DCT

2:25-cv-00086

Onstream Media Corp v. Digital Samba SL

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00086, E.D. Tex., 01/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), such a defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s browser-based video conferencing products and services infringe nine U.S. patents related to systems and methods for remotely recording, storing, and delivering audio and video streams without requiring specialized client-side software.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses browser-based, server-side recording of media streams, a foundational capability for modern web-based communication, collaboration, and video-on-demand platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated April 4, 2024, and that Defendant’s counsel responded on April 24, 2024. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims for willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-03-24 Earliest Priority Date for all patents-in-suit
2006-01-01 Accused Digital Samba service expanded to the USA (approx.)
2015-10-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068 Issued
2016-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 Issued
2018-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930 Issued
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648 Issued
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,674,109 Issued
2020-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,694,142 Issued
2020-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,848,707 Issued
2021-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,951,855 Issued
2021-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,128,833 Issued
2024-04-24 Defendant allegedly gained knowledge of patents-in-suit
2025-01-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

The first two patents-in-suit listed in the complaint, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,161,068 and 9,467,728, were not provided for analysis. The following analysis is performed on the next two listed patents for which infringement counts are detailed and for which patent documents were available: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,038,930 and 10,200,648. The complaint states that all asserted patents share the same specification (Compl. ¶¶30, 36, 42, etc.).

U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930, issued July 31, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where adding capabilities to online communication systems often increases their complexity and the computer system requirements for end-users. This creates a barrier for attracting new users and limits productivity (’930 Patent, col. 1:49-62; Compl. ¶¶21-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for recording audio/video streams using an internet browser connection where the recording software and storage reside on a “host back end” server rather than the user’s local machine (“user front end”). This allows a user to initiate a recording from their device without needing to install specialized software or plugins (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-31). The system can then generate code, such as an HTML snippet, that allows the recorded media to be easily embedded and accessed from another location, like an auction website (’930 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This server-side recording architecture simplified the process of creating and distributing user-generated video content on the web, a critical function for the growth of online auctions, social media, and remote collaboration platforms (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A method comprising transmitting, via a network, a browser-independent recording application from a backend server to a client device, where the application executes in a browser.
    • Receiving, at the backend server, a media stream from the client device.
    • The media stream is captured via the browser-independent recording application executing in the browser "without using recording management software installed on the client device."
    • Recording the media stream on the backend server using the browser-independent recording application.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648 - "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648, issued February 5, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • The technology described is identical to that of the ’930 Patent, as it shares a common specification (Compl. ¶42). The invention focuses on providing a server-side, browser-based recording system to simplify the creation and distribution of audio/video content without requiring client-side software installation (’648 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • An Internet-based recording method performing audio and video recording functions over an Internet browser connection between a user front end and a host back end.
    • Recording audio and video material created by a user over the connection.
    • This recording occurs "without requiring recording functionality to be present in a device of the user."
    • Generating one or more codes associated with the recorded and stored material to facilitate access.
    • Enabling the copying and pasting of the code to additional locations.
    • The activation of the code provides access to the recorded material from the additional locations.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,674,109: Titled "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room," issued June 2, 2020. The patent addresses the same server-side, browser-based recording technology. Asserted claims include at least Claim 1, a method claim. Accused features include the Digital Samba System's method of transmitting a browser-independent application from its servers to a client device for execution in a browser, receiving a media stream from the client, and recording it on the server (Compl. ¶¶137-139).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,694,142: Titled "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room," issued June 23, 2020. The patent addresses the same server-side, browser-based recording technology. Asserted claims include at least Claim 1, a method claim. Accused features involve the Digital Samba System’s method of delivering code to a user's device to initiate streaming and recording of audio/video material captured by the user's device to Digital Samba's servers, without requiring prior installation of that code (Compl. ¶¶147-150).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,848,707: Titled "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room," issued November 24, 2020. The patent addresses the same server-side, browser-based recording technology. Asserted claims include at least Claim 1, a method claim. Accused features include Digital Samba’s method of receiving streamed media from a user’s device at its backend servers and remotely recording it as a sequentially stored file, then generating a URL to access that file (Compl. ¶¶156-159).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,951,855: Titled "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room," issued March 16, 2021. The patent addresses the same server-side, browser-based recording technology. Asserted claims include at least Claim 1, a system claim. Accused features include components of the Digital Samba System, such as its mobile application and backend servers, which allegedly comprise a secure distributed recording system that uses a stream number to initiate secure streaming from a mobile device to the backend server (Compl. ¶¶166-170).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,128,833: Titled "Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room," issued September 21, 2021. The patent addresses the same server-side, browser-based recording technology. Asserted claims include at least Claim 1, a method claim. Accused features include the Digital Samba System’s method for network-based recording using only executable code delivered from the host to the user’s front end, and then storing the recorded material at the host back end (Compl. ¶¶179-182).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Digital Samba for Meetings," "Digital Samba Embedded," and the collective "Digital Samba System," which includes the associated servers, software, and components that enable the services (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The Digital Samba System is a browser-based service for video conferencing, webinars, and collaboration (Compl. ¶¶6, 75). A key accused feature is "Cloud recordings," which allows users to "Record your meetings or webinars directly on our secure servers and access them through the API for easy retrieval and management" (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges this functionality is provided without requiring users to install specialized recording software on their local devices (Compl. ¶83). A screenshot in the complaint shows a list of recordings stored on the Digital Samba dashboard, indicating server-side storage and management (Compl. p. 28). The complaint asserts that Digital Samba is used by major corporations and educational institutions, indicating its commercial significance (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method comprising: transmitting, via a network, a browser-independent recording application from a backend server to a client device, the application executing in a browser on the client device; The Digital Samba System allegedly transmits browser-executable code from its servers to a user's device, which then runs within the user's browser to initiate recording. ¶111 col. 2:25-31
receiving, at the backend server, a media stream from a media input at the client device via the network, wherein the media stream is captured via the browser-independent recording application executing in the browser without using recording management software installed on the client device; The system allegedly captures the user's audio and video stream via the browser-executed code, without requiring the user to install any separate recording management software. The complaint provides a screenshot showing a browser prompt to "Use your camera & microphone," which it alleges is part of the initiation of this capture process (Compl. p. 33). ¶112-113 col. 2:18-24
and recording the media stream on the backend server using the browser-independent recording application. The captured media stream is allegedly recorded and stored on Digital Samba’s servers. The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Cloud recordings" feature to support this allegation (Compl. p. 42). ¶114 col. 2:21-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "browser-independent recording application." Defendant may argue that the browser-executable code it provides is not an "application" in the sense contemplated by the 2004-priority-date patent, particularly if it relies heavily on modern, browser-native APIs (like WebRTC) that did not exist at the time of invention.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system functions "without using recording management software installed on the client device." The question is whether the browser’s own built-in media handling capabilities, leveraged by Defendant's code, could be construed as such software, potentially placing the accused system outside the literal claim scope.

U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An Internet-based recording method...comprising: recording audio and video material that is created by a user over the Internet browser connection, without requiring recording functionality to be present in a device of the user; Digital Samba's system allegedly records audio and video from a user's device over a browser connection, with the recording functionality residing on its servers, not the user's local device. A screenshot shows a user interface with a "Start recording" button inside a browser window (Compl. p. 57). ¶125 col. 2:10-18
generating one or more codes, including but not to URL and HTML codes, associated with the recorded and stored audio and video, to facilitate accessing the recorded and stored audio and video material; After a recording is made and stored on its servers, the Digital Samba system allegedly generates codes, such as a URL, to access the recording. The complaint includes a screenshot showing a menu with a "Copy link" option for a stored recording (Compl. p. 60). ¶126 col. 2:32-35
enabling the copying and pasting of the code to additional locations, wherein the activation of such a code provides access to the recorded and video material from the additional locations. The system allegedly allows users to copy and paste these generated codes (e.g., URLs) into other locations, and activating the code (e.g., clicking the link) provides access to the stored recording. ¶127 col. 2:38-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the term "without requiring recording functionality to be present in a device of the user." Defendant may argue that modern browsers possess inherent recording functionalities (e.g., MediaStream Recording API) that are "present in the device" and are essential for the system to work, thus distinguishing it from the claimed invention.
    • Technical Questions: Evidence will be needed to determine precisely how the accused system generates and handles the "codes." The question will be whether the functionality of copying a shareable link and having it provide access to a cloud-stored file meets the specific steps recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "browser-independent recording application" (’930 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the '930 patent. Whether the browser-executable code delivered by Digital Samba qualifies as this "application" will likely be a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning is ambiguous in the context of modern web technologies that did not exist when the patent application was filed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems requiring "additional 'plug in' or other additional custom software application to be downloaded and installed locally" (’930 Patent, col. 6:1-4). This may support an interpretation that any executable code that is not a traditional, pre-installed browser plugin meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "application" and the 2004 priority date could suggest a more self-contained software object, like a Java Applet or Flash application, which were common at the time. A defendant may argue that simple JavaScript leveraging native browser APIs is not an "application" in this context and is inherently "browser-dependent."

  • The Term: "without requiring recording functionality to be present in a device of the user" (’648 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical for infringement of the '648 patent. The case may turn on whether the accused system, which relies on modern browser capabilities, avoids using "recording functionality" that is "present in" the user's device.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): A defendant could argue that any capability of the browser or operating system to capture media is "functionality... present in a device of the user." Since the accused system must leverage these capabilities, it would not infringe.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring infringement): The specification’s goal is to avoid the need for the user to install special software (’648 Patent, col. 1:49-54). This suggests the claim term refers to user-installed, dedicated recording programs, not the inherent, built-in media-handling APIs of a standard web browser.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Digital Samba induces infringement by "instructing and encouraging its customers to use the Digital Samba System through the publishing, distribution, and propagation of user guides, support documents, blog posts, live events, streaming API’s, and instructions" (Compl. ¶¶89, 104, 117, 130). This is alleged to have occurred with knowledge since at least April 24, 2024.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint claims that Defendant has been on notice "at least as early as April 24, 2024, when its counsel, Josep Carbonell, responded to Onstream’s April 4, 2024 letter concerning Digital Samba’s infringement of the patents-in-suit" (Compl. ¶¶88, 103, 116, 129). Continued alleged infringement after this date is asserted as willful.

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

  • A core issue will be one of temporal claim scope: can claim terms like "browser-independent recording application," rooted in a 2004 technological context of plugins like Flash and Java Applets, be construed to read on a modern system that uses browser-executable JavaScript to leverage native browser APIs like WebRTC, which did not exist at the time of invention?
  • A key infringement question will be one of technical locus of functionality: does the accused Digital Samba system operate "without requiring recording functionality to be present in a device of the user," or do the inherent media-capture capabilities of modern web browsers constitute such functionality, thereby placing the system's operation outside the literal scope of the claims?
  • A central issue for damages will be willfulness: given the complaint's specific allegation of pre-suit notice and a response from defendant's counsel, the court will likely examine whether Defendant's conduct after April 24, 2024 was objectively reckless, potentially exposing it to enhanced damages if infringement is found.