DCT

2:19-cv-00089

Personalized Media Communications LLC v. Akamai Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00089, E.D. Tex., 03/21/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a substantial physical presence in the district, including servers installed with local Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s content delivery network and adaptive video streaming products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to digital signal processing, remote control of media distribution networks, and dynamic reprogramming of receiver stations.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on adaptive video streaming technology, which is fundamental to modern internet content delivery, allowing providers to deliver the highest possible quality video by tailoring the stream to a user's specific device and network conditions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously licensed its patented technology to numerous major technology and media companies, including Sony, Cisco, Samsung, and DirecTV. The complaint also lists several prior patent infringement cases brought by Plaintiff in the same court, suggesting a history of active enforcement of its patent portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1981-11-03 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,344 Issued
2011-01-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,865,920 Issued
2013-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,601,528 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,739,241 Issued
2017-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,674,560 Issued
2019-03-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,769,344 - “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,769,344, titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods,” issued on August 3, 2010 (’344 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of pre-internet era (c. 1981) television and cable systems, which lacked the capacity for remote or dynamic software updates. (Compl. ¶17). These systems were generally static, preventing the addition of new features or capabilities after deployment. (’344 Patent, col. 3:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a "receiver station" (e.g., a set-top box) to request and receive new operating instructions over a data network. The station executes a first set of instructions to generate a query for reprogramming, receives a second set of instructions in response, and then uses these new instructions to perform an updated function, such as processing a video transmission for display. (Compl. ¶¶17, 38; ’344 Patent, col. 265:35-55).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled automated software updates for receiver devices, which could extend their operational life, standardize software across a network, and allow for the remote addition of new features. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. (Compl. ¶38).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
    • Storing and executing first operating instructions at a receiver station to perform a first function.
    • Generating a query for reprogramming at the receiver station.
    • Promulgating the query from the receiver station to an external data network.
    • Receiving second, different operating instructions in response to the query.
    • Reprogramming the station’s processor with the received second instructions.
    • Performing a second function by executing the second instructions, including controlling, receiving, processing, and outputting a video programming transmission.

U.S. Patent No. 7,865,920 - “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,865,920, titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods,” issued on January 4, 2011 (’920 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the lack of centralized network control over media distribution systems available in 1987, particularly with respect to storing and retransmitting programming from intermediate points in the network. (Compl. ¶18). The prior art lacked the capacity to intelligently manage content across a network of origination, intermediate, and subscriber stations. (’920 Patent, col. 4:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for communicating programming through a network comprising origination, intermediate, and subscriber stations. Data is sent with the programming to instruct intermediate stations on when and how to retransmit content. This data can also be used to identify storage locations at the intermediate stations based on their capacities, allowing for intelligent caching and distribution. (Compl. ¶¶18, 44; ’920 Patent, col. 6:30-40).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for network-level control over audio/video storage and transmission at intermediate stations, a foundational concept for modern content delivery networks. (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 7 and 17, as well as dependent claims 8-9, 12, and 18-19. (Compl. ¶44).
  • Independent Claim 7 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
    • Passing units of audio or video programming and associated identifying data to a transmitter at an origination station.
    • The data is effective to instruct an intermediate transmission station when to retransmit the programming.
    • Processing data about the intermediate station's capacities to identify a storage location for the programming.
    • Storing the programming at the identified location, which is different for different units of programming.
    • Transferring the stored programming from one storage location to another based on the identifying data.
    • Transmitting the programming and associated data to the intermediate transmission stations.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,601,528:

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,601,528, titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods,” issued December 3, 2013 (’528 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for controlling a receiver station to handle incomplete video data. It uses data associated with a television signal to determine if a video image is complete; if not, the station is prevented from displaying the incomplete image and automatically advances to subsequent, complete information. (Compl. ¶19).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 21-27, 32, and 37-39, including independent claims 21, 32, and 37. (Compl. ¶50).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Akamai's Adaptive Media Player software, running on a receiver station, determines the absence of complete video data (e.g., missing frames), identifies a subsequent point in the stream to continue from, and prevents the monitor from displaying the incomplete image. (Compl. ¶50).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,739,241:

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,739,241, titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods,” issued May 27, 2014 (’241 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to remotely controlling systems within a media distribution network using control signals transmitted with the programming. One signal controls transmission from an intermediate station based on previously stored information, while another signal is sent to the receiver to facilitate program output. (Compl. ¶20).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 16-17, 22-23, 30, 33-34, 36-37, and 39, including independent claims 16, 22, 30, 36, and 39. (Compl. ¶56).
    • Accused Features: Akamai's control over its CDN servers (allegedly intermediate stations) to communicate television programming to devices (allegedly receiver stations) is accused. The complaint alleges that control signals like TCP/IP identifiers and metadata are used to automatically find and transmit audio/video chunks from the servers. (Compl. ¶¶22, 56).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,674,560:

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,674,560, titled “Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods,” issued June 6, 2017 (’560 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for remotely controlling media storage at an intermediate transmission station. Control signals included in the media transmission cause the intermediate station to select media for storage based on operating records already stored there, select a specific storage location, and update its records to reflect the new storage. (Compl. ¶21).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 4-10, including independent method claim 5. (Compl. ¶62).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Akamai's CDN edge nodes, which allegedly receive control signals (e.g., container data, metadata) that cause them to select portions of a television program for storage based on operating records of what is already cached at the node. (Compl. ¶¶25, 62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Akamai's Content Delivery Network (CDN), Adaptive Media Delivery, Akamai Intelligent Platform, Intelligent Edge Platform, Managed CDN, Licensed CDN, Video On Demand, and Adaptive Media Player product and service offerings (collectively, the "Accused Akamai Products and Services"). (Compl. ¶34).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused services as a "large, geographically distributed network of specialized servers that accelerate the delivery of web content and rich media to internet-connected devices." (Compl. ¶6). To reduce latency and congestion, the system employs a distributed architecture that "caches content close to end users" by placing servers within local ISP networks. (Compl. ¶7). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating how this architecture bypasses the "middle mile" of the internet to serve content more directly to users from ISP-hosted servers. (Compl. p. 3). The complaint asserts Akamai has a significant global presence, with "more than 233,000 servers in more than 130 countries and within 1600 networks around the world." (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’344 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method for reprogramming a receiver station that receives television or radio programming, said receiver station having a data network connection to an external data network, a processor, an input device, and a data storage device... Akamai is alleged to reprogram devices running its video player software, such as computers and mobile devices, which have CPUs, network connections, and data storage. ¶38 col. 1:45-50
storing first operating instructions at said receiver station, executing said first operating instructions...to perform a first function... Akamai allegedly stores and executes operating instructions, such as those for an initial license request, which are different from permanently stored instructions like BIOS. ¶13 col. 286:60-65
generating a query at said receiver station, said query comprising a request by said receiver station for reprogramming The system generates a query for a license to be reprogrammed for a portion of a television program during playback. ¶14 col. 286:2-5
promulgating said query from said receiver station...through said data network connection to said external data network The device running Akamai’s player software sends the query over the internet to Akamai's servers. ¶14 col. 286:5-10
receiving second operating instructions different from both said permanent operating instructions and said first operating instructions in response to said step of promulgating said query... In response to the query, Akamai sends second license operating instructions (e.g., for content decryption) to the device. ¶14 col. 286:11-18
reprogramming said processor with said received second operating instructions The processor is allegedly reprogrammed by updating the Content Decryption Module with the received license operating instructions. ¶14 col. 286:19-21
performing a second function by executing said second operating instructions at said processor, said second function including controlling reception of signals required to output a video programming transmission The device performs a second function, such as decrypting subsequent audio or video content, by executing the new license instructions. ¶14 col. 286:22-29
receiving said signals required to output said video programming transmission; processing said signals...; and outputting said video programming transmission... The device receives, decodes, and outputs the video programming for display on a computer, mobile device, or television. ¶14 col. 286:30-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "receiver station", as contemplated in a patent with a 1981 priority date, can be construed to cover modern general-purpose computing devices like PCs and smartphones.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether receiving temporary "license operating instructions" to update a "Content Decryption Module" constitutes "reprogramming said processor" in the manner required by the claim, or if the claim requires a more fundamental alteration of the device's core operating software.

’920 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method of communicating programming to subscribers in a network, said network including one or more programming origination stations, a plurality of intermediate transmission stations, and a plurality of subscriber stations... Akamai's CDN is alleged to be such a network, with data centers as origination stations, edge nodes as intermediate stations, and user devices as subscriber stations. ¶¶16, 44 col. 287:5-15
passing a plurality of units of audio or video programming to a transmitter at said one or more programming origination stations Akamai passes units of television programming (files/segments) to a network port at its data centers. ¶17 col. 288:17-20
passing to said transmitter...data identifying said units...said data effective to instruct...at least one of said plurality of intermediate transmission stations to indicate when to retransmit said plurality of units... Akamai passes metadata (e.g., segment index) that instructs an edge node when to retransmit the programming units to subscribers. ¶17 col. 288:21-27
wherein data of one or more predetermined transmission station capacities is processed at said at least one of said plurality of intermediate transmission stations to identify one of said plurality of storage locations at which to store... Akamai edge nodes allegedly process data relating to the caching device type and storage capacity to identify a storage location for a unit of programming. ¶17 col. 288:28-34
wherein said identified storage locations are different for each of said plurality of units of audio or video programming In the storage used by Akamai, the identified storage locations are allegedly different for video and audio data. ¶17 col. 288:35-37
wherein said stored at least one of said plurality of units of programming is transferred from said identified one of said plurality of storage locations to another of said plurality of storage locations based on said data... Based on programming unit identifiers and station capacities, Akamai transfers a file or segment from one location in nonvolatile storage to another location in the edge/caching network. ¶17 col. 288:38-45
transmitting said plurality of units...and said data...to said plurality of intermediate transmission stations Akamai origination stations send programming units (segments/files) and associated data to the edge nodes. ¶17 col. 288:46-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether Akamai’s dynamic, on-demand CDN architecture, with its "edge nodes" and "caching devices", functions as the "intermediate transmission stations" described in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be what evidence supports the allegation that Akamai’s edge nodes perform the specific step of processing "predetermined transmission station capacities" to identify storage locations, or if the caching decisions are made based on other network metrics not contemplated by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’344 Patent

  • The Term: "reprogramming said processor"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to Plaintiff's infringement theory. Its construction will determine whether Akamai’s process of sending license instructions to a client device for content decryption falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that this process is merely providing data for a pre-existing function (decryption), not fundamentally altering the processor's operation as "reprogramming" implies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an objective of providing "flexibility for expanding the capacity of installed systems by means of translated software for adding or installing systems in a modular fashion" ('344 Patent, col. 9:18-23), which may support a view that any modification of software function constitutes reprogramming.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of reprogramming that involve loading entire operating systems or new versions of software, stating that "one advantage of the present invention relates to expanding said system in new functions, and the present invention can be conveniently overwritten." ('344 Patent, col. 264:59-62). This could suggest a more substantial change than receiving a temporary decryption key.

’920 Patent

  • The Term: "intermediate transmission station"
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff maps this term directly onto Akamai's "edge nodes or edge node clusters." (Compl. ¶16). The viability of the infringement case for the ’920 Patent may depend on this construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because Akamai's CDN is a dynamic, distributed system, which may be argued as technologically distinct from the more centralized, broadcast-oriented "intermediate stations" envisioned in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines these stations functionally as those that "receive and retransmit programming" from origination stations to ultimate receiver stations. ('920 Patent, col. 22:40-45). This broad functional description could encompass a modern caching server.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description heavily features examples related to broadcast television, cable headends, and satellite uplinks that record and retransmit entire programs on a schedule. ('920 Patent, col. 175:1-178:60). This context might be used to argue that the term requires a station that operates in a scheduled, broadcast-like manner, rather than an on-demand, packet-based internet cache.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. The basis for inducement is Akamai allegedly "providing instructions, manuals, and technical assistance" to its partners, developers, customers, and end-users, causing them to perform steps of the claimed methods, for example at the end-user device. (Compl. ¶¶39, 45, 51, 57, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant has had notice of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the time of the filing of the complaint," which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness or enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶36). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

This dispute will likely involve a significant technological translation, mapping concepts from patents with 1980s priority dates onto a modern, complex internet architecture. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the 1980s context of broadcast and cable television, such as "receiver station" and "reprogramming", be construed to cover modern software components like client-side video players and the dynamic, temporary loading of decryption keys in an internet streaming environment?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: does Akamai's distributed, on-demand caching network, with its "edge nodes", operate in the same way as the patent's "intermediate transmission stations", particularly with respect to the claimed methods of selecting storage locations based on pre-determined station capacities?
  • A further point of contention may be the materiality of the instructions: do the "control signals" and "operating instructions" identified by the Plaintiff—such as metadata and decryption licenses—perform the specific control and reprogramming functions required by the claims, or do they represent a fundamentally different type of data exchange not envisioned by the patents?