Media Key LLC v. Radix Tech Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Radix Technologies Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00267, E.D. Tex., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district, causing harm.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to distributing updateable content to users via a software application originating from a portable medium.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delivering dynamic, server-based content to users who initiate the process from a physical or portable data source, blending tangible media distribution with live online updates.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, are mentioned.

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The patent’s background describes the challenge of distributing content on physical media like CDs, which becomes outdated once created. Traditional methods for updating this information, such as mailing new media, are described as impractical and costly (’876 Patent, col. 1:13-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user is given a portable storage medium (e.g., a mini-CD) containing a pre-installed "Keying Application" and a "Source ID" ('876 Patent, col. 2:11-15). When the user runs this application on a network-connected computer, the application communicates with a remote "Content Server," sending the Source ID. The server then delivers specific, customized, and up-to-date content back to the user's application for display ('876 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-37). This process is illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1.
• Technical Importance: This method created a bridge between the mass distribution of inexpensive physical media for marketing or informational purposes and the ability to provide dynamic, personalized content that could be updated in real-time by the provider ('876 Patent, col. 3:2-9, col. 3:48-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, referring generally to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • At least one content server connected to a network.
  • A "keying application" stored on an "external storage media" for running on an electronic device.
  • The keying application is for selecting a user ID and transmitting the user ID and a "storage media identifier" to the content server.
  • The keying application selects the user ID based on the storage media identifier and other user identification 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers broadly to infringement of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused product(s) by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's functionality or market context due to the absence of product identification and the unprovided Exhibit 2.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the '876 Patent by practicing the claimed technology and satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint incorporates these allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶17). Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of "external storage media" ('876 Patent, col. 7:41). The patent's examples focus on physical objects like CDs and memory cards ('876 Patent, col. 2:65-67). A question for the court may be whether this term can be construed to read on a purely digital asset, such as a software installer downloaded from a website, which is a common modern distribution method.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations explaining how any accused product performs the specific functions of the claims. For example, a key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that an accused product performs the step of having a "keying application" that "records the user ID generated by said content server on the local electronic device" when the originating media is "non-recordable," as required by claim 1 ('876 Patent, col. 8:58-66).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "external storage media" (from Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term appears foundational to the claimed system, defining the physical or logical container for the "keying application." The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a modern software distribution mechanism (e.g., a downloaded file) meets this definition, which is rooted in the context of 2003-era physical media.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any type of media, volatile or non-volatile, can be used," followed by a list preceded by "e.g.," which may suggest the list is exemplary, not exhaustive ('876 Patent, col. 2:62-67).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s examples and background consistently reference tangible, portable objects distributed to users, such as a "floppy disk, magnetic tape or compact disc (CD)" ('876 Patent, col. 1:15-17) and media distributed via "regular mail" or as a "business card" ('876 Patent, col. 3:14-19), which may support a narrower construction limited to physical items.

The Term: "keying application" (from Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the specific software at the heart of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any client-side software that communicates with a server infringes, or if the software must perform the specific identification, selection, and recording functions detailed in the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term covers any application that is "stored on the external storage media" and performs the core function of transmitting an identifier to a server to receive custom content ('876 Patent, col. 8:55-58).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification describe a specific set of functions, including being "preinstalled" on the media, selecting a user ID, and recording a server-generated user ID on the local device if the media is non-recordable ('876 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:58-66). Defendant may argue that an accused application must perform all of these specific functions to qualify.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since the filing of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly induced infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter supports a claim for post-filing enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "external storage media", which is described in the patent with examples like physical CDs and floppy disks from the early 2000s, be construed to cover modern, non-tangible software distribution methods that may be used by the accused products?

2. A second issue will be evidentiary and factual: the complaint makes wholly conclusory allegations of infringement without identifying an accused product or providing supporting facts. A key question for the case will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an accused product's architecture and operation map onto the specific multi-part system and methods recited in the patent claims, particularly the detailed steps for generating, selecting, and recording user and media identifiers.