DCT

4:24-cv-00647

NEC Corp v. Becker Professional Development Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00647, N.D. Tex., 07/11/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a physical office in Dallas, and committing acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s streaming multimedia education services infringe patents related to adaptive bitrate streaming and efficient network management for time-shifted content.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to core technologies for delivering high-quality, uninterrupted streaming video over networks with variable conditions, a critical function in the online education and media markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement of the ’809 Patent in a letter dated October 10, 2023, and that Plaintiff has asserted the ’809 Patent against other parties in prior suits.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-27 ’809 Patent Priority Date
2009-03-03 ’779 Patent Priority Date
2013-11-26 ’779 Patent Issued
2014-12-09 ’809 Patent Issued
2023-10-10 Alleged notice letter regarding ’809 Patent sent to Defendant
2024-07-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,909,809 - DELIVERY SYSTEM, DELIVERY METHOD, SERVER DEVICE, PROGRAM, AND CLIENT DEVICE, Issued Dec. 9, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In video streaming, frequent changes in network bandwidth can cause the bit rate of the content to fluctuate excessively, leading to a poor user Quality of Experience (QoE) from buffering or jarring shifts in video resolution (’809 Patent, col. 1:42-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a delivery system that adjusts the streaming bit rate to maintain a target buffer level (referred to as "remaining reproduction time") on the client device. To avoid excessive quality changes, the system employs a "correction amount reducing range." When the bit rate is within this range, the system makes smaller, less aggressive adjustments than it otherwise would, thereby dampening fluctuations and stabilizing the viewing experience (’809 Patent, col. 2:10-14, Fig. 12).
  • Technical Importance: This method seeks to improve perceived stream quality by balancing the need to adapt to network conditions with the need to minimize the number of disruptive bit rate changes, a key challenge in adaptive streaming (’809 Patent, col. 17:49-18:12; Compl. ¶31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A delivery system with a server and client device, where the server can transmit content encoded at various bit rates.
    • A "remaining reproduction time acquisition unit" for determining the amount of playable content buffered on the client.
    • A "bit rate changing unit" that calculates a correction amount based on the remaining reproduction time and a preset target.
    • The "bit rate changing unit" is configured to calculate a correction amount having a smaller magnitude when the bit rate is within a "predetermined correction amount reducing range" than it would calculate otherwise.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2, 8, 13–15, 26, 27, 30, and 31 (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 8,595,779 - BASE SERVER APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION METHOD, COMMUNICATION CONTROL PROGRAM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, Issued Nov. 26, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Supporting time-shifted viewing (e.g., pausing a live stream) on a large scale can be inefficient. It can lead to a "massive cumulative amount of... content data" being stored on the distribution network and can increase network load if each paused user requires a separate data stream (’779 Patent, col. 1:33-36, col. 2:8-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with distributed "base server" apparatuses. When a user pauses a stream, the local base server begins recording (accumulating) the content. The system uses a management table to track which users have paused which content. The recorded data is only deleted once no terminals are actively paused or viewing that specific segment, which avoids storing redundant data and reduces overall storage requirements (’779 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides an efficient method for implementing network-based DVR-like functionality by intelligently managing data storage at the network edge, reducing both storage costs and network load (Compl. ¶41; ’779 Patent, col. 2:11-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A "base server apparatus" that relays data from a distribution center to terminals.
    • A "data accumulation unit" that records data and a "data distribution control unit" to manage it.
    • A "management table" that associates the recorded data with the specific terminal requesting a pause.
    • The system logic dictates that the control unit starts recording upon a pause request (if not already recording for another user), distributes the recorded data upon a resume request, and "deletes the data" only when there is "no terminal that pauses playing the data".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Products" include Defendant's "Becker Web Application" and overall "Becker Streaming System" (Compl. ¶¶14, 66).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products deliver streaming multimedia content, including live and on-demand professional education courses, to customers across the United States via the becker.com website (Compl. ¶9). The complaint alleges the system utilizes servers, client devices (laptops, tablets, etc.), and a distribution network that includes "Becker edge location or regional edge cache servers" to relay data to end-users (Compl. ¶¶47, 66). The complaint includes a photograph of the exterior sign for Defendant's Dallas office building (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits C and D, which were not publicly filed with the pleading. The infringement theories are summarized below based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’809 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products constitute a delivery system that infringes at least claim 1 of the ’809 Patent (Compl. ¶46). The theory is that when a user streams content through the Becker Web Application on a client device, the system dynamically changes the bit rate of the content data based on the "remaining reproduction time" to provide a smooth playback experience (Compl. ¶47). This functionality is alleged to meet the limitations of the claimed adaptive streaming method.

’779 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Becker Streaming System infringes at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent (Compl. ¶65). The infringement theory centers on the system's architecture, which allegedly uses "base server apparatus (e.g., Becker edge location or regional edge cache servers)" to relay data from a central distribution point to user devices (Compl. ¶66). The complaint posits that when users pause and resume streams, these servers perform the claimed functions of recording data, associating it with the paused user, distributing it upon resume, and deleting it when no longer needed, thereby infringing the patent (Compl. ¶¶65, 66).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’809 Patent will be whether the term "predetermined correction amount reducing range" can be construed to read on the specific adaptive bitrate algorithm used by Becker. For the ’779 Patent, a key issue may be whether Becker’s "edge cache servers" function as the claimed "base server apparatus" with its specific "management table" logic, or if they are generic content delivery network (CDN) nodes with standard caching policies.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Becker’s system performs the specific function of calculating a smaller magnitude correction amount as required by claim 1 of the ’809 patent? Similarly, what evidence shows that Becker's system deletes cached data based on the state of all paused terminals, as required by claim 1 of the ’779 patent, rather than using a simpler time-based eviction policy?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term (’809 Patent): "predetermined correction amount reducing range"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central inventive concept of the ’809 Patent, distinguishing it from generic adaptive bitrate systems. Infringement will likely depend on whether Becker's system employs a functionally equivalent mechanism that specifically dampens bit rate adjustments, rather than merely operating within certain bounds.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be read in light of the specification’s stated goal of solving the problem of "excessive deterioration of the user's quality of experience" due to frequent fluctuations, suggesting any mechanism that smooths changes could be covered (’809 Patent, col. 1:42-47).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to the highly detailed mathematical formulas, flowcharts, and specific time constants described in the specification as defining the required structure and function of this "range," arguing the term is limited to that specific implementation (’809 Patent, Fig. 7, col. 8:36-9:5).

Term (’779 Patent): "deletes the data... when there is no terminal that pauses playing the data"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the intelligent data-deletion logic that distinguishes the invention from simple caching. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether Becker's system deletes data based on a collective "last-user-is-done" signal, which requires tracking the state of multiple terminals associated with the same data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary explains the purpose is to "reduce the data accumulated" (’779 Patent, col. 2:14-16). A plaintiff could argue that any system that retains data as long as it is needed by at least one paused viewer and then deletes it serves this purpose.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires deletion to be conditioned on the state of all relevant terminals ("no terminal"). A defendant might argue this requires a specific architecture, like the management table shown in FIG. 4, that actively tracks the pause state of every associated terminal for a piece of data, and that a generic time-to-live cache eviction policy would not infringe (’779 Patent, Fig. 4, col. 8:15-20).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents based on Defendant providing "demonstrations and user manuals" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶52, 70). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶54, 72).

Willful Infringement

For the ’809 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from an October 10, 2023 notice letter and alleged knowledge of Plaintiff's prior litigation involving the patent (Compl. ¶¶49, 53, 60). For the ’779 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge acquired "at least upon the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶71, 78).

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

  • A core issue will be one of algorithmic specificity: Can Plaintiff demonstrate through discovery that Becker's adaptive streaming technology implements the specific, two-tiered corrective logic of the "predetermined correction amount reducing range" claimed in the ’809 Patent, or does it use a different, non-infringing algorithm?
  • A key architectural question will be one of functional equivalence: Do Becker's "edge cache servers" operate as the claimed "base server apparatus" of the ’779 Patent, using stateful, user-aware logic to manage and delete data for paused streams, or do they employ standard, state-agnostic CDN caching mechanisms?
  • Ultimately, the dispute may turn on whether Becker’s streaming platform contains the precise, rule-based technical improvements recited in the patent claims, or if it achieves similar end-user results (e.g., smooth playback, stream pausing) through more conventional, and therefore non-infringing, industry methods.