Nostromo LLC v. HTC Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: HTC Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00559, E.D. Tex., 07/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile phones and virtual reality headsets infringe five U.S. patents related to adaptive media streaming, security for semiconductor memory, and three-dimensional imaging.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover technologies central to the user experience and security of modern consumer electronics, including on-demand video delivery and device authentication.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of at least the family of the ’453 Patent because it was cited during the prosecution of Defendant's own U.S. Patent. This allegation may be used to support claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,319,453 - “User-Controlled Download Duration Time”

Issued April 19, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a situation where a user’s decision on the quality of a media stream is made before the download begins, without the ability to dynamically control the download based on a desired completion time (’453 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user provides a "download duration time" that defines when a download should be completed. A server then determines an appropriate media quality that can be delivered within that timeframe, transmits the content, and dynamically monitors and modifies the quality during transmission to ensure the deadline is met (’453 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-9).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to give users direct control over the trade-off between download speed and media quality, a key consideration for managing data consumption and user experience in metered or time-sensitive network environments.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶20).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Obtaining a download duration time from a client.
  • Determining a media quality based on that duration time.
  • Transmitting a version of the media content at that quality.
  • During transmission, monitoring the remaining download duration time.
  • Modifying the quality based on the remaining time.
  • Continuing transmission with a second, modified-quality version of the content to meet the defined completion time.

U.S. Patent No. 9,112,942 - “Dynamic Modification of Media Streams’ Quality”

Issued August 18, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need to enable users to better control the downloading of media content by changing parameters, such as quality, during the download process itself (’942 Patent, col. 2:61-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a client receives a first part of a media file at one quality and, upon user input, receives a second part at a different quality, resulting in a single media file with mixed-quality segments. Crucially, the method also includes a step for selectively re-downloading a portion that was previously downloaded at a lower quality to upgrade it to a higher quality (’942 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:15-26).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides users with granular, on-the-fly control over the quality-versus-speed trade-off, and introduces a mechanism to retroactively improve the quality of already-received content.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶31).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A client receiving a first portion of media content at a first quality.
  • In response to a user indication, determining a change to a second quality.
  • The client receiving a second portion of the media content at the second quality.
  • Enabling the client to display the received media, which comprises portions of different qualities.
  • In response to receiving the content, selectively re-downloading a previously downloaded low-quality portion at a higher quality.

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,565 - “System and Method for Identification of Memory”

Issued March 29, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses securing data on semiconductor devices from unauthorized duplication (Compl. ¶14; ’565 Patent, col. 2:5-9). It proposes using the inherent, unique physical imperfections of a memory chip as a form of physical unclonable function (PUF), creating a "defect map" that serves as a fingerprint to authenticate the specific hardware device (’565 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that flash memory storage devices, such as those in HTC mobile devices equipped with SD cards, implement this technology (Compl. ¶¶41, 43).

U.S. Patent No. 8,572,440 - “System and method for managing information stored in semiconductors”

Issued October 29, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent relates to technology for securely storing and determining errors in a semiconductor device (Compl. ¶14). The infringement allegations describe a method of identifying a memory by detecting defects, comparing them to a previously-created defect map, and confirming or denying the memory’s identity based on whether the defects match (Compl. ¶54).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses flash memory storage devices, such as those in HTC mobile devices equipped with SD cards, of infringement (Compl. ¶¶52-54).

U.S. Patent No. 10,362,292 - “System and Method for Three Dimensional Imaging”

Issued July 23, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to overcome the limitations of standard 2D mobile phone cameras by providing a system for 3D imaging (’292 Patent, col. 1:19-28). The solution involves a light source, a modulator, and optical circuitry that splits a light beam into a reference path and an object-sensing path. The system processes the combined output of these paths to extract 3D depth information from an object (’292 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses mobile phones and virtual reality headsets, such as the HTC VIVE XR Elite, that are configured with cameras and other sensors (e.g., lidar) to extract 3D information (Compl. ¶¶63, 65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names HTC mobile devices, including the HTC U24 Pro, and virtual reality headsets, including the HTC VIVE XR Elite, as accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products implement infringing technologies across several functional areas. For the ’453 and ’942 patents, the relevant functionality is media communication, allegedly performed by devices equipped with the AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) video codec and streaming applications (Compl. ¶13).
• For the ’565 and ’440 patents, the accused functionality relates to the use of flash memory storage, such as SD cards (Compl. ¶14).
• For the ’292 patent, the infringement allegations target devices with cameras and other sensors (e.g., lidar) configured to perform three-dimensional imaging (Compl. ¶15).
• The complaint alleges that HTC does business in Texas and sells the accused products to customers in the district and throughout the U.S. (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’453 Patent Infringement Allegations

’942 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question for the ’453 Patent is whether the accused products’ adaptive streaming is driven by a user-specified "download duration time," as claimed, or by automated network condition monitoring, which is common in the industry. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation on this point (Compl. ¶21).
• Technical Questions: For the ’942 Patent, a key factual dispute may arise over the "selectively re-downloading" limitation. The analysis will question whether the accused products perform this specific step of upgrading an already downloaded portion of content, or if they only modify the quality of future, not-yet-received segments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "download duration time" (’453 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central input that drives the claimed method. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers systems that merely estimate a completion time versus those that actively adjust quality to meet a user-mandated deadline. Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement theory depends on whether this is an active user input or a passive system output.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any time value associated with the download.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "user" providing this time, suggesting an explicit user input is required (e.g., ’453 Patent, col. 5:10-14, "A user utilizing a client ... may determine a time duration in which the media content should be downloaded"). The title itself, "User-Controlled Download Duration Time," also suggests active user control.

Term: "selectively re-downloading a portion of the received media content that was previously downloaded in a lower quality" (’942 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to describe a post-hoc quality upgrade, a feature that distinguishes the claim from simple adaptive bitrate switching. Infringement will depend heavily on whether the accused products perform this specific function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "previously downloaded" could refer to content that has been received into a temporary buffer but not yet permanently stored, potentially broadening the scope to include advanced buffering techniques.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses this step in the context of improving segments after the initial download has progressed (e.g., '942 Patent, col. 10:15-23, "...if the user initially selected SD quality, and after downloading commenced, changed to an HD quality, the client may selectively re-download the segments that were received in SD quality."). This suggests a specific process of replacing already-stored, lower-quality data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents-in-suit, asserting that Defendant provides the accused products to customers and end-users with instructions on how to operate the infringing technology through its website, product literature, and packaging (Compl. ¶¶25, 36, 47, 58, 68).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, the complaint alleges Defendant has a policy of "willfully blind[ness]" by not reviewing patents in its industry (Compl. ¶¶24, 35, 46, 58, 67). Second, for the ’453 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on Defendant having cited the patent’s family during the prosecution of its own patent application (Compl. p. 6, n.1).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the complaint provide sufficient factual basis to suggest that HTC's products, which likely employ standard network-responsive adaptive streaming, perform the specific, user-driven "download duration time" logic required by the '453 patent?
• A second key question will be one of functional specificity: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products perform the precise step of "selectively re-downloading" already-received content to a higher quality, as claimed in the '942 patent, or is this a functional mismatch with how the accused streaming technology operates?
• For the '565 and '440 patents, a core issue will concern proof and scope: Will the asserted method of identifying memory via a "defect map" be found to read on the accused devices' security functions, and can infringement be proven through non-destructive testing of the products' firmware and hardware?