DCT
1:19-cv-00805
WAG Acquisition LLC v. Vubeology Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WAG Acquisition, LLC. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Vubeology, Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: LEWIS BAACH pllc
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00805, D.N.J., 07/17/2014
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey based on statutory grounds and on information and belief that Defendant utilizes a Content Distribution Network (CDN) with an "edge" server located in Newark, New Jersey, to deliver infringing video streams to users in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s video sharing website and associated streaming infrastructure infringe two patents related to systems for buffering streaming media content.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods to improve the internet streaming experience by reducing initial buffering delays and playback interruptions, aiming to make it comparable to traditional broadcast media.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit through a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against entities referred to as the "Flying Croc Entities." Plaintiff alleges that due to overlapping principals and business relationships, notice to the Flying Croc Entities should be imputed to Defendant Vubeology, forming a basis for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’141 and ’011 Patents |
| 2012-02-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 Issued |
| 2012-12-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011 Issued |
| 2013-03-01 | Defendant Vubeology, Inc. allegedly founded vube.com |
| 2014-04-25 | "Flying Croc Action" filed; alleged "Notice Date" |
| 2014-05-14 | Service of process effected in "Flying Croc Action" |
| 2014-07-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141, “STREAMING MEDIA BUFFERING SYSTEM,” Issued Feb. 21, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the shortcomings of early internet streaming, where network congestion and other issues caused frequent interruptions ("dropouts") and long initial "pre-buffering" delays, leading to a frustrating user experience (Compl. ¶7; ’141 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Conventional systems could not effectively recover from data loss without pausing playback to re-fill the buffer (’141 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a client-side media player actively manages its data supply. The server first assigns serial identifiers to sequential "data elements" of a media stream. The media player then requests these elements from the server, which can deliver them at a rate "more rapid" than the media's playback rate (’141 Patent, col. 12:28-34). By maintaining a record of the last element received, the player can continuously request subsequent elements, allowing it to build and replenish its own buffer during playback and recover from transmission gaps without interruption (’141 Patent, col. 12:35-44).
- Technical Importance: This client-pull approach aimed to provide a smoother, more resilient streaming experience that resembled the immediacy of traditional radio or television (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 10, 19, 24, and 28, among others (Compl. ¶¶39-41, 46).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): Essential elements include:
- Providing a server programmed to receive requests for media data elements specified by serial identifiers.
- The server sends the requested data elements at a rate more rapid than the user's playback rate.
- Providing a machine-readable medium (e.g., player software) that is programmed to maintain a record of the last data element received and to transmit requests to the server for subsequent data elements as needed.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶39-41, 46).
U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011, “STREAMING MEDIA BUFFERING SYSTEM,” Issued Dec. 4, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '141 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of creating a seamless streaming media experience by mitigating buffering delays and playback interruptions (’011 Patent, col. 2:18-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is focused on the media player itself. It claims a media player with software containing instructions to perform a series of steps: (1) request an initial number of media data elements from a source; (2) receive and store them in a local buffer; (3) maintain a record of the serial number of the last element received; and (4) repeatedly transmit new requests for subsequent elements to maintain a sufficient buffer level throughout playback, until the entire program is received (’011 Patent, col. 14:1-19). The core inventive concept is the player's persistent, repeated requesting of data to actively manage its own buffer.
- Technical Importance: This invention describes the client-side intelligence required to enable the resilient streaming system envisioned in the patent family (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶75).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): Essential elements describe a media player with a processor, memory, and software comprising instructions to:
- Request a predetermined number of media data elements from a source.
- Receive and store the elements in memory (a player buffer).
- Maintain a record of the serial number of the last element received.
- Play the elements sequentially from the buffer.
- Repeat transmitting requests for sequential media data elements to maintain the buffer until the program is complete.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶75).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the vube.com "video sharing" website, its underlying server infrastructure, and associated software, including "Player Software" and "Vube Downloaded Software" (Compl. ¶¶13, 41, 43).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant operates a substantial server infrastructure to receive, store, and redistribute user-created video content (Compl. ¶18). When a user requests a video, the stream is served from a specific subdomain ("video.thestaticvube.com") that is allegedly hosted by a third-party CDN provider, Highwinds Network Group, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶24-25).
- The system allegedly uses a "divide and conquer" approach where media streams are broken into elements with serial identifiers, which are then requested by the user's "Player" (Compl. ¶39). In some cases, Defendant's servers allegedly transmit a "separate increment of software," referred to as "Vube Downloaded Software," to the user's Player to provide this functionality (Compl. ¶43).
- The complaint alleges vube.com achieved "phenomenal success," becoming a top 100 website, and that this success is attributable to its technological capability to deliver media in a responsive and smooth manner (Compl. ¶¶13, 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'141 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for distributing streaming media via a data communications medium...the streaming media comprising a plurality of sequential media data elements... | Defendant's system delivers streaming video content composed of sequential media data elements over the Internet. | ¶39 | col. 12:22-27 |
| providing a server programmed to receive requests from the user system for media data elements corresponding to specified serial identifiers... | Defendant's servers assign serial identifiers to media data elements and receive requests from users that identify the requested elements by these identifiers. | ¶39 | col. 12:28-34 |
| ...and to send media data elements to the user system responsive to said requests, at a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back by a user... | The accused mechanism provides for a "fast start of streaming playback," which suggests a delivery rate faster than the playback rate. | ¶39 | col. 12:32-34 |
| ...and providing a machine-readable medium accessible to said user, on which there has been recorded software for implementing a media player...said software being programmed to cause the media player to maintain a record of the identifier of the last data element that has been received; and to transmit requests to the server to send one or more data elements... | Defendant provides "Player Software" or "Vube Downloaded Software" that causes the Player to request data elements by their identifiers and to maintain a record of the elements already received. | ¶¶41, 43 | col. 12:35-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for method claim 1 may be one of divided infringement. Since the claim requires actions by both a server (provided by Defendant) and a user system running player software, the court may need to determine if Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of its users sufficiently to be liable for the entire method as a single actor (Compl. ¶42).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system actually delivers data "at a rate more rapid" than playback? While a "fast start" is alleged, the specific data rates are not detailed, raising an evidentiary question for trial.
'011 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A media player for receiving an audio or video program...wherein each of the media data elements is associated with a serial number... | The user's "Player" receives streaming video from Defendant's servers, where the video is composed of elements identified by serial identifiers. | ¶¶39, 76 | col. 13:11-17 |
| media player software comprising instructions to cause the media player to request...a predetermined number of media data elements; | Defendant's servers send instructions that cause the Player to load and execute "Player Software," which then requests the serialized streaming data. | ¶76 | col. 13:30-34 |
| instructions to...receive media data elements...and store the media data elements in the memory; | The Player receives and stores the requested media elements. This is an inherent part of the streaming process described. | ¶76 | col. 13:35-39 |
| instructions to implement a player buffer manager...operable to maintain a record of the serial number of the last media data element that has been received... | The "Vube Downloaded Software" is allegedly programmed to cause the Player to maintain a record of the identifier of the last data element received. | ¶43 | col. 14:1-5 |
| instructions to cause the media player to...repeat transmitting the requests to the media source for sequential media data elements so as to maintain the pre-determined number of media data elements in the player buffer... | The "Vube Downloaded Software" is programmed to transmit requests to the server for the "next sequential data elements," which implies a repeated requesting process to maintain the stream. | ¶43 | col. 14:10-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does a general-purpose computer or mobile device that downloads and runs the "Vube Downloaded Software" become the specific "media player" apparatus claimed? The defense may argue the claims are directed to a more specialized device, pointing to specification language mentioning an "Internet radio or Internet Appliance" (’011 Patent, col. 12:11-15).
- Technical Questions: What is the specific functionality of the "Player Software" or "Vube Downloaded Software"? The complaint alleges it performs the claimed functions, but a key factual dispute may be whether it truly "repeat[s] transmitting... requests... so as to maintain" a buffer in the specific manner required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '141 Patent:
- The Term: "at a rate more rapid than the rate at which said streaming media is played back by a user" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the technical core of how the system builds a protective buffer on the client side. Its definition is critical because infringement hinges on proving that Defendant's servers do more than simply stream at the playback rate. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a sustained faster rate or merely an initial burst.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a duration or magnitude, suggesting any rate measurably faster than playback could infringe. The purpose is to "build[] up audio/video data in the user buffer" (’141 Patent, col. 11:47-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific example where the connection is 56,000 bits per second and playback is 24,000, resulting in a buffer fill rate of 32,000 bps (’141 Patent, col. 11:57-65). A defendant could argue this implies a significant and sustained differential, not a momentary one.
For the '011 Patent:
- The Term: "media player" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the entire apparatus being claimed. Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on general-purpose devices (like PCs and smartphones) running Defendant's software, or is limited to more specialized hardware.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim preamble is general ("A media player for receiving an audio or video program"). The patent also states that the user's system could be a "user computer" (’011 Patent, col. 10:17), supporting a broad reading. The complaint alleges infringement by "desktop computers and mobile devices" (Compl. ¶18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples, stating, "Alternatively, the user computer is replaced by an Internet radio or Internet Appliance" (’011 Patent, col. 12:11-13). A defendant may argue this language limits the term to such dedicated devices, distinguishing them from general-purpose computers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement: It is alleged that Defendant induces infringement by its users by providing video streams "especially adapted" for compatible players, providing mobile apps, and providing "Vube Downloaded Software" that causes users to perform the infringing steps (Compl. ¶¶56-58, 83-85).
- Contributory Infringement: This is based on the allegation that the "Vube Downloaded Software" is a material component of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement" (Compl. ¶¶66-67, 92-93).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶101-103). This knowledge is allegedly imputed to Defendant from a prior lawsuit against affiliated "Flying Croc Entities" due to shared senior executives and operational relationships, with the alleged notice date being as early as April 25, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶31-33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Divided Infringement and Control: A primary legal hurdle for Plaintiff regarding method claim 1 of the '141 patent will be proving single-actor liability. Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of its end-users to such a degree that their use of player software can be attributed to Defendant for infringement purposes?
- Evidentiary Proof of Technical Function: A key factual dispute will be one of operational equivalence. Does the Vubeology streaming system, which utilizes a third-party CDN, actually transmit data "at a rate more rapid than... playback" as required by the '141 patent? Furthermore, does the accused "Player Software" perform the specific "repeat transmitting [of] requests... so as to maintain" a buffer as recited in claim 1 of the '011 patent, or does it operate in a technically distinct manner?
- Imputation of Knowledge for Willfulness: The viability of the willfulness claim will likely depend on corporate law principles. Will the court agree that knowledge of the patents from the "Flying Croc Action" can be legally imputed to Vubeology based on the complaint's allegations of overlapping executives and business operations? This will require discovery into the precise relationship between the entities.