DCT

1:18-cv-00476

Contemporary Display LLC v. DISH Network LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00476, W.D. Tex., 10/09/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established physical places of business in the district, including customer call centers and digital broadcast operations centers.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital video recorders (DVRs), associated remote controls, and software applications infringe five patents related to multi-screen video display management, user interface controls, and the transfer of user sessions between devices.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for managing and displaying video content from multiple sources across multiple displays, a foundational capability in modern DVR, whole-home video, and content streaming ecosystems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit represent substantial technical improvements, as evidenced by their citation history in later patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against several of the asserted patents. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,643; 6,429,903; and 6,492,997, a development that materially affects the scope of the dispute going forward.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-09-03 Priority Date for ’643 and ’903 Patents
1998-02-04 Priority Date for ’997 Patent
1998-06-24 Priority Date for ’202 Patent
2000-02-22 ’643 Patent Issued
2002-08-06 ’903 Patent Issued
2002-10-08 Priority Date for ’842 Patent
2002-12-10 ’997 Patent Issued
2009-03-03 ’202 Patent Issued
2010-10-05 ’842 Patent Issued
2018-10-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,028,643 - “MULTIPLE-SCREEN VIDEO ADAPTER WITH TELEVISION TUNER,” Issued February 22, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the technical challenge of supporting multiple video displays on a single computer, noting limitations imposed by a finite number of expansion slots and the software incompatibilities that can arise when using multiple video cards from different manufacturers (Compl. ¶12; ’643 Patent, col. 2:1-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single video adapter card that integrates hardware—including multiple graphics accelerators and multiple television tuners—and software to control the display of both computer-generated information and external television signals across multiple monitors ('643 Patent, Abstract). A key element is a software "tool window" that allows a user to select which video or TV source is routed to each connected display device ('643 Patent, col. 3:65–col. 4:2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to consolidate the hardware required for advanced multi-monitor and television-in-a-window applications, which were valuable for professions like securities trading and medicine, onto a single, more manageable piece of hardware (Compl. ¶17; ’643 Patent, col. 1:60-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 16 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Essential elements of claim 16 include:
    • Providing a computer with an adapter that has a plurality of video tuners and supplies signals to a plurality of monitors.
    • Displaying a tool window interface with separate selectable inputs for a first and second display device.
    • Receiving user selections for the first and second inputs.
    • Causing the adapter to display signals on the first and second display devices according to the user's selections.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,429,903 - “VIDEO ADAPTER FOR SUPPORTING AT LEAST ONE TELEVISION MONITOR,” Issued August 6, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem of creating and controlling a "video wall"—an array of television monitors that can display multiple video programs. It notes that conventional methods using multiple individual video adapters required complex cabling and control systems (Compl. ¶35; ’903 Patent, col. 2:9-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a single video adapter that combines at least one television tuner with a video multiplexer. This circuitry is designed to receive a television programming input, process it, and feed the programming to multiple television monitors based on commands entered into the host computer and sent to the multiplexer via the computer's bus ('903 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶48).
  • Technical Importance: The technology sought to simplify the hardware architecture for multi-television display systems, leveraging the lower cost of television monitors compared to computer monitors for applications like video walls (Compl. ¶40; ’903 Patent, col. 2:42-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent product claim 12 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Essential elements of claim 12 include circuitry comprising:
    • At least one television programming input port.
    • At least one television tuner.
    • A video multiplexer coupled to the tuner, a plurality of television monitors, and a computer bus.
    • The multiplexer is further adapted to receive and feed programming to the monitors according to commands sent from the computer via the bus.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,492,997 - “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SELECTABLE PROGRAMMING IN A MULTI-SCREEN MODE,” Issued December 10, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses an improved user interface for selecting television programs (Compl. ¶58). The invention describes a method for presenting an interactive multi-window video display where multiple reduced-size, real-time video signals are displayed simultaneously within an overlay grid, allowing a user to select one of the reduced-size displays for full-screen viewing (Compl. ¶71).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 30 and 33-36 are asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that the "Sports Bar Mode" or multi-view feature of the Accused Infringing DVR Device, which allows users to watch four games at once, infringes the ’997 Patent by receiving a multi-window signal and generating an overlay grid for user selection (Compl. ¶71, ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 7,500,202 - “REMOTE CONTROL FOR NAVIGATING THROUGH CONTENT IN AN ORGANIZED AND CATEGORIZED FASHION,” Issued March 3, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an ergonomic design for a remote control intended to improve navigation of multi-channel video systems (Compl. ¶81). The invention claims a remote control with operational controls located on at least three sides, grouped by navigational function, and configured to be grasped and operated with one hand (Compl. ¶94).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The DISH "50.0 Remote Control Device" is accused of infringing by having its controls grouped and placed on at least three sides to facilitate one-handed operation as described in the claim (Compl. ¶94).

U.S. Patent No. 7,809,842 - “TRANSFERRING SESSIONS BETWEEN DEVICES,” Issued October 5, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of seamlessly transferring a computer or communication session from a first device to a second device (Compl. ¶106). The patented method involves establishing a communication link between the two devices, receiving "session context information" from the first device, and using that information to continue the session on the second device, with the first device operating as a proxy (Compl. ¶119).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: The "DISH Anywhere App" is accused of infringing by enabling users to transfer a computer session, such as viewing a television program, from a first device (e.g., a DVR) to an app on a second device (e.g., a mobile phone), allegedly using the claimed proxy and session-transfer method (Compl. ¶117, ¶119).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a system of products: the "Hopper 3 DVR with Joey receivers" (the Accused Infringing DVR Device), the "50.0 Remote Control" (the Accused Infringing Remote Control Device), and the "DISH Anywhere App" (the Accused Infringing App Device) (Compl. ¶23, ¶92, ¶117).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Hopper 3 DVR is a satellite television receiver and recorder that functions as a whole-home media server, capable of delivering live and recorded content to a primary television and multiple secondary televisions via connected Joey client devices (Compl. ¶25, ¶48). It includes features like "Sports Bar Mode" which presents four channels simultaneously on a single screen for user selection (Compl. ¶71). The 50.0 Remote Control is the user's physical interface for controlling the DVR (Compl. ¶94). The DISH Anywhere App extends the viewing experience to mobile devices by allowing users to stream content from their home DVR (Compl. ¶119). These products form a core part of Defendant's satellite television service offering.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,028,643 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a computer containing an adapter which supplies signals to a plurality of monitors, the adapter containing a plurality of video tuners The Accused Infringing DVR Device is a computer system with an adapter containing multiple tuners that supplies signals to multiple monitors (e.g., TVs connected via Joey receivers). ¶25 col. 5:54-56
displaying a tool window interface ... wherein a first display device output window having a group of selectable inputs ... and a second display device output window having a group of selectable inputs ... are displayed The device displays an interface that allows a user to select different video inputs for display on a first television and a second television. ¶25 col. 15:1-17
inputting an indication that a user wishes to select a first input for the first display device output window; inputting an indication that a user wishes to select a second input for the second display device output window The user selects the desired inputs for each television through the device's on-screen interface. ¶25 col. 15:5-10
causing the adapter to display, on the first display device, signals according to the first display device input indication; and causing the adapter to display, on the second display device, signals according to the second display device input indication The device sends the selected programming to the corresponding first and second televisions for display. ¶25 col. 15:10-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "tool window interface," described in the patent in the context of a personal computer's graphical user interface, can be construed to cover the television-centric on-screen menu and guide system of the accused Hopper 3 DVR.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Hopper 3 system, which uses a main DVR and client "Joey" receivers, operates as the claimed "computer containing an adapter which supplies signals to a plurality of monitors," and whether its internal architecture maps to the specific adapter components claimed?

6,429,903 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a product for installation in a computer for receiving at least one television programming input and displaying television programming ... on multiple television monitors The Accused Infringing DVR Device is a product installed in a computer for receiving and displaying television programming on multiple monitors. ¶48 col. 3:9-10
at least one television programming input port The device includes circuitry with at least one input port for receiving television programming from a source like a satellite dish. ¶48 col. 3:9-10
at least one television tuner The device's circuitry includes at least one television tuner. ¶48 col. 3:11-14
a video multiplexer coupled to the television tuner and adapted to be coupled to a plurality of television monitors, said video multiplexer also adapted to be coupled to a bus of the computer The device's circuitry allegedly includes a video multiplexer that is coupled to its tuner and a computer bus, and is adapted to couple to multiple televisions. ¶48 col. 3:15-18
said multiplexer also adapted to receive television programming and feed said programming to said television monitors, according to commands entered into said computer and sent to said multiplexer via said bus The device's multiplexer is allegedly adapted to receive programming and route it to the various televisions based on user commands. ¶48 col. 3:18-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the term "video multiplexer," a discrete hardware component, reads on the functionality of the highly integrated system-on-a-chip (SoC) architecture typical of modern DVRs, which may not contain a separately identifiable multiplexer component.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused DVR's internal components are "coupled" in the specific manner required by the claim (e.g., multiplexer to tuner, multiplexer to bus), and how does it execute "commands entered into said computer and sent to said multiplexer via said bus"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "tool window interface" (from ’643 Patent, claim 16)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused product is a television DVR with an on-screen guide, not a personal computer with traditional "windows." Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could hinge on whether DISH's modern television user interface falls within the scope of a term described in the patent with figures depicting a PC-style floating window with tabs and buttons.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the software's function in general terms as including a "tool window that allows the user to modify the video and audio inputs and outputs" ('643 Patent, col. 2:65-67). This functional description could support a broader construction not limited to a specific visual appearance.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figures 23-27 depict a very specific embodiment of the "tool window" with distinct tabs for "Audio," "Video," "Input," and "Output" ('643 Patent, Fig. 24). This specific disclosure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to interfaces with these characteristics.

  • Term: "video multiplexer" (from ’903 Patent, claim 12)

    • Context and Importance: This term identifies a specific hardware component. The infringement case for the ’903 patent depends on mapping this claimed hardware structure onto the accused DVR. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern electronics like the Hopper 3 DVR often use highly integrated SoCs where the function of a multiplexer may be performed by software or is combined with many other functions, raising the question of whether a distinct, claimed "multiplexer" structure exists.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 12 defines the multiplexer largely by its connections and function: it is "coupled to the television tuner," "coupled to a plurality of television monitors," and it "feed[s] said programming...according to commands." This functional language could support an interpretation covering any component that performs this role.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the multiplexer as routing a source "to one or both of the graphics accelerators via a video decoder" ('903 Patent, col. 2:49-51). An argument could be made that this more specific description of its role within the patented architecture limits the scope of the term to components that operate in precisely that way.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’202 (Remote Control) and ’842 (Anywhere App) patents. It asserts that Defendant intentionally instructs customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner through materials such as "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" (Compl. ¶96, ¶121).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, for both the ’202 and ’842 patents, it alleges that Defendant will be on notice of the patents at least upon service of the complaint, and that continued infringement thereafter would be intentional (Compl. ¶97, ¶122). These allegations lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological translation: can claim terms rooted in the architecture of 1990s-era PC video cards and software (e.g., "adapter," "video multiplexer," "tool window interface") be construed to cover the highly integrated, software-driven functionality of a modern, television-centric DVR ecosystem?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional mapping: does the accused system's architecture—particularly for the ’202 remote control and ’842 session-transfer app—perform the functions and possess the structures required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and design?
  • A dispositive procedural question is one of case viability: given that all asserted claims of the first three patents-in-suit were cancelled in IPR proceedings initiated after this complaint was filed, the focus of the case will be narrowed to the two remaining patents and whether their infringement theories are sufficient to sustain the litigation.