DCT

2:17-cv-00439

Personalized Media Communications LLC v. Tsinghua Tongfang Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00439, E.D. Tex., 05/17/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in the district, have committed acts of infringement in the district, are foreign entities, and because the court has presided over prior litigation involving the same patent family.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital televisions infringe six patents related to systems and methods for digital signal processing, particularly the use of embedded control signals to personalize or manage media content.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to embedding data and instructions within broadcast signals (e.g., television, radio) that allow a receiver to process or combine content in a customized way for the user.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the underlying inventions have been licensed to numerous major technology and media companies, including Vizio, Samsung, Sony, and DirecTV. It also notes the court's familiarity with the patent family from prior lawsuits.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1981-11-03 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217 Issued
2010-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 Issued
2010-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650 Issued
2010-12-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,856,649 Issued
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,675,775 Issued
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,711,885 Issued
2017-05-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued June 29, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art communication systems (television, radio, print) as lacking the ability to efficiently combine different media types or to provide information personalized to a specific user or location (Compl. ¶23; ’217 Patent, col. 2:1-12, col. 3:1-6). Existing systems broadcast the same content to every viewer and lack the capacity for sophisticated remote control or data processing at the subscriber's location (’217 Patent, col. 4:63-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an integrated system where control and information signals are embedded within a broadcast transmission. A "signal processor" at a "subscriber station" detects these embedded signals and uses them to process information, generate personalized output (such as a graphic overlay on a television program), or control other local devices (’217 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:30-41). For example, a television broadcast about financial markets could contain embedded signals that cause a user's local computer to display the performance of that user's specific stock portfolio overlaid on the screen (’217 Patent, col. 13:28-14:24).
  • Technical Importance: This approach envisioned a way to transform one-way mass media broadcasts into interactive, personalized experiences by embedding machine-readable instructions directly into the broadcast signal itself (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 30, and 38 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Processing a signal of a first medium at a receiver station, where the signal has a predetermined identifier.
    • Said processing identifies the predetermined identifier.
    • Said processing generates a second medium based on the first medium.
    • Outputting and displaying a multimedia presentation comprising the second medium and information based on the first medium, with the presentation having a predetermined relationship to the first medium.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 7,752,649 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued July 6, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses similar limitations as the ’217 Patent, with a particular focus on the challenges of controlling a variety of processors at a receiver station and managing encrypted programming (’649 Patent, col. 5:5-30). Prior art systems lacked flexible, secure methods to deliver specific control instructions to individual subscriber devices from a central broadcast source.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a television receiver, having multiple processors, receives a digital television signal containing a "message stream." A "control processor" is selected to process a portion of this message stream. Based on the instructions in the message, the control processor then directs other processors at the receiver to perform different functions, such as communicating information back to a transmitter or controlling the presentation of the television programming (’649 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:60-8:20). This allows for dynamic and selective control over the receiver's functions via the broadcast signal.
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for dynamically programming and controlling multi-processor consumer electronics devices remotely, enabling features like conditional access, personalized advertising, and interactive services through a broadcast medium (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 33, 38, 54, 58, 62, 67, 73, 78, 97, and 98 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • At a receiver station with a plurality of processors, receiving an information transmission including a digital television signal and a message stream.
    • Detecting the message stream.
    • Inputting at least a first portion of the detected message stream to a control processor.
    • Selecting the control processor to process the first portion.
    • Processing selected other portions of the message stream simultaneously with at least one of said plurality of processors.
    • Communicating control information based on the message stream and storing information for evaluating television programming.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 7,752,650 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued July 6, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to methods for controlling a digital switch at a receiver station based on control signals embedded in an information transmission. The control signals can direct the switch to route different audio/video signals to a television monitor, effectively allowing a remote transmitter to control what the user sees.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 are asserted (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tongfang Digital Televisions infringe by processing digital signals in a manner that practices the claimed methods (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 8,675,775 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued March 18, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods for processing signals at a receiver station where a control signal contains a "code portion." The receiver decodes this code portion and uses it to control the delivery of video images to a monitor, including expanding or contracting the information presented.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 11, 24, and 33 are asserted (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tongfang Digital Televisions infringe by processing digital signals, including control signals with code portions, as claimed (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 8,711,885 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued April 29, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on methods of communicating control signals to a plurality of receiver stations. A transmitter sends a first control signal which enables the receiver to process a second, different control signal. This creates a multi-step, conditional control architecture for managing a network of receivers.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 51, and 108 are asserted (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tongfang Digital Televisions, as part of a communication system, infringe by practicing the claimed methods of receiving and processing control signals (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 7,856,649 - “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods,” Issued December 21, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to receiving a television transmission that contains embedded instructions. A processor at the receiver executes these instructions to implement a "signaling scheme" which can define formats, timing, and encryption for the broadcast. This allows the broadcaster to dynamically update how receivers interpret the signal.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tongfang Digital Televisions infringe by receiving and executing embedded instructions from television signals (Compl. ¶75).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Tongfang Digital Televisions" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint references an "exemplary, but not exclusive, list" of accused products in Exhibit G, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused televisions process signals that comply with the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standard in the United States (Compl. ¶11).
  • The core accused functionality is the making, using, selling, or importing of these televisions, which necessarily process digital broadcast signals (Compl. ¶35).
  • The complaint asserts that the Tongfang Defendants comprise one of the world's leading manufacturers and sellers of televisions in the United States (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed narrative mapping specific features of the accused Tongfang Digital Televisions to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The infringement allegations are made on "information and belief" and state in a conclusory manner that the accused products infringe the listed claims (e.g., Compl. ¶35, 43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: Given the lack of specific allegations, a primary point of contention will be factual. What specific hardware or software components within the accused televisions perform the functions recited in the claims, such as generating a "second medium" ('217 patent) or selecting a "control processor" to process a "message stream" ('649 patent)? The complaint does not identify these components.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the routine processing of a modern ATSC-compliant digital television signal can be construed to meet the specific limitations of patents with a 1981 priority date. For example, does a standard data stream within an ATSC signal constitute a "message stream" intended to "control" a "plurality of processors" in the manner claimed by the ’649 patent, or is there a technical distinction between modern signal processing and the specific architecture described in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific disputed claim terms. However, based on the technology and the asserted claims, the following terms may become central to the dispute.

For the ’217 Patent:

  • The Term: "multimedia presentation" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to what is ultimately produced by the claimed method. The definition will be critical to determining whether a standard television output, which might include broadcast video and on-screen graphics (like a channel guide or volume indicator), meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that a standard television program is a single medium, not a "multimedia presentation" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes combining received television programming with locally generated graphic information, suggesting that "multimedia" can encompass the combination of two different visual sources (’217 Patent, col. 14:15-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background distinguishes between "broadcast print" and "television," and discusses combining them into a "combined media." (’217 Patent, col. 2:32-67). This could support an argument that "multimedia" requires combining fundamentally different types of media (e.g., text and video), not just overlaying graphics on a video stream.

For the ’649 Patent:

  • The Term: "control processor" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires selecting and inputting a message to a "control processor" which then directs other processors. The distinction between a "control processor" and other processors (e.g., a main CPU, a graphics processor, a demodulator) will be a key technical question. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense may argue that modern televisions use integrated systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) where distinct "control processors" operating in the claimed manner do not exist.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to a "control processor" as potentially being a conventional microcomputer or a dedicated controller, giving the term a potentially wide scope (’649 Patent, col. 16:50-55, referring to controller 12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts the "Controller" (12) as a discrete component separate from other processing elements like the "TV Signal Decoder" (30) and "Buffer/Comparator" (8, 14). This could support a narrower construction requiring a physically or logically distinct component dedicated to the claimed control functions, rather than a general-purpose CPU performing multiple tasks.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Tongfang induces infringement by "actively and knowingly inducing, directing, causing, and encouraging others" (including distributors, resellers, and end users) to use the accused televisions. This inducement is allegedly accomplished by providing "instructions, manuals, and technical assistance" relating to the setup and operation of the products (Compl. ¶36, 44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Tongfang knew the... Patent existed while committing the foregoing infringing acts" for each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶38, 46, 54, 62, 70, 78). However, the only factual basis provided for this knowledge is notice "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶33), which supports only a claim for post-suit willfulness. The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to several fundamental questions rooted in the complaint's high-level allegations.

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the specific, multi-step signal processing methods described in its early-priority patents are actually performed by the architecture of modern, ATSC-compliant digital televisions, or will the accused products be found to operate in a fundamentally different way?
  • A second key issue will be one of claim construction: Can patent claims drafted in the 1980s and 1990s, using terms like "multimedia presentation" and "control processor," be construed broadly enough to read on the integrated, software-driven functionalities of today's digital televisions, or will the court adopt narrower definitions tied to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patents?
  • A final question will concern willfulness: Absent specific factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge, will the Plaintiff be able to develop evidence that any infringement by Tongfang was "willful, wanton and deliberate," or will damages be limited to a reasonable royalty without enhancement?