Contentnexus LLC v. Whale TV Pte Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ContentNexus LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Whale TV PTE. LTD. (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00988, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe two patents related to methods for processing signals and controlling the decryption of programming.
• Technical Context: The patents describe a system for embedding digital data and instructions within broadcast signals (e.g., television, radio) to enable personalized content, device control, and monitoring at a subscriber's location.
• Key Procedural History: The provided documents include an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091, resulting from IPR2016-00755, which indicates that claims 13-16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 30 have been canceled. This proceeding may narrow the scope of claims available for assertion from this patent.

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 a media landscape where consumers receive information from many separate sources (television, radio, computers, print) but lack a unified system to process this information efficiently or receive personalized content. Existing systems did not have the capacity to combine broadcast programming with user-specific data or instructions simultaneously for a large number of users (’091 Patent, col. 2:24-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for embedding digital instruction signals, termed "SPAM signals," within conventional broadcast transmissions. A subscriber's local apparatus can detect and process these embedded signals to perform a wide variety of functions, such as overlaying personalized financial data onto a business news broadcast (as depicted in FIG. 1A-1C), controlling household appliances, or enabling selective decryption of programming based on subscriber status (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:24-42).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to transform passive broadcast media into an interactive and personalized experience by creating a framework for delivering executable instructions and data to individual or grouped subscriber devices. (’091 Patent, col. 6:43-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims but refers to "exemplary claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶12). Claim 1 is a representative independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for controlling the decryption of programming at a receiver station.
  • Comprising the steps of:
    • receiving an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information;
    • detecting in said encrypted digital information transmission the presence of a first instruct-to-enable signal;
    • passing said instruct-to-enable signal to a processor;
    • disabling the functionality of some portion of said subscriber station when said step of passing said instruct-to-enable signal to said processor has occurred and when at least one of said steps of: (1) when said step of comparing results in a determination that said subscriber information is not indicative of said subscriber station being a properly programmed and a failed subscriber station... (2) communicating tamper-of-tampering information... (3) enabling at least some of a programming presentation when said subscriber station is properly programmed and a failed subscriber station...; and
    • performing, under control of said instruct-to-enable instructions, at said subscriber station at-least-one of the steps of...
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,642 - “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 problem: the lack of an integrated system for combining broadcast media with computer processing to deliver personalized information and control to end-users (’RE47642 Patent, col. 2:37-61).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described in the ’091 patent, involving the embedding of digital control signals within a broadcast transmission to be decoded and acted upon by a subscriber's local equipment. This allows for functionality like decrypting content, displaying custom information, and controlling other devices (’RE47642 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:41-57).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for making broadcast content "smarter" and more relevant to individual viewers by transmitting machine-readable instructions alongside the primary audio/video programming. (’RE47642 Patent, col. 7:6-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims but refers to "exemplary claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶21). Claim 1 is a representative independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for controlling the decryption of programming at a receiver station.
  • Comprising the steps of:
    • receiving programming having an encrypted digital control signal portion;
    • detecting said encrypted digital control signal portion;
    • passing said encrypted digital control signal portion to a decryptor at said subscriber station;
    • decrypting said encrypted digital control signal portion of said programming using a first decryption key to provide a first decrypted digital control signal portion; and
    • passing said first decrypted digital control signal portion to a processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, services, or methods in its main body. It refers to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). These exhibits were not provided with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but relies entirely on external exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) to provide the basis for these allegations (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative theory of infringement is limited to conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: A primary issue may be whether the complaint's allegations, which lack any specific factual content about the accused products' operation and instead incorporate unfiled external documents by reference, meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading.
• Technological Scope: A central technical question will be whether the methods described in the patents, which have a 1981 priority date and are described in the context of embedding data in analog broadcast signals (e.g., in the vertical blanking interval), can be construed to cover the technologies used in modern digital content delivery systems allegedly used by the Defendant.
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to assess how the accused products allegedly perform the specific steps of the claims, such as detecting an "instruct-to-enable signal" ('091 Patent) or decrypting a "digital control signal portion" ('RE47642 Patent). A key question will be what evidence, if any, supports the allegation that the accused products perform these claimed functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"instruct-to-enable signal" (’091 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term appears central to the method of Claim 1 of the ’091 patent. Its definition will be critical to determining infringement, as the claim requires detecting and processing this specific type of signal. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific signal structure or if it can be read more broadly on any data that causes a function to be enabled.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "signal unit" can be a "complete signal instruction or information message," or "groups of partial signal units," suggesting some flexibility in what constitutes the signal (’091 Patent, col. 8:26-33).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides highly detailed descriptions of signal structures, referred to as "SPAM" signals, with specific "header," "execution," and "meter-monitor" segments (e.g., FIG. 2E-2K). A defendant may argue that an "instruct-to-enable signal" must conform to these specific, disclosed structures (’091 Patent, col. 23:20-40).

"disabling the functionality of some portion of said subscriber station" (’091 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This active step of "disabling" functionality is a required element of the method. The dispute may turn on what actions constitute "disabling" (e.g., blocking a feature, shutting down a component, preventing decryption) and what constitutes a "portion" of the station (e.g., hardware, a software module, access to a specific channel).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a vast array of controllable apparatuses, including televisions, recorders, printers, and utilities, suggesting that "disabling functionality" could encompass a wide range of actions across different types of hardware and software (’091 Patent, col. 6:31-37; FIG. 7).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the "disabling" step to specific conditions related to whether a subscriber station is "properly programmed" or has been "tampered with." This context may support a narrower interpretation where "disabling" is limited to anti-piracy or conditional access functions, rather than general purpose control. (’091 Patent, col. 285:1-12).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that the Defendant sells its products to customers and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶15, ¶16, ¶24, ¶25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). The allegations appear to support a claim for post-suit willful infringement only, as no facts are alleged that would establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents or the alleged infringement.

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

This case appears to present several fundamental threshold questions for the court's determination.

• A primary question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that contains no factual descriptions of the accused technology and instead relies on incorporation of unfiled external documents state a plausible claim for patent infringement?
• A core issue will be one of technological scope: Can the claims of patents with a 1981 priority date, which describe embedding data into analog-era broadcast signals, be interpreted to cover the architecture and operation of modern digital streaming or content delivery platforms?
• The case will also turn on claim construction: Can terms rooted in the specific embodiments of the patents, such as "instruct-to-enable signal," be construed broadly enough to read on the data signals and protocols used in the accused systems, or are they limited to the detailed structures disclosed in the specification?