Cooperative Entertainment Inc v. IBM Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: IBM Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01004, E.D. Tex., 10/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for peer-to-peer content distribution infringe a patent related to dynamically forming peer-to-peer networks to offload traffic from central servers.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using peer-to-peer (P2P) networking to supplement traditional Content Distribution Networks (CDNs), aiming to reduce costs and improve efficiency for delivering large data files like streaming video.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that these licenses did not require an admission of infringement and were not for the production of a patented article, which may be an attempt to address potential defenses related to patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-10	U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 Priority Date
2016-08-30	U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 Issue Date
2025-10-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 - "Systems and Methods For Dynamic Networked Peer-To-Peer Content Distribution"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452, "Systems and Methods For Dynamic Networked Peer-To-Peer Content Distribution," issued August 30, 2016 (’452 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background suggests that prior art systems were deficient in providing video streaming over P2P networks that operate outside the structure and control of conventional CDNs (’452 Patent, col. 3:33-36). This implies a need for more efficient and less costly content delivery methods than relying solely on centralized servers.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a central server identifies multiple users ("peers") who are consuming the same content simultaneously (’452 Patent, col. 5:32-38). The server then uses network information, such as a trace route, to group peers that are in close network proximity and organizes them into a "dynamic" P2P network to share pieces of the content directly with each other (’452 Patent, col. 4:51-60; Fig. 1). This peer-to-peer sharing offloads delivery from the primary CDN server, which would otherwise have to serve the full content to every individual user.
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to decentralize content delivery, which can reduce bandwidth costs for content providers and potentially improve delivery speeds for end-users by sourcing content from network-adjacent peers rather than distant servers (’452 Patent, col. 5:39-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-15 of the ’452 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Claim 1 is the primary asserted independent system claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A system with at least one content delivery server computer and at least one P2P dynamic network of peer nodes that consume the same content.
  • The peer nodes are distributed outside of controlled networks or CDNs.
  • The server computer is operable to: store viewer information, check content requests, use a trace route to segment the requested content, find peers, and return client-block pairs.
  • The distribution of P2P content is based on "content segmentation."
  • Content segmentation is based on techniques including "CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and P2P server manager, dynamic feedback from peers," and other server-side techniques.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services that facilitate peer-to-peer network content distribution," and specifically references documentation for the IBM Aspera Orchestrator 4.0 product (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is used for peer-to-peer network content distribution (Compl. ¶8). It provides a URL to an administrative guide for the accused product as an example of materials that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide further specific technical details about the accused product's operation or architecture.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant’s products and services infringe claims 1-15 of the ’452 Patent (Compl. ¶8). It states that support for these allegations can be found in a chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint provided for analysis. Therefore, a detailed element-by-element summary of the infringement theory cannot be constructed from the pleading itself. The complaint offers a conclusory allegation that Defendant's systems perform P2P content distribution that meets the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶8).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused IBM Aspera Orchestrator performs the specific functions recited in the claims. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product uses a "trace route to segment requested content" and that its "content segmentation is based on CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and P2P server manager," as required by Claim 1? The complaint does not contain facts to substantiate these technical operations.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the architecture of the accused product constitutes a "P2P dynamic network... wherein the multiplicity of peer nodes is distributed outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs)," as claimed (’452 Patent, col. 10:30-38). The definition of what it means to be "outside" a CDN may become a point of dispute.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "use the trace route to segment requested content" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific technical action that is central to how the patented system organizes its P2P network. The infringement case may depend heavily on whether the accused product performs this exact step or an equivalent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could provide a clear line between infringing and non-infringing systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that this language should not be limited to the literal "traceroute" command, but should encompass any method of using network path and latency information to make intelligent decisions about how to break up and distribute content segments among peers (’452 Patent, col. 5:49-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the claim requires the specific use of a trace route algorithm to define the content segments themselves. The patent states that the invention includes "dynamic networks based upon a trace route or other dynamic network segmentation strategy" (’452 Patent, col. 4:33-35), potentially limiting the scope to methods that actively employ such network diagnostics for segmentation.

• The Term: "P2P dynamic network" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The nature of the claimed network is fundamental to the invention. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused system creates a network that is "dynamic" in the specific sense contemplated by the patent, or if it is a more conventional or static form of P2P file sharing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any P2P network that is formed on an ad-hoc basis and whose membership changes over time as users join and leave.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "dynamic" nature of the network to its formation based on the "commonality of the content consumed" and the close "network proximity" of the peers, as distinct from static, pre-configured networks (’452 Patent, col. 5:21-24, col. 6:49-52). This suggests the term may be construed to require a network whose structure is actively and continuously defined by what content is being consumed and by the real-time network topology of the consumers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement through product documentation, such as an administrative guide for the IBM Aspera Orchestrator (Compl. ¶10). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that there are no substantial noninfringing uses for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’452 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). This forms a basis for post-filing willfulness. The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e, f).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary support for infringement: Given the complaint’s reliance on a conclusory allegation and an unprovided claim chart, a key question is whether Plaintiff can produce technical evidence demonstrating that the IBM Aspera Orchestrator product actually performs the highly specific functions recited in Claim 1, particularly the use of a "trace route to segment requested content."
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether the accused system’s architecture can be characterized as a "P2P dynamic network" as that term is defined by the patent's specification—namely, a network whose peer relationships are established based on the "common content they are receiving" and network proximity.