Media Key LLC v. HTC Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: HTC Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00262, E.D. Tex., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and caused harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to using a software application on a device to access customized, updateable content from a remote server.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for linking a user or device to a remote content server to deliver dynamic information, bridging physical or local software distribution with live, network-based content.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is the assignee of all rights to the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876, "Media Key for Updateable Content Distribution", issued October 20, 2009 (’876 Patent).

U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 - "Media Key for Updateable Content Distribution"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of distributing content on static physical media like CDs. Once distributed, such information quickly becomes outdated (e.g., a product catalog with price changes), and updating it is impractical, requiring a new physical copy to be sent to the user ('876 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a physical, portable medium (e.g., a mini-CD) contains a "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID." When a user runs the application on a network-connected computer, it contacts a remote "Content Server," sending the Source ID and a unique User ID. The server then delivers customized and dynamically updateable content back to the user, effectively using the physical media as a key to unlock live online content ('876 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is designed to personalize the content based on a user profile built from factors like the Source ID and transaction history ('876 Patent, col. 3:1-9; col. 4:23-38).
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a method to link mass-distributed physical media with the benefits of dynamic, personalized, and up-to-date information delivered over the internet, a significant challenge in the early 2000s ('876 Patent, col. 2:4-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’876 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • At least one network-connected content server adapted for automatically creating and updating information according to a user profile and delivering it to an electronic device.
  • The profile is generated from factors including a "storage media identifier," a "user identity (user ID)," and transaction histories.
  • A "keying application" stored on "external storage media" for launching on the electronic device.
  • The keying application selects and transmits the user ID and the storage media identifier to the content server.
  • If the external storage media is non-recordable, the keying application records the user ID on the local electronic device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (the "Exemplary Defendant Products") and "numerous other devices" made, used, or sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16, 17). The narrative allegations state that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling products that "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, 16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the scope of "external storage media." The patent specification repeatedly uses examples like CDs, DVDs, and memory cards ('876 Patent, col. 6:62-67). A question for the court will be whether this term, in the context of the patent, can read on internal storage of a modern device (e.g., a smartphone's flash memory) where software is pre-installed or downloaded, rather than loaded from a separate, portable medium.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations will require evidence that the accused products perform the specific functions claimed. For instance, a key question is whether the accused system generates a "profile" based on the specific combination of factors recited in claim 1, including a "storage media identifier," a "user ID," and transaction histories ('876 Patent, col. 8:49-54). Another technical question is whether an identifier associated with a device or software installation can meet the definition of a "storage media identifier" as described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "keying application"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as it is the software component that links the user's device to the content server. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether the accused software on Defendant's devices performs the functions of the claimed "keying application."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the application's function as interacting with a content server to deliver content, a general description that could potentially cover a wide range of modern applications ('876 Patent, col. 2:16-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the application as being "preinstalled" or "stored on" a "processor readable, portable apparatus" or "external storage media" that is physically distributed to an end user ('876 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:55). This context may support a narrower construction limited to applications distributed on distinct physical media.

• The Term: "external storage media"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical or logical location of the "keying application". The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendant's products, likely modern electronics such as smartphones, utilize what can be legally construed as "external storage media" containing the accused application.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that in a modern context, a downloaded application file stored in a device's main memory before installation could be considered a form of "external storage" relative to the operating system's core.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific, exemplary list of what constitutes external storage media: "floppy disk, magnetic tape, EEPROMS, CD, DVD, PC card, memory card, memory stick, flash memory card" ('876 Patent, col. 10:31-34). This list, focused on portable, physically distinct media, could support a narrow definition that excludes a device's integrated, non-removable memory.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’876 Patent (Compl. ¶14, 15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving this notice is willful, which could serve as a basis for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the 2003-era context of physical media, such as "external storage media" and a "keying application" stored thereon, be construed to cover software applications downloaded to or pre-installed on the internal memory of modern electronic devices like smartphones?

2. A second key issue will be evidentiary: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused system automatically generates a "profile" for creating customized content using the specific, multi-factor method required by claim 1, or will discovery show a fundamental mismatch in the logic of how the accused system personalizes content?