DCT

2:23-cv-00554

MusicQubed Innovations LLC v. Chicken Soup for Soul Entertainment Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00554, E.D. Tex., 03/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and derive substantial revenue from customers located there. The complaint lists specific business addresses and job postings that require employees to store company merchandise at their personal residences within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Redbox streaming services and associated mobile applications infringe seven U.S. patents related to digital media distribution, content management, server upgrades, and user interface technology.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern the architecture for delivering, managing, protecting, and presenting digital media, which are foundational elements of the modern video-on-demand and streaming market.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an Original Complaint, the receipt of which Plaintiff alleges established Defendants' knowledge of the asserted patents for the purposes of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-25 ’616 Patent Priority Date
2001-07-31 ’077 Patent Priority Date
2003-10-16 ’274 Patent Priority Date
2004-12-21 ’685 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-31 ’616 Patent Issue Date
2007-10-09 ’274 Patent Issue Date
2008-12-02 ’077 Patent Issue Date
2010-04-30 ’277 Patent Priority Date
2010-04-30 ’601 Patent Priority Date
2011-09-06 ’685 Patent Issue Date
2015-01-06 ’277 Patent Issue Date
2015-04-30 ’215 Patent Priority Date
2016-11-08 ’215 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-05 ’601 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. RE 42,685 - "Upgrading Digital Media Servers"

  • Issued: September 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶24)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of upgrading software components on a digital media server without interrupting the server's media delivery services, which traditionally required taking the server offline (RE42,685, Abstract; col. 1:47-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a "hot-swap" or runtime upgrade of software components within an object-oriented environment. The process involves identifying a new software object from an upgrade package, locking both the new object and the old object it is intended to replace, copying data fields, rerouting all software links to the new object, and then unlocking the new object while removing the old one, thereby maintaining continuous service (RE42,685, Abstract; col. 2:50-67).
  • Technical Importance: This method supports high-availability systems by allowing for seamless software updates and bug fixes on live servers, which is critical for minimizing downtime and associated revenue loss for continuous media delivery services (RE42,685, col. 2:20-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Performing a method of upgrading a digital media server that has an object-oriented runtime environment.
    • Checking for an upgrade package with new objects and evaluating their compatibility.
    • Instantiating the new objects in memory.
    • Determining if a new object replaces an old one.
    • If replacement occurs, performing a sequence of steps: locking the old and new objects, copying fields, establishing links to the new object, rerouting links from the old object, unlocking the new object, and removing the old object.

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,616 - "System And Method For Providing Content, Management, And Interactivity For Client Devices"

  • Issued: October 31, 2006 (Compl. ¶36)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an architecture to manage and automatically deliver rich internet content to inexpensive client devices beyond the personal computer, based on user preferences (’616 Patent, col. 2:26-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a central "computer" (depicted as a PC) automatically obtains digital audiovisual content from a wide area network based on user preferences. This computer then uses a wireless transceiver to transmit a representation of that content to a "television" for playback. The playback on the television can be manipulated from a separate "portable electronic device" (’616 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The patent outlines a home media hub architecture where a local computer acts as a server to cache, manage, and wirelessly distribute internet-sourced content to other consumer electronics devices within a home network (’616 Patent, col. 8:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Using previously provided user preferences to automatically obtain and transfer digitally encoded audiovisual content from a wide area network to a computer.
    • Causing a television in communication with the computer via a wireless data transceiver to play a representation of the content.
    • Manipulating the play of the content on the television from a portable electronic device.

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,215 - "Electronic Media Distribution System"

  • Issued: November 8, 2016 (Compl. ¶48)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses secure content distribution. It describes a method where a receiving device requests content from a server, sends messages indicating the installed software it uses for content protection (e.g., DRM), and only receives the content if the server determines that software is trusted to enforce the associated content policy (Compl. ¶55).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the content protection and encryption functions of the Redbox App and website of infringing the ’215 patent (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 7,461,077 - "Representation Of Data Records"

  • Issued: December 2, 2008 (Compl. ¶60)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent concerns a user interface method for representing data on a display. The method involves querying a data source, presenting a data record, and also presenting a "record handle"—a separate visual element that represents the data record, tracks its state, and indicates a default action that will occur when a user clicks on it (Compl. ¶67).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the user interfaces of the Redbox website and Redbox App, specifically how they display and allow manipulation of media content listings (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 8,930,277 - "Content Management Apparatus"

  • Issued: January 6, 2015 (Compl. ¶79)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing content access rights. It involves a server defining temporary access permissions, distributing content to a user device as fragments, and then, in response to a "permission change or purchase event," instructing the user's application to convert the temporary fragments into a "permanent reconstructed format" (Compl. ¶86).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the functionality for downloading rented or purchased movies for offline viewing, alleging that this process converts content from a temporary (e.g., streaming) to a permanent (e.g., downloaded) format (Compl. ¶¶87-88).

U.S. Patent No. 7,281,274 - "Electronic Media Distribution System"

  • Issued: October 9, 2007 (Compl. ¶99)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a method for securely sharing information. It describes a process where sending instructions identify a specific type of memory device (e.g., an Android phone's internal storage) on which a file is permitted to be stored. The system determines if the recipient has the necessary transfer software to enforce this restriction and only sends the file if that software is installed (Compl. ¶106).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the feature for downloading rented and/or purchased videos from the Redbox website to a specific device, such as an Android phone (Compl. ¶107).

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,601 - "Content Management Apparatus"

  • Issued: November 5, 2019 (Compl. ¶118)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a content management apparatus that provides a chart of content items and tracks user engagement. The system is configured to determine different types of "consumption events" (e.g., viewing vs. sharing), associate different values with each event type, calculate scores based on these values, and automatically generate a report on the content's popularity based on this nuanced user response data (’601 Patent, col. 21:10-24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶124).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Redbox streaming system for free live TV, which provides a chart of channels and content for user selection (Compl. ¶126).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" include the Redbox streaming products and services, notably the Redbox mobile application ("Redbox App") and the services available via the Redbox.com website (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products provide an advertising-supported video-on-demand (AVOD) and free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) service (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges infringement by several specific technical functionalities, including:
    • Software update mechanisms for the Redbox App (Compl. ¶31).
    • Screen mirroring or "casting" of content from a mobile device to a television, for example using Chromecast (Compl. ¶¶32, 44). A screenshot from the Redbox Help Center provides instructions for this feature (Compl. Fig. 5, p. 12).
    • Downloading of rented or purchased content for offline viewing (Compl. ¶87). A Redbox Help Center screenshot explains this "Download for Offline Viewing" feature (Compl. Fig. 16, p. 28).
    • The user interface for selecting and playing content, including free live TV channels (Compl. ¶¶20, 68).
    • Content protection and encryption systems used to secure media streams (Compl. ¶56).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE42,685 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method of upgrading a digital media server comprising an object oriented runtime environment implemented in a memory The Accused Products, such as the Redbox App operating with screen mirroring, allegedly comprise or perform a method of upgrading a digital media server with an object-oriented runtime environment. ¶31, ¶32 col. 2:50-52
checking for the existence of an upgrade package comprising new objects; The Accused Products allegedly check for upgrade packages containing new software objects, such as when a new version of the Redbox App is available. ¶31 col. 2:53-54
determining whether a new object replaces an old object in the object oriented runtime environment; The Accused Products allegedly determine when a new software object in an update replaces an old object in the existing application. ¶31 col. 2:59-61
and if the new object replaces the old object, replacing the old object by: locking the old object and the new object; copying fields from the old object to the new object; establishing links...; rerouting links...; unlocking the new object; and removing the old object. The Accused Products allegedly perform a sequence of locking, copying, linking, rerouting, unlocking, and removing software objects to replace an old version with a new one during an update. A screenshot of a smartphone running the Redbox application is provided as an example of the accused functionality (Compl. Fig. 8, p. 15). ¶31 col. 2:62-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "digital media server." The complaint alleges that the client-side "Redbox App" is the server being upgraded (Compl. ¶32). The patent's specification, however, focuses on upgrading servers "without disrupting media delivery services," which may suggest a backend, multi-user server rather than an individual user's mobile application.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the update process for a mobile app, typically managed by an operating system's app store, performs the specific, granular sequence of locking, copying, rerouting, and unlocking objects as claimed?

7,130,616 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
using previously provided user specified preferences to automatically obtain and transfer digitally encoded audiovisual content from a wide area network to a computer The Accused Products allegedly use user preferences (e.g., viewing history, saved content) to automatically obtain audiovisual content from the internet (the wide area network) and transfer it to a computer. ¶43 col. 8:2-6
causing a television in communication with the computer via a wireless data transceiver to play a representation of the digitally encoded audiovisual content The Accused Products allegedly cause a television to play the content via a wireless data transceiver, with the complaint citing Chromecast as an example of the technology used for this step. ¶43, ¶44 col. 8:7-9
manipulating the play of the representation of digitally encoded audiovisual content on the television from a portable electronic device The Accused Products allegedly allow a user to manipulate playback on the television (e.g., pause, play) using a portable electronic device such as a smartphone running the Redbox App. A screenshot from the Redbox Help Center provides instructions on how to use a smartphone to control playback on a Chromecast device (Compl. Fig. 7, p. 15). ¶43, ¶44 col. 8:10-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires three distinct entities: a "computer," a "television," and a "portable electronic device." It raises the question of how the components in the accused streaming setup (e.g., Redbox backend servers, a smartphone, a Chromecast, a TV) map to these claimed roles. For instance, is the smartphone the "computer" that obtains content, or is it the "portable electronic device" that manipulates play?
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused functionality of streaming from a cloud server to a phone, which then casts to a TV, constitute "transfer[ring]" content "to a computer" which then communicates with the television, as the claim requires? The patent's figures depict a local PC acting as a media hub, raising the question of whether a cloud-based architecture meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’685 Patent

  • The Term: "digital media server"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the '685 Patent appears to depend on construing the client-side "Redbox App" as a "digital media server" (Compl. ¶32). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the patent applies to client application updates or is limited to backend infrastructure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly limit the "server" to a backend machine, potentially allowing for a functional definition that could include any software providing media services.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes upgrading "without disrupting media delivery services," and the background discusses avoiding downtime for "on-line media servers" (RE42,685, Abstract; col. 2:25-27). This context may support a narrower construction limited to continuously operating, multi-user backend servers where service disruption is a primary concern.

For the ’616 Patent

  • The Term: "computer"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific three-part architecture involving a "computer," a "television," and a "portable electronic device." The identity of the "computer" is critical. If Redbox's backend servers are the "computer," the claim requires them to communicate with the television "via a wireless data transceiver," which may present a factual challenge. If the user's smartphone is the "computer," its role must be distinguished from the "portable electronic device" that manipulates playback.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "computer" is used generally in the specification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's figures and detailed description consistently depict the "computer" as a local PC that functions as a home media hub, caching content and streaming it to other devices (’616 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:1-12). This could support a narrower construction requiring a local processing and storage hub, as distinct from either a remote cloud server or the portable device itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for the ’077, ’277, ’274, and ’601 patents. These allegations are based on Defendants allegedly providing instructions to users (e.g., via help center articles like the one shown in Figure 16 for offline viewing) and advertising features that, when used as intended, perform the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶69-70, 89-90, 108-109, 127-128).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’077, ’277, ’274, and ’601 patents. The allegations are based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents since at least the time of receiving the Original Complaint in the action, as well as an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶71-74, 91-94, 110-113, 129-132).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms grounded in the technology of the early 2000s, such as "digital media server" and a "computer" acting as a local media hub, be construed to read on the components of a modern, cloud-based, client-server streaming architecture?
  • A key technical question will be one of architectural mapping: does the operational flow of the accused Redbox services—involving backend servers, a mobile app, and casting devices—match the specific, sequential, and distinct component interactions required by the asserted method claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the patented versus the accused system architecture?
  • An evidentiary question for multiple patents will be one of user action versus system action: for claims directed at user-facing features like content management and display, the case may explore whether the allegedly infringing steps are performed by the accused system itself or are the result of user selections and standard operating system functions, particularly concerning the DRM and content protection patents.