Err Content IP LLC v. EchoStar Communications Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Err Content IP, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Echostar Communications Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05248, S.D. Tex., 11/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, such as a location in Alvin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dish Anywhere app system infringes a patent related to methods for providing a main content stream on a first device while simultaneously providing related "extra content" on a second device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the synchronization of primary screen content (e.g., a television broadcast) with supplementary content on a secondary device (e.g., a tablet), a key feature in the interactive media and streaming market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these licenses did not involve admissions of infringement or cover the production of a patented article, which may be relevant to future arguments regarding damages and patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 Priority Date (based on PCT/EP2012/057644 filing)
2020-07-21	U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 Issues
2025-11-17	Complaint Filed

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 (“Bandwidth shaping client to capture, transform, cache, and upload images from a remote point of recordation to a network service”), issued July 21, 2020 (the ’542 Patent). Note: The patent title listed in the complaint differs from the title on the patent's cover page; this analysis uses the official title from the patent itself: "Method and device for providing a main content and an extra content to a user through reference item."

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem where users watching broadcast content (e.g., on a TV) who want to access related supplementary information are forced to navigate away from the primary content, thereby interrupting their viewing experience. Existing systems "force in practice the user to leave the main content for tracking the reference item and get access to an extra content" (’542 Patent, col. 1:36-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to display "main content" from a first source on a first device (e.g., a TV) while using a "second device" (e.g., a tablet) to access and display related "extra content" from a separate, second source (’542 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by broadcasting "metadata" along with the main content, which the second device can capture (e.g., by scanning a code on the first device's screen) to retrieve the synchronized extra content, allowing for simultaneous, uninterrupted viewing on both screens (’542 Patent, col. 2:22-38; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables a synchronized second-screen experience where supplementary data can be provided to a user without disrupting the primary media consumption on the main screen (’542 Patent, col. 2:16-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶17) and references an exemplary claim chart for claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶22), though the chart is not provided with the complaint. The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source.
  • Displaying said specific main content on a first device.
  • Forwarding said metadata to a second device, wherein the forwarding 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 extra content changes in correspondence to a change of the specific main content.
  • The first source is different from the second source.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Dish Anywhere app system and related systems" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a system for "enhanced content distribution" (Compl. ¶23).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the Dish Anywhere app system. It identifies the product by name and provides a URL, but does not describe the underlying mechanism by which it delivers content or synchronizes experiences across multiple devices (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶22). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Defendant’s Dish Anywhere system directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’542 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering the system for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not, however, contain factual allegations explaining how the accused system meets the specific limitations of the asserted claims.

Identified Points of Contention

The lack of technical detail in the complaint raises foundational questions about the infringement theory. Based on the patent's claim language, key disputes may arise over the following:

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the limitation requiring the "forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device" (’542 Patent, col. 9:58-60). The viability of the infringement claim could depend on whether the Dish Anywhere system uses a mechanism that can be characterized as "scanning" information from a first screen to a second, or if it uses a fundamentally different architecture (e.g., a cloud-based account synchronization) that falls outside the scope of this language.
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence or allegation that the accused system involves a user physically scanning a TV screen with a mobile device to link the content. A primary technical question will be what mechanism the Dish Anywhere system actually uses to synchronize content between devices and whether that mechanism meets the specific steps recited in claim 1. Another question is whether the system retrieves main and supplementary content from "different" sources as required by the claim (’542 Patent, col. 9:66-col. 10:2).

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 term appears to be the most specific and potentially dispositive limitation in claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused system’s method for linking two devices can be construed as "scanning." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern, integrated multi-screen applications often rely on account-level synchronization rather than the optical scanning of one device by another.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broad interpretation. An argument for a broader reading might need to rely on construing "scanning" metaphorically, which is typically disfavored in claim construction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides explicit examples that support a narrow, literal interpretation, such as using a second device to scan "visual codes systems, such as QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" displayed on the first device (’542 Patent, col. 7:7-10). The plain language of the claim recites a specific physical action, which may limit its scope to such implementations.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged knowledge of the ’542 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶23-24). This alleges post-suit willfulness, which could support a claim for enhanced damages if infringement is found.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the Dish Anywhere system, which likely synchronizes devices via user accounts and network communication, performs the specific method of "forwarding... by scanning" as required by the asserted claim? The case may depend on whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed method and the accused system's actual operation.
• A second key question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused product operates, provide sufficient information to support a plausible claim of infringement under the standards set by Iqbal and Twombly? The absence of allegations mapping product features to key claim limitations, especially the "scanning" element, may become an early focus of the litigation.