DCT

3:22-cv-01929

Nimitz Tech LLC v. Reuters News & Media Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01929, N.D. Tex., 08/31/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s method of streaming content via its website infringes a patent related to the encapsulation and delivery of broadcast content.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for organizing and transmitting digital media to accommodate multiple versions, such as different codecs, languages, or resolutions, for a diverse population of receiving devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office identified specific claim limitations as being absent from the prior art, and that the claims were found to be novel over several cited references. Plaintiff also makes preemptive arguments for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, asserting the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-03 '328 Patent Priority Date
2010-12-07 '328 Patent Issue Date
2022-08-31 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,848,328 - "Broadcast Content Encapsulation", issued December 7, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the challenge of broadcasting a specific item of content to a diverse population of devices that may use different content decoders (CODECs) or require different languages. This creates a need for an efficient mechanism to make multiple versions of the content available and for receiving devices to identify the specific data streams they require ('328 Patent, col. 1:5-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where different versions of content are defined as distinct "components" (e.g., Component 1-A for CODEC A, Component 2-A for English text) ('328 Patent, Fig. 2). Each component is mapped to a data stream, which is then encapsulated into packets, such as User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets. A common field in each packet's header (e.g., the UDP destination port) is assigned a specific value that identifies the corresponding component, allowing a receiving device to select and process only the desired components ('328 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:34-45).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a structured method for managing content variability in digital broadcasts, enabling efficient delivery and filtering of different content versions at the receiver ('328 Patent, col. 2:50-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 ('328 Patent, Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A method comprising mapping each of a plurality of data streams related to a specific content to a different component of a service.
    • Encapsulating each data stream into a stream of packets according to a first communication protocol.
    • The packets have a value in a common field identifying the component mapped to the data stream.
    • Forwarding the packet streams for transmission.
    • The mapping further comprises assigning a specific value to each component for a predefined field of a packet according to a second communication protocol, which distinguishes the component from others.
    • The encapsulating comprises encapsulating the packet streams using lower layer protocols without encapsulating them according to the second communication protocol.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims ('328 Patent, Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the method practiced by Defendant "by streaming the content found in https://www.reuters.com" (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the streaming service on the Reuters website practices the claimed method but does not provide specific technical details about how the service operates, such as the streaming protocols used (e.g., HLS, DASH), how different content versions are managed, or how data is packetized and transmitted (Compl. ¶22). No allegations are made regarding the service's market position. The complaint includes a diagram from the patent, Figure 2, which is described as illustrating one embodiment of the "component" structures for organizing content, such as by codec or language (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the narrative allegations.

The complaint walks through the limitations of Claim 1, pairing them with figures from the patent to explain the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶9-14). For example, the complaint references Figure 4 from the patent to depict the claimed "mapping" of data streams to components and the subsequent encapsulation of those streams into packets (Compl. ¶11). However, the complaint does not explicitly map these steps to the functionality of the accused Reuters streaming service. The core of the infringement allegation is the statement that Reuters practices the method of Claim 1 by streaming its content, with the detailed explanation presumably contained in the missing exhibit (Compl. ¶22).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the architecture of the Reuters web-based streaming service performs the specific steps of Claim 1. This is particularly relevant for the final two limitations, which require "assigning a specific value ... according to a second communication protocol" (e.g., IP) while simultaneously "without encapsulating the packet streams according to the second communication protocol." The complaint offers no factual allegations explaining how a modern, likely IP-based, web streaming service would perform this non-IP encapsulation step.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether modern adaptive bitrate streaming protocols (e.g., HLS or DASH), which typically rely on manifest files to describe available streams and HTTP to deliver them, fall within the scope of the patent's claims. The claims and specification appear rooted in the context of digital video broadcasting (DVB) systems, and a key issue may be whether a manifest file and HTTP-based segment delivery can be considered equivalent to the claimed "mapping" and "encapsulating" in "data streams."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "component"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the basic unit of content that is managed by the claimed system. Its scope is fundamental to the infringement analysis, as it will determine what aspects of the accused service (e.g., different quality levels, audio tracks, ad inserts) can be considered a "component."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope, stating that components can include "higher or lower resolution versions of the same media, telemetry associated with events shown in a video broadcast," "file delivery, software programs, and other types of information" ('328 Patent, col. 3:19-29).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiments and figures focus on components as different CODEC versions or language tracks for a single television program ('328 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:56-65). This may support an argument that the term is limited to alternative versions of the same underlying media content.

  • The Term: "encapsulating the packet streams according to one or more lower layer protocols without encapsulating the packet streams according to the second communication protocol"

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty distinguished by the patent examiner during prosecution (Compl. ¶16). The construction of this "encapsulating without encapsulating" language will be critical, as it presents a potential mismatch with modern streaming technologies that are typically encapsulated in IP (a likely "second protocol") from end to end.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a use case where a receiving device (UE) gets a broadcast stream that is not IP-encapsulated, and the UE itself performs the IP encapsulation for local redistribution. The pre-assigned IP address information in the broadcast enables this later step ('328 Patent, col. 9:26-44). This could support a reading where the limitation is met so long as the initial broadcast lacks the second-protocol encapsulation, regardless of how the data is handled later.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language requires the transmitted packet streams to be free of encapsulation from the "second communication protocol." This could support a narrow reading that the limitation cannot be met by any streaming service that delivers content encapsulated in IP packets, which may describe the accused Reuters service.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can the patent's claim elements, which are described in the context of DVB-style digital broadcasting, be read to cover the technical architecture of a modern, on-demand, web-based streaming service likely built on HTTP adaptive streaming? The outcome may depend on whether a technology like a DASH/HLS manifest file is found to be equivalent to the claimed "mapping" of "components."
  • A central question will be one of claim scope and evidence: The case will likely turn on the meaning of the "assigning without encapsulating" limitation. A key evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to demonstrate, with technical evidence, that the accused Reuters service performs a function that meets this limitation, which on its face appears inconsistent with standard IP-based web delivery.
  • An underlying question will be one of patent eligibility: As foreshadowed in the complaint, Defendant may challenge the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court will have to determine whether Claim 1 is directed to a specific, concrete improvement in computer functionality or an abstract idea of organizing and transmitting data using conventional components.