Media Key LLC v. Micro Focus LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Micro Focus LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00716, S.D. Tex., 02/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to distributing updateable content to users via portable media that connects to a remote server.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delivering dynamic, internet-sourced content through physical media (like a CD-ROM), effectively turning a static medium into a gateway for live information.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2003. The complaint is the first-mentioned procedural event and asserts that its service provides Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement for the purposes of willfulness.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 - "Media Keying for Updateable Content Distribution," issued October 20, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of distributing content on physical media like CDs, which are typically static and quickly become outdated (e.g., a product catalog with changing prices) ('876 Patent, col. 1:26-35). Updating such media was described as impractical, requiring the user to return the media or the provider to issue a new one ('876 Patent, col. 1:35-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where portable media (e.g., a CD) is pre-installed with a "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID" ('876 Patent, col. 2:13-15). When a user accesses the media on a network-connected device, the Keying Application launches and connects to a remote "Content Server" ('876 Patent, col. 2:17-18). The server uses the Source ID to identify the media and deliver specific, up-to-date content to the user, bypassing the static nature of the physical medium itself ('876 Patent, col. 2:19-23; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for content providers to leverage mass distribution of cheap physical media while still retaining the ability to serve dynamic, customized, and current information as if the user were directly accessing a live website ('876 Patent, col. 1:56-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" contained in an unprovided exhibit, without specifying any claims in the complaint body (Compl. ¶11). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the system claimed.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • At least one network-connected content server for creating and updating information based on a user profile.
  • A "keying application" stored on "processor readable portable external storage media."
  • The keying application is for launching on an electronic device to select a "user ID" and transmit it along with a "storage media identifier" to the content server.
  • The profile is generated from factors including the storage media identifier, the user ID, and transaction histories.
  • The keying application records the user ID generated by the content server on the local electronic device if the media is non-recordable.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶11, 14, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these unspecified products and that Defendant's employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '876 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping any feature of any accused product to the limitations of the asserted claims. All such allegations are incorporated by reference from "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary issue may be whether the complaint's complete reliance on an external, unprovided exhibit to supply the factual basis for infringement meets the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal. The complaint document itself does not contain factual allegations creating a plausible claim for relief.
  • Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products or their specific functionality, it is not possible to frame technical questions. The central dispute will depend entirely on the evidence presented in the missing Exhibit 2, namely, how the accused products are alleged to perform the functions of the "keying application," use a "storage media identifier," and interact with a "content server" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "keying application" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This patentee-coined term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine the scope of infringing activity, specifically what type of software program executing from portable media qualifies. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is central to distinguishing the invention from both standard software installation and simple web browsing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term could cover a range of interfaces, including a "network browser or browser-like application," a "text-based, prompt-and-respond user interface," or a "GUI with user initiated hyperlinks" ('876 Patent, col. 3:40-45), suggesting it is not limited to one specific implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "self-contained, user interface" that "eliminates the need for use of any other external programs" ('876 Patent, col. 3:37-43). This could support a narrower construction requiring the application to operate independently without relying on a pre-existing, separate browser on the user's device.

• The Term: "storage media identifier" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This identifier is the mechanism by which the content server recognizes the physical media. Distinguishing this from the "user ID" is critical, as the claim treats them as separate entities. The dispute will likely center on what technical feature of an accused system constitutes this specific type of identifier.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to this as the "Source ID," which may "identify the distribution point of the media, or the identity/profile of an end user who will be given the media" ('876 Patent, col. 3:1-3). This suggests it can represent a variety of metadata beyond just a unique serial number.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the identifier to the "portable external storage media" itself. The specification analogizes it to a "unique serial number" associated with the media ('876 Patent, col. 3:12-13), which could support a construction requiring a hardware-based or media-specific identifier, rather than a purely software-based one.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '876 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The specific content of these materials is purportedly referenced in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willful infringement is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that its service provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that outsources all of its core factual allegations for infringement to an unprovided external exhibit state a plausible claim for relief, or is it vulnerable to dismissal for failing to provide adequate notice of the basis for the claim within the pleading itself?
• A central claim construction issue will be the definitional scope of the patentee-coined term "keying application". The outcome will likely depend on whether the term is construed broadly to encompass any software on portable media that initiates a network connection, or narrowly to require a "self-contained" program that functions independently of other software like a standard web browser.
• The core evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Once the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified, does their operation in fact involve the claimed architecture of a "storage media identifier" and a distinct "user ID" being transmitted from a "keying application" to a "content server" to retrieve customized content, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?