DCT
2:25-cv-00521
Monument Peak Ventures LLC v. OpenText Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Open Text Corporation (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00521, E.D. Tex., 05/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media analysis and management software platforms infringe four patents related to identifying, analyzing, and summarizing media assets based on contextual data or specific features of interest like a person's face.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated analysis of unstructured data, such as images and video streams, to extract meaningful information and create summaries, a critical function in markets like media monitoring, surveillance, and enterprise search.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originated with Eastman Kodak Company and were acquired by Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Micro Focus International plc, a company Defendant later acquired, regarding licensing for three of the four patents-in-suit prior to this litigation, which may form the basis for willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-05 | ’311 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-05-18 | ’746, ’345, and ’604 Patents Priority Date |
| 2011-09-20 | ’311 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-02-04 | ’746 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-03-04 | ’345 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-04-21 | ’604 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-25 | OpenText announces agreement to purchase Micro Focus |
| 2023-01-31 | OpenText closes acquisition of Micro Focus |
| 2023-02-20 | Plaintiff contacts Micro Focus regarding licensing |
| 2023-02-24 | Micro Focus / OpenText allegedly received notice of ’746, ’345, ’604 Patents |
| 2025-05-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,024,311 - "Identifying Media Assets From Contextual Information"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,024,311, "Identifying Media Assets From Contextual Information," issued September 20, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As digital media collections grow, manually annotating and retrieving specific images or videos from large, unorganized sets becomes increasingly difficult and tedious for users (U.S. Patent 8,024,311, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a system receives "contextual information," such as a user's typed story or blog post, analyzes it to identify a relevant "event," and then automatically identifies and retrieves media assets associated with that event. The system can refine the set of retrieved assets as more contextual information is provided ('311 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:52-61).
- Technical Importance: This approach automates the linkage between narrative content and relevant media, aiming to simplify the process of illustrating stories or organizing photo collections around specific events ('311 Patent, col. 4:11-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Receiving contextual information comprising a first set and a second set, where the second is received after the first.
- Identifying a chosen event based on an analysis of the contextual information.
- Identifying a "superset" of media assets based on the first set of information before the second set is received.
- Identifying a final "set" of media assets from the superset based on an analysis of the second set of information.
- Associating the contextual information with the chosen event and/or the identified media assets in memory.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,746 - "Video Summary Including a Particular Person"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,643,746, "Video Summary Including a Particular Person," issued February 4, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Manually editing lengthy videos to create shorter, shareable summaries is a laborious process, and it is difficult to create summaries focused on specific user-specified features, such as a particular person (U.S. Patent 8,643,746, col. 1:26-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user provides a reference image containing a particular person. A system then automatically analyzes a video sequence, uses a "person recognition algorithm" to identify all frames containing that person, and forms a shorter video summary that includes at least some of those identified frames, which is then stored as a separate file ('746 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-41).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables the automated creation of highlight reels for specific individuals from longer videos, making video content more easily searchable and shareable ('746 Patent, col. 2:11-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶78).
- Essential elements of claim 16 include:
- Receiving a video sequence.
- Receiving a designation of a reference image containing a particular person.
- Using a data processor and a person recognition algorithm to automatically analyze the image frames and identify a subset containing the particular person.
- Forming a video summary that includes fewer than all frames from the original sequence but includes at least part of the identified subset.
- Storing the original video sequence in memory.
- Storing the video summary in memory as a separate summary digital video file.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,665,345 - "Video Summary Including a Feature of Interest"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,665,345, "Video Summary Including a Feature of Interest," issued March 4, 2014.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a similar problem to the ’746 Patent but claims a broader solution. Instead of being limited to a specific person, the invention creates a video summary based on user-specified "reference data" that indicates a general "feature of interest" (e.g., an object class like a car) and a "desired characteristic" (e.g., the car crossing a line) (U.S. Patent 8,665,345, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 16 (Compl. ¶109).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' scene analysis capabilities infringe, citing examples where the Media Server can be configured to detect events like a vehicle running a red light or a person entering a restricted area (Compl. ¶¶118, 119, p. 52).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,013,604 - "Video Summary Including a Particular Person"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,013,604, "Video Summary Including a Particular Person," issued April 21, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’746 Patent, this patent covers similar technology for creating automated video summaries. The claimed method involves receiving a reference image of a person, analyzing video frames to find that person, forming a summary from those frames, and storing it as a separate file (U.S. Patent 9,013,604, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶142).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the same facial recognition and video summarization features of the Media Server as are accused of infringing the ’746 Patent (Compl. ¶¶150-154).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Products include OpenText's Knowledge Discovery Platform (IDOL), IDOL Media Management and Analytics Platform (IDOL MMP), Media Server, and related products, including those acquired from Micro Focus (Compl. ¶29). The allegations focus on the "Media Server" component.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Media Server as a toolset for extracting information from unstructured image and video data (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot from product documentation listing features such as optical character recognition, facial recognition, logo and object identification, and scene change detection (Compl. p. 9). Further documentation screenshots show a "Visual Server" capable of detecting faces, recognizing specific individuals, and obtaining demographic information, and a "Surveillance Server" with similar capabilities for camera feeds (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges these products are used for broadcast monitoring and security, among other applications (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’311 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by the data processing system, the contextual information, wherein the received contextual information comprises a first set of contextual information and a second set of information, the second set being received after the first set; | The system receives sequential search filters from a user, such as a time frame (e.g., "Last Week") as the first set, followed by the identity of a person (e.g., "Donald Trump") as the second set. | ¶50 | col. 2:25-30 |
| identifying a chosen event based at least upon an analysis of the contextual information; | The system identifies an event, such as "Donald Trump appearing on TV during the previous week," based on the combined search filter criteria. | ¶50 | col. 2:56-61 |
| identifying a superset of media assets associated with the chosen event based at least upon an analysis of the first set of contextual information at a time when the second set of contextual information has not yet been received... | Based on the first filter ("Last Week"), the system identifies all TV clips from that period, which constitutes a superset of assets, before the user specifies a person. | ¶¶53-54 | col. 3:1-4 |
| identifying the set of media assets from the superset of media assets based at least upon an analysis of the second set of contextual information; | The system filters the superset of assets (all clips from last week) to a final set containing only those in which "Donald Trump" appears, based on the second filter. The complaint provides screenshots illustrating this filtering process. | ¶¶55-56, p. 18 | col. 3:5-8 |
| associating, in a processor-accessible memory system, at least some of the contextual information with the chosen event, or at least one asset in the set of media assets, or both... | The system associates the search criteria (contextual information) with the identified event (Trump on TV last week) and the resulting media assets (the specific TV clips). | ¶¶57-58 | col. 2:61-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute may center on the definition of "contextual information." The patent's examples focus on unstructured narrative input like a blog post ('311 Patent, FIG. 5). The complaint's theory is that a sequence of structured user inputs in a GUI (selecting a date range, then selecting a person from a list) constitutes receiving a "first set" and "second set" of contextual information. The case may turn on whether the claim scope can be extended from narrative analysis to structured search queries.
’746 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a video sequence including a time sequence of image frames; | The Accused Products' Media Server ingests media, including video files and live video streams. | ¶86 | col. 9:41-44 |
| receiving a designation with respect to a reference image, wherein the reference image contains a particular person; | The Media Server is trained using images of people it is intended to identify; these training images serve as the "reference image" containing a "particular person." | ¶87 | col. 9:33-36 |
| using a data processor to automatically analyze the image frames using a person recognition algorithm to identify a subset of the image frames that contain the particular person; | The Media Server employs a face recognition algorithm to compare faces detected in video frames against its database of trained faces to identify frames containing the designated person. The complaint includes a diagram illustrating this training and matching process. | ¶88, p. 35 | col. 12:54-61 |
| forming a video summary including fewer than all of the image frames in the video sequence, wherein the video summary includes at least part of the identified subset of image frames containing the particular person; | The Media Server forms records that represent a summary of the video, including only the frames where the specified person was detected. | ¶89 | col. 9:48-55 |
| storing the received video sequence in a storage memory; and storing the video summary in the storage memory as a separate summary digital video file. | The complaint alleges the original captured video is stored, and the resulting records ("video summary") are stored separately, for example, in the IDOL Server. A diagram shows how face detection creates distinct output records. | ¶90, p. 36 | col. 9:56-60 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A potential dispute is whether the "records" and "output tracks" generated by the Media Server (Compl. ¶89) constitute a "separate summary digital video file" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that these are metadata pointers or search results rather than a standalone, playable video file, raising the question of whether there is a functional and structural match with the claimed element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’311 Patent
- The Term: "contextual information"
- Context and Importance: The viability of Plaintiff's infringement theory for the '311 patent depends on this term being construed broadly enough to cover a sequence of structured GUI inputs (e.g., selecting filters). Defendant may argue for a narrower construction limited to unstructured, narrative-style input, as depicted in the patent's own figures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that contextual information "may be, for example, text data (word, sentence, paragraph, story, etc.), gesture data (mouse clicks, hand motions, etc.), audio data..., or combinations thereof" ('311 Patent, col. 5:25-29). The inclusion of "mouse clicks" may support an interpretation that covers GUI interactions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described and illustrated involves analyzing a user's typed story in a "Kodak Photo Agent" to find relevant pictures, suggesting the invention's focus was on natural language processing of narrative text, not structured database queries ('311 Patent, FIG. 5-10).
For the ’746 Patent
- The Term: "separate summary digital video file"
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on the "records" and "output tracks" created by the Accused Products meeting this limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a self-contained, playable video file (e.g., an .MP4) or if it can be construed to cover a data file containing metadata that points to segments of the original, larger video file.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that in one embodiment, "the video summary 255 is stored as a separate digital video file from the stored digital video file 235," which could be read to include any distinct data file representing the summary ('746 Patent, col. 10:59-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that "the stored representation of the video summary...is a summary digital video file in a format adapted to be played using a standard video player" ('746 Patent, col. 11:4-7). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a standalone, playable media file, which a metadata file may not be.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all four patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that OpenText provides marketing materials, user guides, and technical support that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused facial and feature recognition functionalities (e.g., Compl. ¶¶61-62, 93-94). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that these features are specially made and adapted for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶69-70, 100-101).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the ’746, ’345, and ’604 patents, the allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from notice provided to Micro Focus on or before February 24, 2023, prior to its acquisition by OpenText (Compl. ¶34, ¶91). For the ’311 patent, the willfulness allegation is based on knowledge arising from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "contextual information," which the ’311 patent illustrates with narrative blog posts, be construed to cover a sequence of structured filter selections in a software GUI? The answer will likely determine the viability of infringement allegations for that patent.
- Another key question will be one of technical equivalence: do the metadata "records" and "output tracks" that the accused Media Server generates constitute a "separate summary digital video file" as required by the video summarization patents ('746, '345, '604)? The case may turn on whether these data structures are functionally and structurally equivalent to a standalone, playable video file.
- A third central issue relates to willfulness and damages: for three of the four patents, was the alleged pre-suit notice to Micro Focus sufficient to establish knowledge for the post-acquisition entity, OpenText? The timing and nature of this notice will be critical in determining the period for which enhanced damages for willful infringement may be sought.