signal with a digital filter to determine how the signal will be changed, and then encoding the watermark to either avoid those areas or ensure the watermark survives the changes ('087 Patent, col. 19:20-30).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶43).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '087 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 43).

U.S. Patent No. 7,953,981 - "Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digital data"

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the '868 patent family, this patent discloses methods for guaranteeing watermark uniqueness by attaching a timestamp or a user-identification-dependent hash ('981 Patent, col. 21:4-9). It also describes generating a local noise signal to contain watermark information.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '981 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 50).

U.S. Patent No. 8,121,343 - "Optimization Methods For The Insertion, Protection, and Detection of Digital Watermarks in Digitized Data"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the '868 Patent, describes analyzing a digital signal to identify locations suitable for embedding watermark bits using a psychoacoustic or psycho-visual model to ensure imperceptibility. The invention includes analyzing the quantization level of normalized samples to embed the watermark ('343 Patent, col. 6:1-12).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '343 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,161,286 - "Method and System for Digital Watermarking"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '017 Patent, describes a system that uses a key to encode a watermark, where the key includes information describing its application to the content signal. It further discloses a "digital notary" to register, time stamp, and authenticate watermark information to enhance trust in legal disputes ('286 Patent, col. 11:54-64).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '286 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 64).

U.S. Patent No. 8,175,330 - "Optimization methods for the insertion, protection, and detection of digital watermarks in digital data"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the '868 Patent family and describes methods for embedding a watermark by identifying suitable locations within a digital signal. It discloses a system where a computer is configured to identify locations and embed the watermark message into those locations ('330 Patent, col. 22:18-35).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '330 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 71).

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,099 - "Linear predictive coding implementation of digital watermarks"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes using z-transform calculations and Linear Predictive Coding (LPC) to analyze a digital signal. The analysis separates the signal into deterministic (predictable) and non-deterministic (random) components, and the watermark is preferentially encoded into the non-deterministic components, making it more difficult to remove without degrading the signal ('099 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '099 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,307,213 - "Method and System for Digital Watermarking"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '017 Patent, describes a system for watermarking content where the key used for encoding or decoding is associated with at least one of a plurality of functions. The system discloses a decoder configured to verify the presence of watermarks in a content signal and an encoder for embedding them ('213 Patent, col. 33:40-50).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services" infringe the '213 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's Cinavia and ConfirMedia products and services (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint characterizes the accused instrumentalities as "digital watermarking technology" that Defendants design, develop, employ, and/or manufacture (Compl. ¶17). It further alleges that these products and services utilize methods, devices, and systems taught by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the functionality or operation of the Cinavia or ConfirMedia products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. For each of the ten asserted patents, the complaint makes only a conclusory allegation that the Defendant has infringed "one or more claims... by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and services that embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶22, 29). The complaint does not identify any specific claims, map any features of the accused products to claim limitations, or provide a claim chart exhibit.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, the central points of contention will likely be broad and evidentiary.
    • Scope Questions: A fundamental question for each patent will be whether the general concept of "digital watermarking" as practiced by the Cinavia and ConfirMedia products falls within the specific boundaries of the asserted claims. For instance, for the '868 Patent, a question is whether the accused technology performs "amplitude independent encoding" by adjusting "quantization levels" as the claims require. For the '099 Patent, a key question is whether the accused products use "linear predictive coding" to separate deterministic and non-deterministic signal components for watermark placement.
    • Technical Questions: The primary technical question will be one of evidence: What specific features or operational steps of the Cinavia and ConfirMedia products will Plaintiff identify in discovery to demonstrate that they perform the methods recited in the asserted claims? The complaint provides no basis for this analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '868 Patent:

    • The Term: "amplitude independent encoding"
    • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble of claim 1, defines the fundamental character of the claimed method. Its construction will be critical to determining whether watermarking techniques that may have some relationship to signal amplitude fall within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the term in the preamble suggests it describes the overall goal of the process, which is to create a watermark that is not dependent on the signal's volume for detection.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim body recites specific steps of normalizing samples and adjusting quantization levels. A defendant may argue that these specific steps define the meaning of "amplitude independent encoding," limiting the claim to only this particular implementation ('868 Patent, col. 19:35-col. 20:13).

  • For the '017 Patent:

    • The Term: "a key associated with a plurality of functions describing how the digital watermark is to be encoded"
    • Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 is central to defining the nature of the claimed invention. The dispute will likely center on what constitutes a "key" and how detailed the "plurality of functions" must be. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simpler watermarking schemes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the key more generally as a "secret map" for locating the watermark, suggesting the term could cover any set of rules used for placement ('017 Patent, col. 3:24-25).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a "human-assisted" system where an engineer defines a complex "envelope" and discloses specific function modules like "CODEC," "MAP," and "FILTER" that can be part of the key's application information ('017 Patent, col. 7:17-25; col. 10:45-55). This could support a narrower construction requiring a key with a more complex, structured set of functional descriptors.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement for each asserted patent. It alleges that Defendants provide products that have "no substantial non-infringing uses" and are for use in systems that infringe, and that Defendants induce "end users" to infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶¶23, 30). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as referencing user manuals or advertising, to support the required element of intent.
  • Willful Infringement: For each patent, the complaint alleges that infringement "has been willful and continues to be willful" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶25, 32). The basis for this allegation is a general assertion that "Defendant had knowledge of the... Patent and continued to infringe it." For some patents, knowledge is alleged to have occurred "at least as early as the service of this complaint," suggesting a theory based on post-suit willfulness (e.g., Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence during discovery to connect the highly generalized allegations in the complaint to the specific technical operations of the accused Cinavia and ConfirMedia products. The case will likely depend on expert analysis of the accused technology's source code and internal design documents.
  • Claim Scope and Technical Differentiation: A central question for the court will be one of technical specificity: do the accused products, which are widely used for content protection, practice the particular and often complex optimization methods claimed in the patents—such as the quantization-level adjustments of the ’868 Patent or the z-transform-based analysis of the ’099 Patent—or do they operate on fundamentally different technical principles?
  • Pleading Plausibility: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, an initial question for the court may be whether the pleadings meet the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement, particularly regarding the elements of intent for indirect and willful infringement.