DCT

2:25-cv-00990

Contentnexus LLC v. Zinwell Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00990, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a family of seven patents related to integrated signal processing and communication systems for combining broadcast media with computer-generated data.
  • Technical Context: The patents describe an early architecture for interactive media, where data signals embedded within television, radio, or cable transmissions control user-end computers to generate personalized content, display overlays, and perform other automated functions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. All seven asserted patents claim priority to the same application filed in 1981, a fact that may be relevant to claim construction and validity analyses concerning modern technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1981-11-03 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217 Issues
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,170 Issues
2010-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,818,778 Issues
2010-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,823,175 Issues
2013-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,566,868 Issues
2014-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,804,727 Issues
2020-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638 Issues
2025-10-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638 - “SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a technological landscape where broadcast media (television, radio) and data processing (computers) exist as separate, non-integrated systems (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, col. 1:26-58). It notes that broadcast media is not interactive or personalized, while computers of the era were not considered "user-friendly" for mass media consumption (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, col. 1:49-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "unified system of programming communication" that combines broadcast transmissions with computer data and processing at the user's location (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, Abstract). This is achieved by embedding digital data and instructions, termed "SPAM signals," within conventional television or radio signals (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, col. 8:29-34). At a subscriber station, a signal processor detects these embedded signals and uses them to control a local microcomputer, which can then generate graphics, overlay information on a TV display, or perform other functions, creating a "combined medium" presentation (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, col. 6:21-30; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents an early framework for interactive television and data broadcasting, enabling the delivery of dynamic, computer-processed information to a mass audience through existing broadcast infrastructure (U.S. Patent No. 10,616,638, col. 2:2-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more "Exemplary '638 Patent Claims" but incorporates the specific identification of these claims by reference to an external document, Exhibit 8, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, 22). As such, the asserted claims are not identified in the provided document.

U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217 - “SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’217 Patent addresses the same problem as the ’638 Patent: the lack of an integrated system to combine passive broadcast media with the processing capabilities of computers for personalized or enhanced user experiences (U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217, col. 1:24-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution described is functionally identical to that of the ’638 Patent, involving a unified system where data embedded in a broadcast signal is used to control a computer at a receiver station (U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217, Abstract). The patent describes this as creating a "combined medium" that merges, for example, a conventional television program with user-specific data overlays or other computer-generated content (U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217, col. 14:21-36; Fig. 1C).
  • Technical Importance: As with the ’638 patent, this technology provided a foundational approach for adding data services and interactivity to traditional one-way broadcast networks (U.S. Patent No. 7,747,217, col. 6:4-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '217 Patent Claims" identified in Exhibit 9 (Compl. ¶26, 31). This exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint, and thus the specific asserted claims are not identified in the provided document.

U.S. Patent No. 7,769,170 - “Signal processing apparatus and methods”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a unified system for combining various forms of media, such as broadcast television and computer communications. The system uses embedded control signals within a transmission to direct a local computer at a subscriber station to generate and display combined, often personalized, information (U.S. Patent No. 7,769,170, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The specific claims asserted are not identified in the complaint, which refers to an external, unattached Exhibit 10 (Compl. ¶35, 40).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific accused products or features, deferring this identification to the missing Exhibit 10 (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,778 - “Signal processing apparatus and methods”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for integrated programming communication that merges broadcast media with user-specific computer processing. It details methods for embedding data signals in transmissions to control local devices, allowing for the creation of combined media displays and personalized content for subscribers (U.S. Patent No. 7,818,778, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The specific claims asserted are not identified in the complaint, which refers to an external, unattached Exhibit 11 (Compl. ¶44, 49).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific accused products or features, deferring this identification to the missing Exhibit 11 (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 7,823,175 - “Signal processing apparatus and methods”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a unified communication system that combines television, radio, and computer data. Control signals embedded in a broadcast are received by subscriber stations, which use local computers to generate personalized information and control output devices, creating an integrated media experience (U.S. Patent No. 7,823,175, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The specific claims asserted are not identified in the complaint, which refers to an external, unattached Exhibit 12 (Compl. ¶53, 58).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific accused products or features, deferring this identification to the missing Exhibit 12 (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 8,566,868 - “Signal processing apparatus and methods”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an integrated communication system where data is embedded in broadcast signals (e.g., television, radio) to control computers at subscriber locations. This allows for the automated generation of personalized media, such as graphic overlays on a video display, tailored to the individual user (U.S. Patent No. 8,566,868, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The specific claims asserted are not identified in the complaint, which refers to an external, unattached Exhibit 13 (Compl. ¶62, 67).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific accused products or features, deferring this identification to the missing Exhibit 13 (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 8,804,727 - “Signal processing apparatus and methods”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a unified system for programming communication across different media types. The system uses embedded signals to control user-end computers, which can generate and output combined media, allowing for personalized information to be presented alongside standard broadcast content (U.S. Patent No. 8,804,727, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The specific claims asserted are not identified in the complaint, which refers to an external, unattached Exhibit 14 (Compl. ¶71, 76).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific accused products or features, deferring this identification to the missing Exhibit 14 (Compl. ¶71).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17). However, it incorporates the specific identification of these products by reference to external exhibits (Exhibits 8-14) that were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶22, 31, 40, 49, 58, 67, 76).

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations for all seven patents-in-suit are contained within claim charts (Exhibits 8-14) that were incorporated by reference but not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶23, 32, 41, 50, 59, 68, 77). The narrative alleges that these charts demonstrate how the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents and satisfy all claim elements (Compl. ¶22, 31). Without access to these exhibits, which identify the asserted claims, the accused products, and the specific infringement contentions, a detailed analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the specific asserted claims for the patents-in-suit are not identified in the provided complaint, an analysis of key terms for construction cannot be performed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The stated basis for inducement is Defendant's selling of products to customers and its distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20-21, 29-30, 38-39, 47-48, 56-57, 65-66, 74-75).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement." However, for each patent, it alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached (but missing) claim charts constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement continues despite this knowledge, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶20, 29, 38, 47, 56, 65, 74). The complaint does not allege any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents or the alleged infringement.

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

Based on the complaint and the nature of the asserted patents, the litigation may center on the following key questions:

  • A primary threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: the complaint defers the identification of all accused products and asserted claims to external exhibits that were not filed with the court. The adequacy of this pleading approach under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12 may be an early subject of dispute.
  • A fundamental question will be one of technological scope and temporality: how will patent claims with a 1981 priority date, which describe the invention using terminology and components from that era (e.g., "microcomputer," "floppy disk"), be construed and applied to the functionalities of modern signal processing devices? This temporal gap may create significant disputes over the scope and potential invalidity of the asserted claims.
  • Given that all seven asserted patents stem from the same original application and share a nearly identical specification, a central legal question may involve the validity and relationship of the claims across the patent family. The court may need to address whether the distinct claims of these related patents are adequately supported by the original 1981 disclosure and whether they avoid issues of statutory or non-statutory double patenting.