Media Key LLC v. Winmate Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Winmate Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00270, E.D. Tex., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant being a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for distributing updatable content to a user, where the process is initiated by an application stored on a portable medium.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the distribution of dynamic, network-based content (e.g., catalogs, directories) using physical media as a starting point, blending the permanence of physical distribution with the timeliness of online updates.
• 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," issued October 20, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of information on distributed physical media (like CDs or DVDs) becoming static and outdated. Traditionally, updating such content required the costly and impractical process of distributing entirely new physical media to end-users (’876 Patent, col. 1:22-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system where a "processor readable, portable apparatus" (e.g., a CD) contains a preinstalled "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID." When an end-user runs this application on a network-connected device, the application contacts a remote "Content Server," authenticates using the Source ID, and retrieves specific, up-to-date content for display. This allows content providers to dynamically update information without reissuing physical media (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-23). The system architecture is illustrated in Figure 4, showing the interaction between the local user system with the media, the content server, and associated databases (’876 Patent, col. 8:4-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a bridge between mass-distributed physical media and live, dynamic content, allowing for personalized and continuously updated user experiences launched from a simple, portable object.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit, without specifying claim numbers in the complaint body (Compl. ¶11, 16). The first independent claim is Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • At least one content server connected to a network, adapted for creating and updating information according to a user profile.
  • A keying application stored on an external storage media for launching on an electronic device to select a user ID and transmit it and a storage media identifier to the content server.
  • The keying application selects the user ID based on the storage media identifier and other 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 the general reference to "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that induce end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the complaint for this analysis (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

Based on the patent and the nature of the allegations, the infringement theory presented in the charts would likely contend that Defendant's products (which may be ruggedized computers, tablets, or other hardware) are distributed with software that, when executed, connects to a network. This software would be characterized as the "keying application." The theory would further allege that the products or their software contain an identifier (e.g., a serial number, a license key, or a device-specific ID) that functions as the claimed "storage media identifier." When the software runs on the device (the "electronic device"), it would be alleged to transmit this identifier to a remote server ("content server") to receive specific data, software updates, or other "updateable information," thereby completing the infringing system and method described in claims like Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to the invention's original context of physical media like CDs. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether the patent can read on modern technology. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant may argue it is limited to the patent's examples (e.g., CD, DVD, floppy disk), while Plaintiff will likely argue it covers any form of portable, non-volatile storage, potentially including USB drives, SD cards, or even the internal flash memory of a device if sold as a self-contained, portable unit.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 13 explicitly lists a broad set of examples including "floppy disk, magnetic tape, EEPROMS, CD, DVD, PC card, memory card, memory stick, flash memory card," suggesting the term is not limited to optical discs (’876 Patent, col. 9:30-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Description of the Prior Art" section repeatedly uses "media, such as the floppy disk, magnetic tape or compact disc (CD)" as the frame of reference, arguably anchoring the invention to traditional, physically distinct media distributed to a user after manufacture (’876 Patent, col. 1:17-22).

• The Term: "keying application"

• Context and Importance: This is a non-standard term coined by the patentee. Its construction will define what type of software infringes. The dispute will likely center on whether any software that connects to a server for updates qualifies, or if it must possess specific characteristics described in the patent, such as being launched from the "external storage media."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the application's function broadly as interacting with a content server to deliver custom content based on a Source ID (’876 Patent, col. 3:21-25). This functional description could be argued to cover a wide range of modern software.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently link the "keying application" to being "stored on the external storage media" and launched from it (’876 Patent, col. 9:55-56). An embodiment describes it as creating a "self-contained, user interface" that "eliminates the need for use of any other external programs" (’876 Patent, col. 3:37-43), suggesting it is more than just a simple updater module within a larger operating system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant has knowingly and intentionally induced infringement by selling products to customers and providing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays a foundation for it by asserting that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the date of service of the complaint and claim charts, and yet "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technological scope: Can the claims, which are rooted in the early-2000s context of distributing software on physical media like CDs, be construed to cover modern hardware products that may be sold with pre-loaded firmware or software that updates over the internet? The interpretation of "processor readable portable external storage media" will be dispositive.

2. A second key question will be evidentiary and functional: Since the complaint does not identify the accused products or their specific operation, the case will turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that Defendant's unnamed products contain software that performs the specific functions claimed, particularly the use of a "storage media identifier" to retrieve customized content from a "content server" as distinct from a generic software update mechanism.

3. A final question relates to infringement: Assuming the claim scope is found to be broad, does the accused system operate in the manner required by the claims? Specifically, does the accused "keying application" record a server-generated "user ID" on the local device when the storage is "non-recordable," as required by the final limitation of Claim 1? This specific technical step may be a focal point of the non-infringement defense.