Contentnexus LLC v. Agora Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ContentNexus LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Agora, Inc. (Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00985, E.D. Tex., 01/20/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of infringement in the district through the actions of its alleged U.S.-based alter egos, AGORA.IO INC. and Agora Lab Inc.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s real-time engagement platform infringes patents related to processing signals embedded within broadcast media to provide customized content and control receiver station functions.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational concepts of interactive media, where centralized broadcasts carry data and instructions for processing by individual computerized receivers, a precursor to modern on-demand and personalized content delivery systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a "First Amended Complaint," superseding an original complaint filed on October 1, 2025. This earlier filing date is cited as the basis for Defendant's knowledge of infringement for one of the two asserted patents. Additionally, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091, issued March 12, 2021, indicates that claims 26, 27, and 30 were cancelled. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 - "Signal processing apparatus and methods" (Issued May 29, 2012)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of using mass media (like television and radio) to communicate information that is specifically relevant to individual users. Conventional broadcasting is a one-to-many system, lacking the ability to provide personalized data or instructions to a diverse audience simultaneously and efficiently ('091 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified system for embedding digital data signals, which include instructions and information, into conventional broadcast transmissions (e.g., in the vertical blanking interval of a TV signal or within a radio broadcast). A "subscriber station," equipped with a computer and a signal decoder, receives the broadcast, extracts the digital signals, and executes the embedded instructions to generate user-specific content, control peripheral devices, or decrypt programming ('091 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:23-52). For example, a national broadcast about the stock market could contain embedded data that allows a user's local computer to display the performance of only their personal portfolio ('091 Patent, col. 13:1-14:18).
• Technical Importance: This approach describes a method for transforming passive, one-way broadcast media into an interactive, personalized experience by leveraging local processing power at the receiver's end, a key concept in the evolution of media technology ('091 Patent, col. 6:53-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the ’091 Patent" but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted (Compl. ¶20). The analysis of specific claim elements is therefore not possible based on the complaint.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE47,642 E - "Signal processing apparatus and methods" (Issued October 8, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a reissue of a patent from the same family as the '091 Patent, the 'RE47642 patent addresses the same fundamental technical problem: the inefficiency and limitations of prior art mass media systems in delivering customized information to individual end-users ('RE47642 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially identical to that described in the '091 Patent. It discloses a system where data and executable instructions are embedded within a broadcast signal (television, radio, cable) and sent to a plurality of receiver stations. Each station uses its local processing capabilities to act on the embedded signals, allowing for functions like personalized data display (e.g., combining a broadcast financial news program with a user's private portfolio data), content decryption, and control of connected hardware ('RE47642 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:15-32).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for adding a layer of interactivity and personalization to existing, widespread broadcast infrastructure, enabling a single transmission to serve customized purposes for many different users ('RE47642 Patent, col. 6:58-col. 7:5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the RE47642 Patent" but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted (Compl. ¶29). The analysis of specific claim elements is therefore not possible based on the complaint.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as the "Agora real-time engagement platform and related technologies, including the accused products and services incorporating EZDRM integration" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant develops, markets, and distributes this platform in the United States through its alleged alter egos (Compl. ¶8). The only specific technical feature mentioned is the integration of "EZDRM," which refers to a third-party Digital Rights Management service (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further details on how the Agora platform functions, how it incorporates EZDRM, or how its features correspond to the patented technology.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶25, 34). The complaint itself does not contain specific infringement allegations mapping accused product features to claim limitations. Instead, it makes broad, conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary...Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶25, 34). Without the asserted claims or the claim charts, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the significant gap between the technological context of the patents and the description of the accused product, several points of contention may arise.
  • Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit are grounded in the context of 1980s and 1990s analog and digital broadcast technologies (e.g., television, cable, radio). A central question will be whether claim terms rooted in that context (such as "broadcast programming," "receiver station," or signals embedded in a "vertical interval") can be construed to read on a modern, internet-based "real-time engagement platform" that likely relies on packet-switched, unicast, or multicast data streaming.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Agora platform's "EZDRM integration" performs the specific function of "decrypting" as described and claimed in the patents. The analysis would need to determine if the accused functionality involves receiving encrypted programming with embedded decryption instructions or keys, as contemplated by the patents, or if it operates in a fundamentally different manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not identify the asserted claims, this analysis focuses on terms that are central to the patented invention and are highly likely to be dispositive regardless of which claims are ultimately asserted.

• Term: "broadcast programming"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to defining the technological environment of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patents apply only to traditional over-the-air or cable broadcasts or can extend to modern internet-based content delivery, such as that used by the accused Agora platform.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention can be used with "any one-channel transmission system" and that programming may be delivered by "any means including over-the-air, hard-wire, and any means the Federal Communications Commission might authorize" ('091 Patent, col. 2:16-18; col. 7:25-29). This language could suggest an intent to cover future transmission technologies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is replete with examples tied to contemporaneous technology, such as "conventional television broadcast transmission," cable television, and radio signals ('091 Patent, col. 10:42-43; col. 2:25-33). The detailed descriptions of embedding data in the vertical television interval or in radio signals could be used to argue the invention is limited to the specific broadcast paradigms disclosed ('091 Patent, col. 43:58-62).

• Term: "receiver station"

  • Context and Importance: The claims require a "receiver station" to perform the claimed processing and decryption steps. The definition of this term will be critical to identifying the infringing apparatus. It raises the question of whether "receiver station" is limited to an end-user's physical setup (e.g., a computer connected to a TV) or if it could read on client-side software, a mobile application, or even components of a distributed, cloud-based platform.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to "ultimate receiver stations" which can be any apparatus "enabled to receive said subscriber programming" ('091 Patent, col. 21:60-63). It also describes a system of "a plurality of computers," suggesting a distributed network ('091 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently describe the "subscriber station" or "receiver station" as a physical collection of hardware at a user location, including a "video/computer combined medium receiver station" comprising a tuner, decoder, and microcomputer ('091 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 10:41-55). This could support a narrower construction limited to a localized, physical device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶23, 32-33). The complaint states that these materials are referenced in the missing Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶23, 32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents. For the ’091 Patent, knowledge is alleged to have begun upon service of the First Amended Complaint (Compl. ¶22). For the ’RE47642 Patent, knowledge is alleged to have begun upon service of the Original Complaint on October 1, 2025 (Compl. ¶31). Plaintiff requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 9).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: can claim language drafted for the broadcast media environment of the 1980s—describing concepts like "broadcast programming" and signals embedded in television transmissions—be construed to cover the architecture of a modern, internet-based "real-time engagement platform"?
• A second central question will be one of jurisdiction and liability: the complaint dedicates significant attention to an alter ego theory (Compl. ¶¶ 7-15) to hold the foreign parent corporation, Agora, Inc., liable for acts occurring in the U.S. The case may hinge on whether Plaintiff can pierce the corporate veil and establish that the U.S. subsidiaries are mere instrumentalities of the Cayman Islands-based Defendant.
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: the complaint makes only conclusory infringement allegations and relies on unattached exhibits. A critical question is whether discovery will yield specific evidence that the accused Agora platform actually performs the methods described in the patents, such as detecting and processing embedded instructions from a data stream to decrypt content or generate personalized outputs.