DCT

2:25-cv-00753

Touchstream Tech Inc v. Hisense Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00753, E.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the Defendants being foreign companies suable in any judicial district, and on Defendants conducting business and committing alleged acts of infringement through authorized retailers in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart TV platform, which includes the VIDAA operating system and RemoteNOW mobile application, infringes patents related to systems and methods for remotely controlling media playback on a display device.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using a personal device, such as a smartphone, to discover, select, and control the playback of content from various internet sources on a separate display device, like a smart television.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents stem from a patent family that has been the subject of extensive, widely-publicized litigation against other major technology and media companies, including Google, VIZIO, and various cable companies. In a case against Google, a jury returned a significant verdict of infringement. In proceedings involving Comcast, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review petitions challenging the validity of every claim of the '934 Patent. The complaint also notes that Touchstream filed a disclaimer for U.S. Patent 11,086,934 on May 8, 2024, disclaiming claims 1-2 and 5-7.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-04-21 Earliest Priority Date for '118, '938, and '934 Patents
2018-03-01 Alleged launch of Accused RemoteNOW mobile application
2021-03-01 Alleged launch of Accused VIDAA mobile application
2021-08-10 U.S. Patent 11,086,934 Issued
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent 11,468,118 Issued
2024-01-02 U.S. Patent 11,860,938 Issued
2024-05-08 Disclaimer filed for U.S. Patent 11,086,934
2024-09-16 Plaintiff allegedly sent pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2025-08-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent 11,468,118, "Play Control of Content on a Display Device," issued October 11, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of controlling web-based media on a television from a distance using a personal computing device, a scenario that interferes with the typical "couch" viewing experience (U.S. Patent 11,468,118, col. 1:29-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture to decouple the control device (e.g., a smartphone) from the playback device (e.g., a TV). A personal computing device generates a message containing a command, a content reference, and unique identifiers for both the playback device and the required media player application. This message is sent to a server system, which translates the command into a format understood by the specific media player and forwards it to the playback device, thereby initiating and controlling playback ('118 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-3:2; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a unified method for a single control device to manage playback from disparate media sources, each with its own player application, on a remote screen (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Essential elements of claim 8 include:
    • Receiving, by a personal computing device, a unique identifier of a content presentation system.
    • Generating, by the personal computing device, a set of messages including a first command, a content reference, a media playing application identifier, and the unique identifier.
    • Communicating the messages to a server system, which is configured to convert the first command into a second command in a second format and send it to the content presentation system.
    • Causing the content presentation system to use the second command to control the content.

U.S. Patent 11,860,938, "Play Control of Content on a Display Device," issued January 2, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of seamlessly playing content on a remote display when the specific software (media player) required for that content may not be installed or running ('938 Patent, col.1:21-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-centric method where, after a user selects content on a computing device, the server system generates and transmits two distinct commands to the remote display. The first command causes the display to load the required media player, and the second command causes the now-loaded player to present the selected content. This process happens subsequent to the server providing content metadata to the computing device ('938 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:52-col. 3:20).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the on-demand loading of media players on a playback device, creating a fluid user experience without requiring manual software management on the TV (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Essential elements of claim 14 include:
    • Receiving a request for video content metadata from a computing device.
    • Providing the requested metadata to the computing device.
    • Receiving a video content selection and a remote display selection, where a second media player is not loaded on the remote display.
    • Generating a first command causing the remote display to load the second media player.
    • Generating a second command causing the loaded player to present the video content.
    • Transmitting both commands to the remote display.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,086,934

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11,086,934, "Play Control of Content on a Display Device," issued August 10, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology claimed in this patent is focused on the actions of the media receiver (e.g., a smart TV). The receiver provides its unique identifier to a computing device, receives messages from that device via a server containing a content reference and commands converted from a universal format, selects the appropriate media player application from a plurality of types based on the content, and controls playback using the received commands ('934 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:51-col. 2:20).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves Hisense smart TVs (the "media receiver") operating the VIDAA platform, which, in response to commands from the RemoteNOW/VIDAA mobile apps, allegedly selects and launches the appropriate content application (e.g., Netflix, YouTube) to play the user-selected media (Compl. ¶¶45, 85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the methods performed by the combination of Hisense's VIDAA and RemoteNOW mobile applications and the associated Hisense smart television devices compatible with those applications (Compl. ¶40).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused system enables users to control a Hisense smart TV using a smartphone app over a shared Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶¶39, 41). The complaint includes a screenshot from a VIDAA support page illustrating the steps to connect the mobile app to the TV (Compl. ¶41; Fig. 5). After connecting, a user can browse content from various streaming services on the app and initiate playback on the TV (Compl. ¶43). The complaint alleges the functionality is a key selling point for Hisense TVs, which are sold through authorized retailers in the district (Compl. ¶¶17, 50).
  • Technically, the VIDAA platform is described as a Linux-based system with a Chromium web engine, which facilitates running web-based applications from various content providers (Compl. ¶46; Fig. 11). The system architecture allegedly involves the mobile app sending messages to a server system, which in turn communicates with the TV to control content playback from services like Netflix, Prime Video, and YouTube (Compl. ¶43, 45; Fig. 8A). A technical guide for the VIDAA system is referenced, showing an API function call "Hisense_GetDeviceID()" to retrieve a unique device identifier (Compl. ¶42; Fig. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’118 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, by a personal computing device, a unique identifier of a content presentation system; The VIDAA/RemoteNOW smartphone app discovers and connects to a compatible Hisense TV on the same network, thereby receiving a unique identifier for the TV, such as a Device ID obtained via a function call, an IP address, or a PIN. ¶¶42, 73 col. 5:29-50
generating, by the personal computing device, a set of messages that includes a first command in a first format, a reference to a piece of content associated with a particular media playing application, an identifier that corresponds to the particular media playing application, and the unique identifier; The smartphone app generates messages that include a command (e.g., play), a reference to the selected content (e.g., a URL), an identifier for the content provider's application (e.g., Netflix), and the TV's unique identifier. ¶¶45, 73 col. 4:46-57
communicating, by the personal computing device, the generated set of messages to a server system configured to send, to the content presentation system based on the unique identifier, a second command in a second format, the second command being converted from the set of messages... wherein the second format is associated with the particular media playing application and the second command corresponds to the first command; and The app sends these messages to a server system, which is alleged to convert the app's command into a format understood by the specific media player on the TV and sends this converted command to the TV. The VIDAA architecture diagram shows a framework layer that allegedly performs this function. ¶¶43, 73 col. 6:10-33
causing, by the personal computing device, the content presentation system to utilize the second command and the particular media playing application to control the referenced piece of content. Communication from the app ultimately causes the Hisense TV to execute the command using the specified media application (e.g., the Netflix app) to control playback of the selected content, as shown in marketing materials. This is demonstrated in a screenshot of the app showing a "Share to TV" feature (Compl. ¶41; Fig. 1). ¶¶45, 73 col. 6:51-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be the definition and location of the claimed "server system." The patent's figures depict the server system as distinct from the display device ('118 Patent, FIG. 1). However, the complaint's evidence of the accused architecture suggests that the relevant control framework may be software running on the TV itself (Compl. ¶46; Fig. 11). The case may turn on whether a logical software layer on the TV can be construed as the claimed "server system."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the conversion of commands from a "first format" to a "second format." A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the communication protocol between the mobile app and the TV's operating system constitutes the specific "conversion" required by the claim, as opposed to simply passing a command through various software layers.

’938 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, from a computing device having a first media player... a request for metadata relating to video content... The VIDAA/RemoteNOW app, which acts as a first media player, requests data for content libraries (metadata) that are then displayed for user selection. ¶79 col. 4:26-31
receiving (i) a video content selection and (ii) a video display selection... wherein a second media player is not loaded onto the selected remote display... The user selects content (e.g., a movie on Netflix) from the app and selects the connected Hisense TV as the remote display. The claim requires that the corresponding media player is not yet loaded. ¶79 col. 2:52-col. 3:2
generating, based on the video display selection and the second media player not being loaded... a first command causing the selected remote display to load the second media player; The system is alleged to generate a first command that instructs the Hisense TV to launch or load the required media player application (e.g., the Netflix app). ¶¶46, 79 col. 6:55-65
generating, based on the video content selection, a second command causing the second media player to present the selected video content on the selected remote display... The system is alleged to generate a second, separate command that instructs the now-loaded media player to play the specific content the user selected. ¶79 col. 6:55-65
transmitting the first command... and the second command... wherein subsequent to the second media player being loaded... control commands from the computing device are communicated to the selected remote display device... The system transmits these commands to the TV. After the player is loaded and playing, the mobile app continues to send control commands (e.g., pause, stop) to the TV via the server system. ¶79 col. 3:1-2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: This infringement theory relies on the negative limitation that the "second media player is not loaded" before the "load" command is generated. The construction of "loaded" (e.g., not currently running in memory vs. not installed on the device at all) will be critical. If the relevant streaming apps are pre-installed on Hisense TVs, the defense may argue this condition is never met.
    • Technical Questions: Plaintiff's allegations depend on a specific, two-step command sequence ("load" player, then "play" content). A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused system actually generates and transmits two distinct commands in this order, as opposed to a single command that initiates a routine on the TV to both launch an app and play content.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "server system" ('118 Patent, claim 8)

    • Context and Importance: The mapping of the accused product architecture onto this claim term appears to be a central dispute. Whether the "server system" must be a physically separate entity from the "content presentation system" (the TV) could determine the outcome of infringement for the '118 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's primary embodiment in FIG. 1 shows them as separate, while the accused architecture may integrate this functionality onto the TV.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the system be "coupled to the network" and comprise "one or more servers" ('118 Patent, col. 2:52-54), language which does not explicitly forbid the server functionality from being implemented in software on the same hardware as the display.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's FIG. 1 depicts the "Server System (24)" as a distinct block from the "Display Device (22)," connected via the "Internet (21)." This clear visual separation in the specification may be used to argue for a construction requiring distinct devices.

  • The Term: "not loaded" ('938 Patent, claim 14)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a prerequisite for the infringement theory of the '938 patent. The viability of the claim will depend on whether this condition can be proven to exist in the accused system. Hisense may argue that pre-installed applications are always "loaded" in some sense.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Favorable to Plaintiff): The term could be interpreted to mean "not actively running as a process in the device's memory." This would allow the claim to cover the common scenario of launching an installed but dormant application.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Favorable to Defendant): The patent's flowchart in FIG. 6 shows a step to "Request and Obtain a Copy of the Appropriate Media Player," which suggests a scenario where the player is not present on the device at all ('938 Patent, FIG. 6). This could support an interpretation that "not loaded" means "not installed."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the VIDAA/RemoteNOW applications and instructing users on how to use them in an infringing manner through user manuals, websites, and instructional videos (Compl. ¶¶20, 23, 74, 80).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Hisense's awareness of Touchstream’s widely-publicized litigation against competitors like Google and VIZIO over the same technology family (Compl. ¶¶58, 60, 62). The willfulness claim is also based on a specific pre-suit notice letter allegedly sent to Hisense on September 16, 2024 (Compl. ¶63).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the patent's architecture, which depicts a "server system" separate from a "display device," be construed to read on the accused Hisense system, where the analogous control framework appears to be an integrated software component of the television itself?
  • A key evidentiary question will be the satisfaction of a negative limitation: Can Plaintiff prove that a media player is "not loaded" on the accused TVs prior to playback commands being sent, particularly if streaming applications are pre-installed? The construction of "loaded" will be dispositive for the '938 patent's infringement theory.
  • A third central question will concern willfulness and damages: Given the extensive public litigation history of the patents-in-suit, including a significant jury verdict, and an alleged pre-suit notice letter, the court will need to determine whether Defendants acted with knowledge or willful blindness, a finding that would have substantial implications for potential damages.