Cooperative Entertainment Inc v. Akamai Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-03077, N.D. Tex., 11/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for content distribution infringe a patent related to methods for dynamic peer-to-peer (P2P) content delivery.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for efficiently distributing large data files, such as streaming video, by creating dynamic networks among end-users (peers) who are consuming the same content, thereby reducing reliance on centralized content delivery networks (CDNs).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has never sold a product. It also discloses a history of prior settlement licenses with other entities and presents arguments that the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) do not apply, which may be a central issue for calculating potential damages.

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 Issued
2025-11-11	Complaint Filed

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and cost of relying exclusively on traditional CDNs for delivering large data files, particularly streaming video. The background notes that prior art P2P networks were not well-suited for streaming video "outside the structure and control of CDNs" (’452 Patent, col. 3:34-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a server identifies a group of users ("peers") who are simultaneously consuming the same content. The server then uses network information, such as a "trace route," to group peers by network proximity and facilitates direct P2P connections among them to share segments of the content (’452 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:31-37). This creates a "dynamic network" where the "peerness" of the nodes is defined by the common content they are consuming, thereby offloading traffic from the central CDN server (’452 Patent, col. 4:43-46; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to reduce bandwidth costs for content providers and improve delivery performance by decentralizing distribution, leveraging the collective bandwidth of the user base itself (’452 Patent, col. 5:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-15 of the ’452 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1 (system) and 5 (method) are asserted.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A content delivery server computer.
  • A peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network of multiple peer nodes that consume the same content within a predetermined time.
  • The P2P dynamic network is "based on at least one trace route."
  • The peer nodes are "distributed outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs)."
  • The server is operable to "use the trace route to segment requested content, find peers, and return client-block pairs."
  • The distribution of P2P content is "based on content segmentation," which in turn is based on factors including "CDN address resolution" and "trace route to CDN."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services that facilitate peer-to-peer network content distribution" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's accused instrumentalities perform "peer-to-peer network content distribution" (Compl. ¶8). However, it does not provide specific details on how these systems operate. The complaint alleges that Defendant's customers use these services, positioning Akamai as a provider of the underlying infringing infrastructure (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not included with the pleading (Compl. ¶9). The narrative allegations in the complaint are conclusory, stating that Defendant's systems infringe claims 1-15 of the ’452 Patent "literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" by facilitating P2P network content distribution (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not map specific features of any Akamai product to the limitations of the asserted claims.

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions

A central dispute may arise over the claim limitation requiring peer nodes to be "distributed outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs)." The question for the court will be whether this language can be construed to read on a system where the peers are end-users of Akamai's own CDN service and thus operating within its controlled ecosystem.

Technical Questions

The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether Defendant's systems actually use a "trace route" to segment content and identify peer nodes, as explicitly required by claim 1. The complaint provides no factual allegations to suggest that this specific mechanism is used in any Akamai system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "peer nodes ... distributed outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs)"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it appears to create a distinction between the claimed invention and conventional CDN architectures. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether Akamai’s P2P-enabled services, which are part of its own CDN, can be considered to involve peers "outside" a controlled network.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the "peerness" is primarily "defined by the common content they are receiving from the CDN server" (’452 Patent, col. 4:51-54). An argument could be made that "outside" refers to the peers being end-user devices rather than dedicated servers, regardless of their connection to the CDN.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Abstract and Summary of the Invention repeatedly state that the nodes are "outside controlled networks and/or content distribution networks (CDNs)" (’452 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:41-43). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the peers to be truly independent of the CDN’s operational control.

• The Term: "based on at least one trace route"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific technical mechanism for creating the P2P network. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will hinge on whether Akamai's peer-selection algorithms employ a "trace route" or a technically distinct method for determining network proximity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to "a trace route or other dynamic network segmentation strategy" when describing the invention more broadly, which may suggest "trace route" is an example of a larger class of network-mapping tools (’452 Patent, col. 4:33-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites that the server must "use the trace route to segment requested content" (’452 Patent, col. 10:28-29). This explicit functional requirement could support a construction limiting the claim to systems that literally employ a traceroute-like process for content segmentation, as opposed to other network performance metrics.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant encourages its customers to use its services in an infringing manner. It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming there are no substantial non-infringing uses for the accused services. The complaint cites URLs from third-party companies (Ionos and Cloudflare) as purported examples of these activities (Compl. ¶¶10-11).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’452 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The prayer for relief also seeks enhanced damages for willfulness if pre-suit knowledge is established during discovery (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "peer nodes ... distributed outside controlled networks," which appears to contemplate peers independent of a CDN, be construed to cover the end-users of Akamai’s own integrated CDN services?
• A second central issue will be one of factual sufficiency: do the complaint's general allegations, which fail to identify a specific accused product or provide any facts mapping its functionality to the patent claims, satisfy federal pleading standards, particularly given the reliance on non-party websites for evidentiary support?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does any accused Akamai system use a "trace route" mechanism for peer discovery and content segmentation as required by claim 1, or does it rely on fundamentally different network optimization technologies?