DCT
2:17-cv-00301
Soverain IP LLC v. Charter Communications Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Soverain IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Charter Communications, Inc.; Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC f/k/a Time Warner Cable, Inc.; and Navisite, LLC (collectively "Spectrum") (Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw Derieux, LLP; Berger & Hipskind LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00301, E.D. Tex., 04/12/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are registered to do business in Texas, maintain offices and/or employees in the state, transact business in the district, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ websites and managed web hosting services infringe three patents related to data extraction, network management, and tracking web access requests using session identifiers.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational e-commerce and web technologies from the mid-1990s, including methods for managing user sessions on stateless networks and extracting data from web pages.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all three patents-in-suit have survived U.S. Patent Office reexamination proceedings, which confirmed the patentability of the original claims and, in some cases, added numerous new claims. The complaint also states that U.S. Patent No. 5,708,780 was previously the subject of litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, including a Markman order interpreting seventeen claim terms. Additionally, the complaint notes that Amazon.com, Inc. previously paid $40 million to license the Soverain patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-07 | Earliest Priority Date for ’900 and ’780 Patents |
| 1995-10-25 | Earliest Priority Date for ’447 Patent |
| 1998-01-13 | U.S. Patent No. 5,708,780 Issues |
| 2006-04-04 | Reexamination Certificate for ’780 Patent Issues |
| 2007-03-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,191,447 Issues |
| 2012-10-05 | Reexamination Certificate for ’447 Patent Issues |
| 2013-12-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,606,900 Issues |
| 2017-04-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,191,447 - “Managing Transfers of Information in a Communications Network”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In early network environments, there was a need for a structured way to extract specific data from a source (like a web page) and embed it into a separate document (like a spreadsheet) in a way that the embedded data could be updated if the source changed (Compl. ¶52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using an "object embedding program" (analogous to OLE objects) that contains links to both the network-based data source and a "script program." This object, when placed in a document, uses the script to locate and extract the specific data from the source and display it, effectively creating a live, updatable link between documents across a network (’447 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a method to create compound documents with live, embedded data from network sources, moving beyond simple static copying of information (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, including at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶88). Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A script program structured to extract data from network-based information.
- An object embedding program implemented on a computer.
- The object embedding program comprises a link to the network-based information and a link from which it can locate the script program.
- The object embedding program is structured to apply the script program to the network-based information to cause the data extraction.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other direct and indirect infringement claims (Compl. ¶¶ 87-89).
U.S. Patent No. 8,606,900 - “Method and System for Counting Web Access Requests”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Internet protocols like HTTP are inherently "stateless," meaning each request from a user is treated as an isolated event. This makes it difficult for a server to track a user's activity across multiple page views or to monitor access to controlled content without repeated authentication (’780 Patent, col. 2:42-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention, which shares a specification with the ’780 patent, describes a system where a server, upon an initial request, generates and returns a "session identifier" (SID) to the client's browser. The browser then appends this SID to subsequent requests, allowing the server to recognize the series of requests as part of a single session, control access, and log user activity (’780 Patent, col. 3:6-20; Fig. 2A). This patent specifically claims a method of tracking requests by counting them, with an exclusion for repeated requests from the same client to avoid artificial inflation of traffic data (’780 Patent, col. 8:14-25).
- Technical Importance: Session identifiers became a foundational technology for e-commerce, user authentication, and web analytics, enabling persistent user states on a stateless network (Compl. ¶¶ 59-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, including at least independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶109).
- Independent Claim 1 (a method claim) includes the following essential elements:
- Generating session identifiers at a web server for multiple clients.
- Storing the session identifiers at the clients' web browsers.
- Receiving web page requests at the server, with each request including a session identifier.
- Storing information about the requests (e.g., requested page and session identifier) at the web server.
- Tracking the requests by counting them, exclusive of repeated requests from a particular client.
- Independent Claim 5 is a system claim for a web server containing means for performing the steps recited in method claim 1.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other direct and indirect infringement claims (Compl. ¶¶ 108-110).
U.S. Patent No. 5,708,780 - “Internet Server Access Control and Monitoring”
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the problem of controlling and monitoring access to server resources over a stateless network like the internet. The solution involves a server system that assigns a unique "session identifier" (SID) to a client, which is then appended to the path name in a URL for subsequent requests, allowing the server to manage a user's session, authenticate access to protected content, and monitor activity without requiring re-authentication for each request (Compl. ¶¶ 59-61; ’780 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts infringement of claims 22, 23, 32, 33, 112-114, 127, 128, and 129 (Compl. ¶140). Independent claims include 22 and 32.
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the Time Warner Cable website ("www.timewarnercable.com") of infringing by appending a session identifier to the URL path name to manage user sessions during online ordering processes (Compl. ¶¶ 118, 121).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' websites and web hosting services (Compl. ¶¶ 73, 97, 118).
- For the ’447 Patent: The Spectrum Website ("www.spectrum.net" and "www.spectrum.com"), specifically pages such as the online TV guide ("www.spectrum.net/tv/guide/") (Compl. ¶73, 75).
- For the ’900 Patent: NaviCloud Sphere AppCenter and Navisite Managed Webhosting services, which provide and manage Apache and Microsoft IIS webservers (Compl. ¶97).
- For the ’780 Patent: The Time Warner Cable website ("www.timewarnercable.com"), particularly the residential ordering portion of the site (Compl. ¶¶ 118, 121).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Spectrum Website functions by using scripts and object embedding programs to extract network-based data (e.g., television listings) and present it to the user (Compl. ¶¶ 75-76, 80). An image provided in the complaint shows a network inspection report of the TV guide page, listing numerous script files being loaded and executed to construct the page (Compl. p. 25).
- The Navisite web hosting services are alleged to provide functionality for tracking webpage requests received from multiple clients (Compl. ¶99). The complaint alleges these services use session identifiers to track the number of webpage requests while excluding multiple requests from the same computer associated with a unique session identifier, a function related to web analytics (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 106). A screenshot shows a configuration portal for provisioning web server features like IIS (Compl. p. 33).
- The Time Warner Cable website is alleged to process service requests by appending a session identifier to the URL path name to identify a user's session, as shown in a network inspection report of the website's ordering page (Compl. ¶121; Compl. p. 39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’447 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a script program... structured to extract data from network-based information provided by one of said network servers | The Spectrum Website uses script programs, such as "guide-dist.js", to extract data like TV listings from network servers. | ¶80, ¶83 | col. 2:35-45 |
| an object embedding program, implemented on a computer in said communications network | The Spectrum Website enables an object embedding program that contains functionality to locate a script program. | ¶76 | col. 4:1-5 |
| said object embedding program comprising a link to said network-based information provided by a networked server, and a link from which said object embedding program can locate said script program | The object embedding program on the Spectrum Website links to network-based information (e.g., via a URL request for a script) which in turn contains the functionality to cause data to be extracted. | ¶81, ¶82, ¶85 | col. 4:35-44 |
| said object embedding program being structured to apply said script program to said network-based information so as to cause said data to be extracted | The application of the script program on the website causes data to be extracted from a networked server and embedded into a compound document (the final web page). | ¶83, ¶84, ¶86 | col. 4:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the modern web architecture of the accused Spectrum website, which uses dynamically loaded JavaScript files and frameworks, falls within the scope of the patent's terms "object embedding program" and "script program," which are described in the context of 1990s technologies like OLE.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the object embedding program's link to the script program is established via the network-based information itself (Compl. ¶85). The infringement analysis may focus on whether this indirect linking structure meets the claim requirement that the object embedding program comprises a link to locate the script. A "Spectrum Website Memory Tree Map Report" shows various scripts being loaded, which may provide evidence on this point (Compl. p. 26).
’900 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating a plurality of session identifiers at the web server... having information associated with a particular client | The accused Navisite services provide web servers (e.g., IIS) that generate multiple session identifiers associated with accessing computers. | ¶100, ¶101 | col. 6:55-65 |
| storing the session identifiers at a plurality of web browsers | The session identifiers are stored in the web browsers of the accessing computers. | ¶102 | col. 3:10-20 |
| receiving web page requests at the web server, each web page request including a session identifier | The Navisite-hosted web servers are configured to receive requests that include a session identifier associated with the client. A diagram shows configuration of network address translation rules to route requests to the server (Compl. p. 34). | ¶103 | col. 5:42-45 |
| storing information regarding the web page requests at the web server | The services keep a log of access requests that includes the specific web pages requested and the associated session identifiers. | ¶104 | col. 6:5-10 |
| tracking the web page requests by... counting the number of requests for particular web pages exclusive of repeated requests from a particular client | The services include website analytics functionality that tracks the number of webpage requests while excluding multiple requests from the same computer that occur within a predetermined period of time. | ¶106, ¶107 | col. 8:14-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on the definition of "counting... exclusive of repeated requests." It raises the question of whether the general web analytics provided by the accused services perform this specific claimed function or a different, more general type of tracking that does not exclude repeats in the manner required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused hosting services' "advanced monitoring and web analytics" (Compl. ¶99) specifically implements the two-part counting logic required by claim 1: (1) excluding repeated requests within a predetermined time, and (2) thereafter counting a repeated request?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: ’447 Patent
- The Term: "object embedding program"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to claim 1. Its construction will determine whether modern web page rendering technologies, which assemble content from numerous script and data sources, can be considered equivalent to the specific compound document technologies like OLE described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Object embedding tools are known such as OLE... and OpenDoc" (’447 Patent, col. 1:39-41), which may suggest these are examples and not an exhaustive definition, potentially allowing the term to cover newer, analogous technologies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses heavily on the specific example of an OLE object in a spreadsheet (’447 Patent, col. 4:35-44; Fig. 6). This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to technologies that create distinct, embeddable object files.
Patent: ’900 Patent
- The Term: "counting the number of requests... exclusive of repeated requests from a particular client"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core "tracking" function of claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "web analytics" functionality performs this specific type of counting, as opposed to simply logging all hits or using more complex statistical sampling.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states a general goal is to "monitor the frequency and duration of access" (’780 Patent, col. 4:32-33), which could support interpreting the "counting" step as a general form of traffic monitoring.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a specific reason for this feature: to "avoid distortions by users attempting to 'stuff the ballot box'" by excluding requests "falling within a defined period of time" (’780 Patent, col. 8:18-25). This explicit purpose may support a narrower construction requiring a specific time-based filter to exclude rapid, repeated requests.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’447 and ’900 patents. It claims Defendants provide products with the capability to infringe and provide "documentation and training materials that cause customers and end users... to utilize the products in a manner that directly infringe" (Compl. ¶¶ 91, 112). These materials allegedly include user manuals, product support, and marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶ 91, 112, footnotes 47, 50).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents. The basis for willfulness is that the patents are "well-known within the industry as demonstrated by the over [135-1,840] citations" and that "Several of Charter and Spectrum-TWCI's competitors have paid considerable licensing fees for their use of the technology" (Compl. ¶¶ 92, 113, 141).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological scope and aging: can claim terms rooted in the architecture of the mid-1990s internet (e.g., "object embedding program," "session identifier appended to a path name") be construed to read on the accused modern instrumentalities, which employ significantly different and more complex technologies like asynchronous JavaScript, single-page applications, and managed cloud hosting platforms?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the accused "web analytics" functionality of the Navisite hosting services perform the specific counting method required by the ’900 patent—namely, counting requests while excluding repeated requests from the same client within a set time—or does it perform a more general form of traffic logging that does not map onto this precise claim limitation?
- The case may also present a question of infringement locus: for the claims asserted against the Navisite hosting platform, the dispute may focus on whether the allegedly infringing acts (e.g., "counting" web requests) are performed by the Defendants providing the platform, or by their third-party customers who build and operate websites on that platform, raising complex questions of direct and indirect liability.