DCT
2:16-cv-01374
Preferential Networks IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Preferential Networks IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: AT&T Mobility, LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC; New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.; Cricket Wireless LLC (collectively "AT&T") (Delaware/Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Collins, Edmonds, Schlather & Tower, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-01374, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct regular business within the district, and the cause of action arises from Defendants' activities there, including the sale and use of the accused infringing methods and systems.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile internet and network services infringe a patent related to managing network bandwidth by throttling data transfer rates based on a user's prior data consumption.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the operational challenge of network congestion by selectively slowing down data transfers, particularly large ones, to preserve bandwidth for other users and intended network functions.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2000 and is the result of a long chain of continuation applications. This extensive prosecution history may be relevant to claim construction and the scope of prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-04-18 | Earliest Priority Date (’994 Patent) |
| 2013-11-05 | ’994 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-12-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,994, "Management of Bandwidth Allocation in a Network Server," issued November 5, 2013. (’994 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem with publicly accessible servers, such as free web hosts, being used inappropriately for distributing large media files (e.g., software, music, video). This activity consumes disproportionate bandwidth, "choking" the network and degrading performance for intended uses. (’994 Patent, col. 1:28-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for a server to manage its bandwidth by dynamically controlling file transfer rates. The core mechanism involves progressively slowing down, or decelerating, a file transfer as it proceeds, for instance by inserting increasingly long delays between the transmission of data packets. (’994 Patent, col. 2:1-5; col. 5:20-24). This technique aims to have a minimal impact on small file transfers but substantially delay very large ones, thereby discouraging bandwidth abuse. (’994 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
- Technical Importance: The described approach provides a method for network operators to discourage resource-intensive network usage without blocking users or file types entirely, integrating into existing server infrastructure with minimal overhead. (’994 Patent, col. 1:48-52; col. 2:11-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 16. (Compl. ¶55).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Receiving, at a first computer system, a request to transfer data to a second computer system;
- The first computer system determining a quantity of other data previously transferred to the second computer system;
- In response, throttling the data transfer based at least in part on the determined quantity;
- Wherein throttling comprises transmitting a first portion of data at a first rate and then, after a delay, transmitting a second portion at a slower, second rate.
- Independent Claim 8 (Computer-Readable Memory):
- A non-transitory computer-readable memory with stored instructions that, when executed, cause a first computer system to perform the operations of receiving a data transfer request, determining a quantity of previously transferred data, and throttling the transfer in response, which includes transmitting subsequent data portions at a slower rate.
- Independent Claim 16 (System):
- A computer system with a processor and storage device with instructions to perform operations comprising:
- Receiving a request to transfer data to a specified network address;
- Transmitting a portion of data at a first rate;
- Determining a delay period based on a quantity of data previously transferred to that address, calculated to achieve a second, slower effective rate;
- Transmitting an additional portion of data at the slower rate after the delay.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 20, reserving the right to pursue them. (Compl. ¶55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "Internet and other network services, including at least the AT&T services comprising AT&T Mobile Internet and Cricket Mobile Internet." (Compl. ¶56).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that AT&T provides mobile internet services to its customers and end-users. (Compl. ¶56). The core accused functionality is the "throttling of the networks of its customers and/or end users, including by delaying transmissions of files on its network based, at least in part, on the end user's prior data usage." (Compl. ¶56). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the throttling is implemented or its market positioning beyond identifying the services.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary: ’994 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method, comprising: receiving, at a first computer system, information indicating a request to transfer data to a second computer system; | Defendants' network systems (first computer system) receive requests for data from end-user devices (second computer system). | ¶56 | col. 7:65-col. 8:2 |
| the first computer system determining a quantity of other data previously transferred to the second computer system; | Defendants' systems determine an end user's "prior data usage." | ¶56 | col. 8:3-5 |
| and in response to said determining, the first computer system throttling transfer of the data to the second computer system, wherein the throttling is based at least in part on the determined quantity of other data previously transferred to the second computer system... | Defendants' systems throttle network access for end-users by "delaying transmissions of files on its network based, at least in part, on the end user's prior data usage." | ¶56 | col. 8:6-12 |
| and comprises: transmitting, to the second computer system, a first portion of the requested data at a first effective rate; | The allegation of "throttling" implies an initial, unthrottled (or less throttled) rate of data transmission. | ¶56 | col. 8:13-14 |
| and determining to delay a transmission of a second, subsequent portion of the requested data...in order to cause the second portion to be transmitted...at a second effective rate that is slower than the first effective rate. | Defendants' systems are alleged to infringe by "delaying transmissions of files," which results in a slower data transfer rate. | ¶56 | col. 8:15-19 |
Claim Chart Summary: ’994 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 16)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer system, comprising: a processor; and a storage device having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor... | Defendants use computer systems, including servers and network equipment, to provide their network services. | ¶56 | col. 8:40-45 |
| ...to perform operations comprising: receiving information indicating a request to transfer data to a specified network address; | Defendants' systems receive requests for data directed to the network addresses of their end-users' devices. | ¶56 | col. 8:46-48 |
| causing a portion of the data to be transmitted to the specified network address at a first effective rate; | The allegation of throttling implies an initial, higher rate of transmission before the throttling takes effect. | ¶56 | col. 8:49-51 |
| determining a length of a delay period...based at least in part on a quantity of other data previously transferred to the specified network address... | Defendants' systems allegedly determine to delay transmissions based on the end-user's "prior data usage." | ¶56 | col. 8:52-57 |
| ...and is also calculated in order to a achieve a second effective rate for transmittal to the specified network address that is slower than the first effective rate; | The alleged throttling and delaying of transmissions results in a slower effective data rate for the user. | ¶56 | col. 8:58-61 |
| and causing the additional portion of the data to be transmitted...after the delay period has occurred, said transmitting occurring at the second effective rate. | Defendants' systems are alleged to delay transmissions, causing subsequent data to be transmitted at a throttled, slower rate. | ¶56 | col. 8:62-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that throttling a user's general network access based on monthly usage infringes the patent. A question for the court will be whether the claims, which describe a "first computer system" receiving a "request to transfer data" and throttling that specific transfer, can be read to cover a network provider's general throttling of a subscriber's connection to the entire internet. The patent's specification appears to focus on a single server managing access to its own files. (’994 Patent, col. 1:28-37).
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes a general allegation of "delaying transmissions" (Compl. ¶56) but does not specify the technical mechanism. Claims 1 and 16 require a specific two-rate structure where a subsequent portion of data is transmitted at a rate "slower than the first effective rate." An evidentiary question will be whether the accused AT&T services implement this specific deceleration process, or if they apply a different form of throttling, such as a constant, reduced-speed cap once a data threshold is met.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "throttling"
Context and Importance: This term is the central action of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether any method of slowing data based on prior usage falls within the claim scope, or if only a specific type of deceleration infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification describes a particular implementation of "throttling."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "throttling" and define it as causing a second portion of data to be transmitted at a slower rate than a first portion, without further limitation. (e.g., ’994 Patent, col. 8:6-19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the inventive method as one where "the transfer rate is progressively slowed (decelerated)." (’994 Patent, col. 2:1-2). The example provided involves incrementally increasing the delay period after each packet is sent, suggesting a continuous or multi-step deceleration rather than a single drop in speed. (’994 Patent, col. 5:20-24).
The Term: "determining a quantity of other data previously transferred to the second computer system"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the trigger for the claimed throttling. The definition is critical to whether AT&T's practice of monitoring a user's total monthly data consumption against a plan limit meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, referring to "a quantity of other data previously transferred" without specifying its source, timing, or nature. This could be argued to encompass any look-back at a user's data history. (’994 Patent, col. 8:3-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background describes a problem specific to a server managing its own resources against abuse. (’994 Patent, col. 1:28-47). The specification discusses parameters like "number of transfer requests from the requesting client device within a defined time period" in the context of calculating delays for a current file transfer, suggesting the "previously transferred" data is that which was previously served by the throttling system itself. (’994 Patent, col. 6:60-65).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate request for relief from indirect infringement in its prayer for relief. (Compl. ¶63.C). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim of either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had at least constructive notice of the ’994 Patent and reserves the right to conduct discovery regarding actual notice. (Compl. ¶57). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages based on an alleged "objectively high likelihood" that Defendants' actions constituted infringement. (Compl. ¶63.D). No specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the term "throttling", as claimed, require the specific "progressively slowed (decelerated)" mechanism described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or can it be construed more broadly to cover any system that imposes a slower data rate (e.g., a simple speed cap) based on prior usage?
- A key question of infringement will be whether the architecture of the accused services aligns with the claimed system. Specifically, does a mobile carrier's network-wide throttling of a subscriber's general internet access based on a monthly data plan constitute "receiving...a request to transfer data" and throttling that specific transfer in response, as recited in the claims and described in the context of a single server managing access to its own files?
- An evidentiary question will be what technical proof Plaintiff can provide that the accused AT&T and Cricket services actually implement the specific two-rate (or multi-rate) deceleration process required by the claims, as the complaint's allegations on this point are not detailed.