Media Key LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00143, E.D. Tex., 02/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products of the Defendant infringe a patent related to distributing updateable content that is initiated from a physical or portable storage medium.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delivering dynamic, up-to-date content from a server to a user, where the process is initiated by an application stored on a piece of portable media, such as a promotional CD-ROM.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff states it is the assignee of all rights to the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876, "Media Key for Updateable Content Distribution," issued October 20, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of distributing content on static, write-once media like standard CDs. For content that changes frequently, such as a retail catalog with updating prices or inventory, distributing it on a CD meant it would quickly become obsolete, requiring the costly creation and distribution of a new physical disc. (’876 Patent, col. 1:14-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system where a "Keying Application" is pre-installed on a portable storage medium (e.g., a CD, memory card) along with a unique "Source ID." When a user accesses this medium on a network-connected device, the Keying Application automatically contacts a remote "Content Server." The server uses the Source ID and a unique User ID to deliver personalized and "dynamic" content back to the user's device for display, effectively turning the static physical medium into a gateway for live, updateable information. (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-23).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for companies to leverage mass-distributed physical media for marketing while ensuring the end-user experience was current and customizable, bridging the gap between offline and online content delivery. (’876 Patent, col. 4:21-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are exemplary, instead referencing an external exhibit not included with the filing. (’876 Patent, ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a system claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • At least one network-connected content server adapted for creating and updating information for a user profile.
  • A "keying application" stored on an "external storage media" that launches on an electronic device.
  • The keying application selects a user ID and transmits it, along with a "storage media identifier," to the content server.
  • The keying application selects the user ID based on the storage media identifier and other indicia.
  • If the external storage media is "non-recordable," the keying application records the user ID (generated by the content server) on the local electronic device running the application.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically identify any accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint. (’Compl. ¶11, 16). However, this exhibit was not included with the complaint as filed in the public docket.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external exhibit that was not provided with the public filing, precluding a detailed tabular analysis. (’Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint's narrative theory alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ’876 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (’Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent’s disclosure and the general nature of Defendant's business, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions.

Scope Questions

The patent’s specification and claims repeatedly reference "processor readable portable external storage media," with specific examples including "floppy disk, magnetic tape, EEPROMS, CD, DVD, memory card." (’876 Patent, col. 6:62-67; Claim 1). A primary question for the court will be whether this term, rooted in the context of tangible, physical media, can be construed to read on the likely software-based or digital distribution models of Defendant's modern products and services.

Technical Questions

Claim 1 requires a specific functional sequence wherein a "keying application" from a "non-recordable" medium causes a user ID from a server to be recorded on the "local electronic device." (’876 Patent, col. 8:59-65). It raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that any of Defendant's products perform this precise two-part function: first, identifying the originating source as "non-recordable," and second, responsively saving a server-generated ID to the local device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"processor readable portable external storage media" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The construction of this term is fundamental to the scope of the patent. Whether it is limited to tangible, physical media or can encompass digitally transmitted files will likely be a central point of dispute, determining if the patent is applicable to modern software distribution.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any type of media, volatile or non-volatile, can be used." (’876 Patent, col. 6:62-63). A party could argue this language is intentionally broad and not limited to the specific physical examples provided.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is replete with examples of physical, tangible media, such as "a mini-CD/DVD," "floppy disc, magnetic tape, memory card, and EEPROMS." (’876 Patent, col. 8:10; col. 10:24-27). A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "media" in the context of the patent's 2003 priority date, along with the consistent use of these physical examples, limits the term to tangible objects.

"keying application" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the software component that enables the patented method. Its construction will determine whether it requires a specific, standalone program or could read on a broader class of software, such as a web browser plug-in or an integrated feature of a larger application.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the "keying application" functionally, by what it does (e.g., "selecting the user ID and transmitting the user ID"). (’876 Patent, col. 8:52-55). A party may argue that any code module performing these functions meets the definition, regardless of its form.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description characterizes the application as a "self-contained, user interface" that is "preinstalled" on the media and "eliminates the need for use of any other external programs." (’876 Patent, col. 4:37-43; col. 2:14). A party may argue this supports a narrower construction requiring a distinct, standalone application rather than an integrated software feature.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '876 Patent." (’Compl. ¶14). The complaint references the non-provided Exhibit 2 as containing evidence of these materials. (’Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" but bases this knowledge exclusively on "The service of this Complaint," which may support a claim for enhanced damages for any infringement occurring post-filing, but does not allege pre-suit knowledge. (’Compl. ¶13).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "processor readable portable external storage media," which is described in the patent with examples from the physical media era like CDs and floppy disks, be construed to cover the purely digital software delivery and execution environments of Amazon’s modern commerce platform?
• A second central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: as the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular Amazon product to the patent, a key question for discovery will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that an accused product actually performs the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims, particularly the steps of using a "storage media identifier" and locally recording a user ID in response to the media being "non-recordable."