DCT

2:25-cv-01227

Interactive Content Engines LLC v. Grupo Globo

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01227, E.D. Tex., 12/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges that because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States, venue is proper in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Globoplay streaming service and its underlying Content Delivery Network infringe two U.S. patents related to distributed systems for storing and delivering digital media content.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns foundational architectures for video-on-demand and content delivery networks, which enable scalable, fault-tolerant streaming of large media files to many simultaneous users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,437,472 is recently expired but remains enforceable for past damages. To support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willfulness, the complaint references prior patent infringement lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against other entities in the streaming media sector.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-28 Priority Date for ’472 and ’136 Patents
2008-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,472 Issues
2010-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,644,136 Issues
2022-08-24 Alleged date of Defendant's pre-suit notice of patents
2025-12-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,437,472 - "Interactive Broadband Server System"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of providing high-quality, interactive broadband services (like video-on-demand) to thousands of users simultaneously (’472 Patent, col. 1:48-52). Traditional server designs were allegedly limited in the number of output streams available from a single copy of a title, often requiring costly redundant storage for popular content (’472 Patent, col. 1:52-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "interactive broadband server system" that uses multiple processors connected by a high-speed backbone switch to distribute content (’472 Patent, Abstract). A single media title is divided into "data chunks" that are stored across multiple, distributed storage devices, allowing different parts of the same title to be retrieved simultaneously from different processors to serve many users from a single copy of the content (’472 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
  • Technical Importance: This distributed architecture was designed to improve the scalability and cost-effectiveness of delivering isochronous (time-sensitive) data streams for services like VOD (’472 Patent, col. 1:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Essential elements of Claim 25 include:
    • An interactive broadband server system, comprising:
    • a backbone switch including a plurality of bi-directional ports;
    • a disk array comprising a plurality of disk drives, said disk array storing a plurality of titles sub-divided into a plurality of data chunks which are distributed across said disk array;
    • a plurality of processors, each having interfaces to the backbone switch, at least one disk drive, and a network for subscriber devices;
    • wherein each processor is coupled between the backbone switch and the disk array; and
    • a plurality of processes enabling each processor to retrieve data chunks of a requested title from two or more processors and assemble the title.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,644,136 - "Virtual File System"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a scalable and fault-tolerant solution for the "storage and delivery of streaming media content" to potentially millions of simultaneous users, a challenge that conventional systems could not meet effectively (’136 Patent, col. 1:21-28; Compl. ¶17).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "virtual file system" that manages data distributed across an array of storage devices connected to multiple Storage Processor Nodes (SPNs) (’136 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:19-21). Content is divided into "chunks" and "sub-chunks" and spread across multiple drives on multiple SPNs to achieve "interleaved access," which improves speed and fault tolerance by avoiding reliance on any single component (’136 Patent, col. 3:47-58). The system is designed to use low-cost "commodity components" (’136 Patent, col. 2:56-58).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a highly reliable and scalable media delivery architecture that could operate without interruption even with component failures, using less costly, non-specialized hardware (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A virtual file system, comprising:
    • a plurality of storage processor nodes, each comprising a processor and a plurality of disk drives;
    • a backbone switch coupled to the storage processor nodes;
    • a disk drive array (comprising the disk drives of the nodes) storing titles divided into subchunks distributed across the array; and
    • at least one management node executing a virtual file manager that manages storage and access of each subchunk and maintains a directory entry for each title.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's "Globoplay" subscription-based video streaming service and the underlying infrastructure, including one or more Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) referred to as "globocdn" (Compl. ¶3, ¶39, ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused service delivers digital media content to subscriber devices using a "plurality of interconnected storage systems, servers, processors, and switches" (Compl. ¶39). This infrastructure allegedly includes origin servers and geographically distributed "Globo Points of Presence (PoPs/edge servers)" that collectively operate as a "single controlled apparatus" for storing and delivering media files to users in the United States (Compl. ¶39, ¶44, ¶52). The complaint asserts that such services are widely used and would not be possible on their current scale without the use of the patented inventions (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶45, ¶53). The narrative allegations are summarized below.

  • '472 Patent Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint alleges that the Globoplay service and its underlying "globocdn" infrastructure, with its interconnected origin servers, PoPs, and edge servers, collectively constitute the claimed "interactive broadband server system" (Compl. ¶44). The various servers are alleged to be the claimed "processors," their storage media the claimed "disk array," and the network connecting them the claimed "backbone switch" (Compl. ¶39, ¶44). The complaint includes an annotated version of Figure 2A from the ’472 Patent to show an embodiment of the claimed "interactive broadband server" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint asserts that this system stores and delivers video files in a manner that infringes at least Claim 25 (Compl. ¶44-45).

  • '136 Patent Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities implement the claimed "virtual file system" (Compl. ¶39). The system of servers ("storage processor nodes") and storage media ("disk drive array") that comprise the Globoplay service are alleged to store content that is divided and distributed for delivery to end-users (Compl. ¶52). To illustrate an exemplary distributed architecture, the complaint includes an annotated figure from the ’136 Patent’s specification (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that this accused architecture infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’136 Patent, but notes that discovery, including source code inspection, is required to identify all infringing components and functionalities (Compl. ¶39, ¶53).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "interactive broadband server system" (’472 Patent) or "virtual file system" (’136 Patent), as described in patents that depict architecturally co-located components, can be construed to read on a modern, geographically distributed CDN like the accused "globocdn."
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on the accused system dividing single media titles into "chunks" and "sub-chunks" for distributed storage and parallel retrieval. The complaint does not provide public-facing evidence of this specific operational method, stating that such details are "uniquely known to Grupo Globo and are beyond public view" (Compl. ¶39). A key factual dispute may concern whether the accused CDN operates in this manner or uses alternative methods like whole-file replication and caching.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "interactive broadband server system" (from ’472 Patent, Claim 25)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused instrumentality is a geographically distributed CDN. The defense may argue that such a distributed network does not constitute a single "system" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not include any express geographical limitations. The related ’136 Patent specification, which the complaint notes has overlapping disclosure, states the architecture "accommodates individual components of varying capability," which could support a more flexible, non-localized interpretation (’136 Patent, col. 2:54-56; Compl. ¶24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the ’472 Patent, such as Figure 2A, depict the processors, backbone switch, and storage devices in a manner that suggests they are co-located within a single facility or "point of distribution," potentially supporting an argument for a more limited geographic scope (’472 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 2A).

  • The Term: "management node" (from ’136 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case requires showing that the accused CDN has a component that performs the claimed functions of a "virtual file manager." The dispute may center on whether the accused system's management functions are centralized in a "management node" as claimed or are performed in a different, more decentralized manner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim functionally requires the node to execute a "virtual file manager which manages storage and access of each subchunk." This language could be argued to cover any server or process within the accused architecture that performs this management task, regardless of its specific name or implementation (’136 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a management processor coordinating with "user" processors over a switch to compile chunks and sub-chunks by consulting "Title maps" (’136 Patent, col. 4:48-51, 5:29-44). This detailed operational description could be used to argue that the term requires a specific, centralized management architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement based on knowledge Defendant will have upon service of the complaint. It alleges Defendant will continue to take active steps, such as advertising, that encourage infringing use of the Accused Instrumentalities by others (Compl. ¶60, ¶63).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on two grounds. First, it alleges Defendant will have actual knowledge of the patents post-filing and that continued infringement will be willful (Compl. ¶59). Second, it alleges pre-suit knowledge dating back to at least August 24, 2022, based on Defendant's alleged awareness of prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against other companies in the streaming media industry, which the complaint characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶57-58).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the claimed systems, which are illustrated in the patents with seemingly co-located components, be construed to cover a modern, geographically dispersed Content Delivery Network? The outcome may depend on whether the court defines the claimed "system" or "virtual file system" by its functional interconnections or by an implicit geographic proximity.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does Defendant's "globocdn" platform technically operate by dividing media titles into discrete "chunks" and "sub-chunks" for distributed storage and parallel retrieval, as expressly required by the patent claims? The case may turn on evidence obtained in discovery regarding the specific data management and delivery protocols used in the accused infrastructure.