Err Content IP LLC v. ESPN Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Err Content IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ESPN, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-04733, S.D. Tex., 10/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enhanced ESPN app and associated services, which display content from multiple sources, infringe a patent related to methods for providing main content from a first source while simultaneously displaying supplemental "extra content" from a second source on either a primary or a secondary device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the "second screen" user experience, where viewers consuming primary media content (e.g., a live sports broadcast) are simultaneously provided with related, supplementary data (e.g., player statistics) on the same or a different device.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in the past, and argues that these licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-26	’542 Patent Priority Date
2020-07-21	’542 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-01	Alleged Launch of Accused ESPN App Service
2025-10-03	Complaint Filing Date

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: The patent describes a limitation in then-current systems where a user viewing broadcast content (main content) would have to navigate away from that content to access related supplemental information (extra content) referenced within the broadcast, forcing the user to choose between the two (’542 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to display both main and extra content simultaneously. A "reference item," or metadata, is broadcasted together with the main content from a first source. This metadata provides a link to "extra content" stored at a different, second source. The system allows for two primary modes of operation: (1) the extra content is retrieved and displayed on the same device as the main content (e.g., in a picture-in-picture format), or (2) the metadata is forwarded to a second device (e.g., a smartphone), which then retrieves and displays the extra content, leaving the first device to display the main content uninterrupted (’542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-42).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more integrated and non-disruptive viewing experience by allowing users to access supplementary data without losing focus on the primary media presentation (’542 Patent, col. 1:53-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata together from a first source.
  • Displaying the main content on a first device.
  • The metadata links the main content with an extra content available from a different, second source.
  • Forwarding the metadata to a second device.
  • The forwarding is executed by the second device "scanning" the metadata.
  • The second device receives the extra content from the second source.
  • The main content is displayed on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
  • The extra content changes in correspondence to changes in the main content.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "systems and methods for displaying content from sources" developed, operated, and sold by ESPN (Compl. ¶8). This is exemplified by the "new direct-to-consumer-service-enhanced-espn-app" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's service involves "displaying content from sources" (Compl. ¶10) and that Defendant offers this service with instructions that suggest an infringing use (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the ESPN app functions, how it sources main versus supplemental content, or the mechanism by which supplemental content is triggered or displayed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in an "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶9). The narrative infringement theory alleges that ESPN's app and services practice the claimed methods of displaying content from different sources in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’542 Patent (Compl. ¶8).

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking a detailed claim chart, an analysis of the claim language against the general allegations raises several potential areas of dispute.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires that the "first source" and "second source" be "different" (’542 Patent, col. 8:67). A key question may be whether the various content delivery networks (CDNs) or servers used by the accused ESPN service to deliver a primary video stream and related data (e.g., statistics) constitute distinct "sources" within the meaning of the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will concern the limitation "the forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device" (’542 Patent, col. 8:57-59). The specification provides QR codes as an example of scannable data (’542 Patent, col. 3:62-64). The case may turn on whether the accused ESPN app requires a user to perform a literal "scanning" action (e.g., using a phone camera to scan a code on a TV screen) to link the two devices, or whether Plaintiff will argue for a broader interpretation of "scanning" that could cover other forms of device pairing or data transfer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "metadata"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claim, as it is the vehicle that links the main content to the extra content. The scope of "metadata" will determine what kinds of data signals or references within a broadcast stream can satisfy this claim element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that reference items, which appear to be used interchangeably with metadata, "are provided as a subtitle, metadata, teletext or the like" (’542 Patent, col. 1:31-32). This suggests a variety of data types could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires that the metadata be forwarded by "scanning." The specification explicitly links scannable items to visual codes, stating the reference item can contain a "QR-code, a bar code, machine-readable data or optical machine-readable data" (’542 Patent, col. 3:62-64). This could support an argument that the claimed "metadata" must be in a format that is visually scannable.

• The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"

• Context and Importance: This active step defines how the two devices in the claimed system are linked. Its construction is critical because modern "second screen" applications often use automatic network-based discovery or user account synchronization rather than manual scanning. A narrow construction could be dispositive of infringement for many accused systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of evidence that may support a broader interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly associates this concept with visual scanning. The detailed description explains that a reference item can be provided to a second device "by scanning the reference item displayed on the first device via said second device," noting this is "particularly advantageous when using existing visual codes systems, such as QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" (’542 Patent, col. 4:3-9). This language strongly suggests a direct, optical scanning process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that ESPN actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its services in an infringing manner through its "website and product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused product's "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’542 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 12). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused ESPN app link a primary viewing device (e.g., a TV) with a secondary device (e.g., a phone) through a process that can be fairly described as "scanning metadata," as required by Claim 1? The answer may depend heavily on whether discovery reveals a literal scanning function or if the court adopts a broader construction of the term.
• A second key question will be one of system architecture: does the accused service deliver its main video content and its supplemental data from "different" sources, as the patent claims? The outcome may hinge on the technical details of ESPN's content delivery infrastructure and how the term "source" is defined.
• An overarching evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the absence of a claim chart and specific technical allegations in the complaint, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to develop evidence in discovery that maps the precise functionality of the accused ESPN app onto the specific, and potentially limiting, language of the asserted claims.