Innobrilliance LLC v. Swann Communications Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Innobrilliance, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Swann Communications Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00405, E.D. Tex., 04/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products infringe two patents related to systems and methods for organizing television channels into thematic groups and displaying them in a multi-picture format.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of navigating an increasing number of television channels by allowing users to browse curated groups of channels based on common attributes, such as genre.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 8,925,010 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the earlier '010 Patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,925,010: “Method and system for television channel group” (issued Dec. 30, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the "daunting task" for users of navigating the hundreds of channels made available by cable, satellite, and internet television ('010 Patent, col. 2:4-6). It notes that conventional methods, such as manually creating a favorites list, are insufficient, particularly in households with multiple viewers having different interests (e.g., sports versus shopping channels) ('010 Patent, col. 2:17-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that organizes television channels into a "channel group," defined as a list of channels that share a "common attribute" such as a genre (e.g., sports, news, movies) or theme (e.g., ethnicity, age-appropriateness) ('010 Patent, col. 3:6-14, Abstract). A frame controller allows a user to select one of these pre-defined groups and then displays video from multiple channels within that group simultaneously in separate, non-overlapping frames on a single television screen ('010 Patent, col. 2:40-54, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify content discovery in an era of rapidly expanding channel availability, leveraging the larger screen real estate of modern HDTVs to provide a more intuitive, thematic browsing experience ('010 Patent, col. 1:32-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶12). Independent method claim 21 is representative.
• Independent Claim 21 (Method):
  • Inputting video data from a plurality of video streams to a frame controller.
  • Causing the video data to be displayed in separate, non-overlapping frames, with at least two frames being of different sizes.
  • Receiving a user selection of a "channel group" which comprises channels sharing a common attribute.
  • In response, displaying two or more channels from that group, each contained within one of the separate frames.
  • Receiving a user instruction to change the display in a given frame to a different channel from the same channel group.
  • In response, displaying the newly selected channel in the given frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 9,247,299: “Method and system for television channel group” (issued Jan. 26, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '299 Patent addresses the same problem as its parent '010 Patent: the difficulty users face in navigating a vast number of available television channels ('299 Patent, col. 2:5-6).
• The Patented Solution: The '299 Patent claims a method for displaying a "video group" on a display. A frame controller receives a user selection to display a video group related to a specific "attribute" (e.g., sports) ('299 Patent, col. 12:53-56). The controller then receives the video streams for that group and displays them in a plurality of separate pictures on the screen ('299 Patent, Abstract). The patent also describes functionality for querying a data network to obtain the video group using the attribute ('299 Patent, col. 12:41-43).
• Technical Importance: This patent continues the theme of its parent, focusing on attribute-based grouping of video content to simplify user navigation in a multi-source, multi-channel environment that includes internet-delivered video ('299 Patent, col. 12:15-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶18). Independent method claim 13 is representative.
• Independent Claim 13 (Method):
  • Receiving video data from a plurality of video streams at a frame controller.
  • Displaying the data in a plurality of separate pictures on a display.
  • The displaying step includes:
    • Receiving a first user selection to display a "video group" related to an "attribute."
    • Receiving first and second video streams of the video group.
    • Displaying the first and second video streams in first and second pictures.
    • Receiving a second user selection to change the display to a given video stream of the group that is not currently displayed.
    • Displaying the given video stream in the given picture.
• The complaint refers to infringement of "one or more claims" of the '299 Patent (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that infringement details for the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are contained in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were incorporated by reference but not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only a conclusory narrative of infringement, stating that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" by incorporating by reference claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). As these exhibits were not included with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The complaint's reliance on non-provided exhibits prevents an analysis of specific points of contention.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "channel group" ('010 Patent, Claim 21)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the '010 Patent's invention. Its scope will determine whether the accused functionality, whatever it may be, falls within the claims. A key question is how broadly the "common attribute" that defines the group can be interpreted.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the channels share "at least one common attribute" ('010 Patent, col. 13:51-52). The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential attributes, including "sports, news, or movies," "ethnicity, language or culture," and "age appropriateness," suggesting a wide variety of thematic groupings are contemplated ('010 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments and figures consistently depict discrete, genre-based groups like "sports," "news," or "movies" (e.g., '010 Patent, Figs. 5a-5b). A party could argue that the term should be limited to such pre-defined, provider-curated lists rather than user-generated or algorithmic collections.

Term: "video group" ('299 Patent, Claim 13)

• Context and Importance: The '299 Patent uses this term where the '010 Patent used "channel group." Practitioners may focus on this term to argue whether its scope is identical to, or broader than, "channel group." Its construction is critical to determining if it covers modern content delivery systems beyond traditional cable or satellite channels.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explicitly contemplates receiving video data from the "Internet" and querying a "data network" to obtain the video group ('299 Patent, col. 12:15-17, col. 12:41-43). This language may support an interpretation that covers collections of streaming videos, on-demand content, or other non-broadcast sources.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's background and overall context remain heavily focused on solving the problem of navigating traditional "television channels" ('299 Patent, col. 2:15-21). A party might argue that "video group" is merely a synonym for "channel group" and should be interpreted within that same television-centric context.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '299 Patent. The alleged factual basis is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the patent's claims (Compl. ¶21).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges a basis for post-filing willful infringement of the '299 Patent. It asserts that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Fact: Given the complaint’s complete reliance on non-provided exhibits, the primary threshold issue will be evidentiary: What specific products are accused of infringement, and what evidence will Plaintiff proffer to demonstrate that these products actually perform the multi-frame, group-based display functions required by the patent claims?

2. A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The case will likely hinge on claim construction, specifically the scope of the core terms "channel group" and "video group". The key question for the court will be whether these terms, rooted in a 2007-era television context, can be construed broadly enough to read on modern forms of content aggregation and display, such as algorithmically generated recommendations or user-curated playlists in streaming applications.

3. A Functional Question of Infringement: Assuming the accused products and claim scope are established, a central factual dispute will likely be whether the accused functionality meets the specific operational steps of the claims. For example, does the accused system receive a user selection of a discrete "group" and then display multiple streams from it, or does it operate in a fundamentally different manner that falls outside the claimed sequence of operations?