Media Key LLC v. Mobvoi Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Mobvoi, Inc. (Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00265, E.D. Tex., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to a system for distributing updatable content to end-users via portable media that acts as a key to access a remote content server.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delivering dynamic, server-based content initiated from a piece of static, portable media, bridging the gap between physical media distribution and live online information.
• 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.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of static information on traditional distribution media like CD-ROMs. Once distributed, content such as a sales catalog cannot be easily updated for price changes or inventory corrections, rendering the physical media quickly obsolete ('876 Patent, col. 1:13-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where portable media (e.g., a CD) is provided to a user with a preinstalled "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID." When the user runs the application on a network-connected computer, the application contacts a remote "Content Server," sends the Source ID, and receives customized, up-to-date content for display. This transforms the static physical medium into a key for accessing dynamic information ('876 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to leverage mass-produced physical media for delivering personalized and timely content, a significant challenge during the transition from static media to dynamic, database-driven web applications ('876 Patent, col. 1:48-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is foundational to the patent.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a "processor readable portable external storage media," a "content server," and a "keying application."
  • The keying application is "stored on the external storage media."
  • The keying application is used for "selecting the user ID and transmitting the user ID and the storage media identifier to said content server."
  • The content server creates and updates information "according to a profile associated with the user," which is generated from factors including the user ID and transaction history.
  • If the storage media is non-recordable, the keying application "records the user ID generated by said content server on the local electronic device."
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products' features, functionality, or market position. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts provided in "Exhibit 2," which is incorporated by reference but not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). As such, a detailed claim chart analysis cannot be performed. The following points of contention are based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the dispute.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "processor readable portable external storage media" ('876 Patent, col. 7:40-41). The patent’s specification consistently provides examples of physical, tangible media such as a "floppy disk, magnetic tape, EEPROMS, CD, DVD, memory card, etc." ('876 Patent, col. 6:65-67). This raises the question of whether a modern, electronically-delivered software application can meet this definition, or if the claim scope is limited to the physical media types disclosed.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "keying application stored on the external storage media" ('876 Patent, col. 7:55). If the accused instrumentality is a single software application, it raises the question of whether the application can be simultaneously considered both the "media" and the "application stored on" that media, or if the claim requires two distinct components. Further, it is unclear what evidence will be presented to show the accused products create a user "profile" based on a "history of transactions" as required by the claim ('876 Patent, col. 7:50-54).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "processor readable portable external storage media"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's scope. The viability of the infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused products, which are not identified but are likely software-based, fall within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the patent, rooted in the era of physical media, can read on modern software distribution models.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "any type of media, volatile or non-volatile, can be used" ('876 Patent, col. 6:63-64), which could be argued to not be strictly limited to the physical examples provided.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s detailed description and figures repeatedly and almost exclusively reference physical media. Figure 4, for instance, explicitly depicts a "CD-ROM" as the "Media with Keying Application" ('876 Patent, Fig. 4, element 420). The patent also discusses distribution "via any means, such as regular mail, at a business site, in a mall kiosk" ('876 Patent, col. 3:20-22), reinforcing the concept of a physical object.

• The Term: "profile"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the content server to update information according to a "profile" that is "generated from factors including the storage media identifier, a user identity (user ID), a history of transactions involving the user ID, and a history of transactions involving the electronic device" ('876 Patent, col. 7:48-54). The definition of this multi-factor "profile" will be critical for proving infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, potentially allowing for a broad interpretation that covers any collection of user data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly lists four distinct factors that must be used to generate the profile. A defendant may argue that an accused system that does not consider all four of these data types (e.g., if it only uses a user ID but not a "history of transactions involving the electronic device") does not create a "profile" as claimed.

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. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based entirely on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that Defendant gained "actual knowledge of infringement" upon service of the complaint and that its continued activity thereafter constitutes willful infringement (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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 the patent’s specification exemplifies with physical objects like CD-ROMs and floppy disks, be construed to cover modern software applications delivered electronically to devices, or is its scope limited to tangible media from the early 2000s?
• A second central question will be evidentiary: given the complaint's lack of specificity, can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products actually perform every element of the asserted claims, particularly the creation of a multi-factor user "profile" and the specific mechanism for storing a "user ID" on a local device when the "media" is non-recordable?