DCT

2:25-cv-00985

Contentnexus LLC v. Agora Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00985, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to signal processing apparatus and methods for creating integrated, multi-platform media experiences.
  • Technical Context: The patents describe a system for embedding data and control instructions within broadcast signals (e.g., television, radio) to control various user devices, enabling the delivery of personalized and combined-media content.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents emerge from a long and complex prosecution history originating in the early 1980s. U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 survived an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding in which several claims were cancelled. U.S. Patent No. RE47,642 is a reissue of a related patent, indicating a prior effort to amend the patent's claims after its original issuance.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1981-11-03 Priority Date for ''091 and 'RE47642 Patents
1995-06-07 Application for '091 Patent Filed
2012-05-29 '091 Patent Issued
2018-05-14 Application for 'RE47642 Patent Filed
2019-10-08 'RE47642 Patent Issued
2025-10-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 - "Signal processing apparatus and methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8191091, titled "Signal processing apparatus and methods," issued May 29, 2012 (the "’091 Patent"). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical challenge of integrating disparate media sources—such as television, radio, print, and computers—to provide specific, user-relevant information. It notes that prior systems lacked the capacity to combine these media for simultaneous presentation or to efficiently deliver personalized content to individual users. (’091 Patent, col. 2:24-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified programming system where control signals and data are embedded within conventional broadcast transmissions. A local signal processing apparatus at the user's location receives and decodes these embedded signals, which can then control a variety of connected devices, such as computers, printers, or recorders, to generate a "combined medium" presentation. (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:25-50). For instance, an instruction embedded in a financial news television broadcast could trigger a connected computer to display a detailed graph of a particular stock's performance. (’091 Patent, col. 13:58-14:18).
  • Technical Importance: With a priority date tracing to 1981, the technology represents an early framework for interactive and personalized media, envisioning the convergence of broadcasting and computing before the widespread adoption of the internet. (’091 Patent, col. 2:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its body, instead referring to "the Exemplary '091 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided Exhibit 3. (Compl. ¶12). Therefore, an analysis of key claims is not possible based on the provided documents.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE47,642 E - "Signal processing apparatus and methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE47,642 E, titled "Signal processing apparatus and methods," issued October 8, 2019 (the "’RE47642 Patent"). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’RE47642 Patent, which is part of the same family as the ’091 Patent, addresses the same core problem: the lack of a system to unlock the "great potential" of combining broadcast media with computer processing to provide personalized and user-specific output. (’RE47642 Patent, col. 2:63-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a unified system where "ultimate receiver stations" are equipped with signal processors that can receive broadcast programming, detect embedded digital information, and use that information to control local apparatuses. The solution is designed to create a "combined medium" that merges broadcast content with locally generated or stored information, tailored to the user. (’RE47642 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:4-15).
  • Technical Importance: This patent reinforces the inventive concept of using existing one-way broadcast infrastructure to deliver executable instructions, effectively turning passive media consumption into an interactive, multi-device experience. (’RE47642 Patent, col. 2:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its body, instead referring to "the Exemplary 'RE47642 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided Exhibit 4. (Compl. ¶21). Therefore, an analysis of key claims is not possible based on the provided documents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in external exhibits not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided, instead summarizing their conclusions in narrative form. (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary [...] Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). Without the specific claims, accused products, or claim charts, a detailed infringement analysis is precluded.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold legal question is whether the complaint, which omits the identification of accused products and asserted claims from its body and relies entirely on unprovided exhibits, meets federal pleading standards for plausibility under Twombly and Iqbal.
  • Technical Equivalence: Given the patents' 1981 priority date, a central technical dispute may involve whether modern digital communication systems (e.g., internet streaming, mobile data) function in a way that is equivalent to the patents' disclosure, which is grounded in embedding data within analog broadcast signals.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint's failure to identify asserted claims or accused products precludes an analysis of key claim terms that are likely to be in dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that the Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24-25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement but alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement." (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). The basis for this knowledge is alleged to be the service of the complaint itself, along with the unprovided claim charts, suggesting an allegation of post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

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

This dispute, as currently pleaded, presents several fundamental questions that will likely define the early stages of the litigation.

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary specificity: Can the plaintiff’s infringement theories proceed when the complaint itself fails to identify any accused product, any asserted claim, or the specific manner of infringement, instead deferring all operative facts to unattached exhibits?
  • A key technical question will be one of technological translation: How, if at all, can claim limitations conceived for embedding data in 1980s-era broadcast signals (e.g., television vertical blanking intervals) be construed to read on the architecture of modern digital content delivery systems?
  • A central validity and scope question will be one of prosecution history: How will the extensive prosecution history—including a reissue proceeding for the ’RE47642 Patent and an IPR that invalidated certain claims of the ’091 Patent—limit the scope of the asserted claims and inform the court’s analysis of indefiniteness and patentable subject matter?