Err Content IP LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Err Content IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Republic of Korea) and LG Electronics USA., Inc. (Delaware/New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-02191, N.D. Tex., 08/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant LG Electronics USA., Inc. has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and methods for displaying content infringe a patent related to providing supplemental "extra content" on a primary or secondary device, linked to a "main content" broadcast.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for enhancing a primary media viewing experience (e.g., on a television) with related, interactive content displayed simultaneously on the same screen or a second screen device (e.g., a tablet).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these licenses did not grant rights to produce a patented article and did not require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287. Plaintiff, a self-identified non-practicing entity, notes it will limit its claims to method claims to remove any marking requirement if necessary.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-26	'542 Patent Priority Date (PCT Filing)
2020-07-21	'542 Patent Issued
2024-08-26	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542, "Method and Device for Providing a Main Content and an Extra Content to a User Through Reference Item," issued July 21, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Prior systems for accessing supplemental content related to a television broadcast forced a user to "leave the main content for tracking the reference item and get access to an extra content" (’542 Patent, col. 1:36-39). This created a disruptive, either/or choice for the user between viewing the primary program and viewing the related information.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to provide both main content and extra content simultaneously. A "main content" (e.g., a TV show) is received from a first source and displayed on a first device (e.g., a TV) (’542 Patent, col. 2:27-29). Metadata, broadcasted with the main content, acts as a "reference item" that links to "extra content" (e.g., actor bios, related facts) from a separate, second source (’542 Patent, col. 2:58-63). This extra content can then be displayed either alongside the main content on the first device or, alternatively, on a second device (e.g., a tablet or smartphone), allowing the user to engage with both streams of information at once (’542 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The patented method provides a framework for the "second screen" experiences that became a significant feature of interactive media, allowing broadcasters and content providers to deepen user engagement without interrupting the primary viewing experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata together from a first source.
  • Displaying the specific main content on a first device.
  • Forwarding the metadata to a second device.
  • The forwarding step is "executed by scanning said metadata by said second device."
  • The second device receives extra content from a second source.
  • The specific main content is displayed on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific LG products, services, or software platforms (Compl. ¶9). It refers generally to Defendant’s "systems and methods for displaying content from sources" and "products and services" (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "develops, manufactures, maintains, operates, sells and administers systems and methods" that infringe the ’542 Patent (Compl. ¶9). It does not provide any specific details about how these accused systems operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an exemplary infringement table is attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶10). The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant’s systems and methods for displaying content infringe one or more claims of the ’542 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Without the referenced claim chart or more specific factual allegations, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The infringement allegations are presented in a conclusory manner.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether any accused LG system transfers information from a first device (like a TV) to a second device (like a smartphone) via "scanning" as required by claim 1. The patent specification explicitly gives "QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" as examples of reference items that can be scanned (’542 Patent, col. 3:57-61, col. 4:3-9). Evidence of such a scanning mechanism in LG's products will be critical for the Plaintiff.
  • Scope Questions: The claims require the "main content" and "extra content" to originate from a "first source" and a "second source," which must be "different" (’542 Patent, col. 8:66-col. 9:1). The patent suggests sources can be distinguished by provider, server location, or content type (’542 Patent, col. 2:58-63). A dispute may arise over whether the sources used by the accused LG system are meaningfully "different" under the patent's definition, or if they could be construed as aspects of a single, integrated service.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device" (claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific mechanism for transferring the link to the extra content from the first screen to the second. Its construction is critical because if the accused LG systems use a different transfer method (e.g., Bluetooth pairing, network discovery, account synchronization), they may not literally infringe this element. Practitioners may focus on this term as a primary non-infringement argument.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification strongly suggests a visual or optical process. It states, "the reference item is provided to the second device by scanning the reference item displayed on the first device via said second device" (’542 Patent, col. 4:3-6). It further identifies "QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" as exemplary reference items (’542 Patent, col. 3:59-61), all of which are typically scanned.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broader interpretation. A plaintiff might argue that "scanning" could encompass other forms of electronic signal detection, but the patent's consistent focus on visual codes may limit the viability of such an argument.

• The Term: "metadata" (claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of "metadata" is foundational to the claim, as it is the data element that is broadcast with the main content and used to link to the extra content. The dispute will center on what types of data transmitted within the accused system qualify as "metadata" under the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "metadata" itself is broad. The patent also uses the term "reference item" interchangeably, describing it as "additional information or references" (’542 Patent, col. 1:29-30) that can be a "subtitle, metadata, teletext or the like" (’542 Patent, col. 1:33-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific examples provided in the patent for the reference item include "a metadata, an URL, an encrypted data, a hyperlink, a QR-code, a bar code, machine-readable data or optical machine-readable data" (’542 Patent, col. 3:57-61). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these types of discrete, link-like data packets rather than any and all data transmitted alongside a video stream.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement on a similar basis (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the ’542 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.

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

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence that a specific, accused LG product actually performs the "forwarding... by scanning" step as required by the independent claims? The viability of the infringement case may depend heavily on whether LG’s second-screen technology relies on an optical scanning method (like a QR code) versus a purely network-based data transfer.
2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "different" as it applies to the "first source" and "second source"? The infringement analysis will turn on whether the architecture of the accused LG system uses sources that are distinct in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if they are simply different endpoints within a single, unified content delivery network.
3. A threshold question will be one of specificity: The current complaint lacks specific factual allegations identifying the accused products and mapping their functions to the claim elements. A significant early-stage issue will be whether the complaint, which relies on a missing exhibit, can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to meet the pleading standards for patent infringement established by the Federal Circuit.