DCT

1:20-cv-00717

Broadband iTV Inc v. AT&T Services Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00717, W.D. Tex., 12/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant AT&T maintains a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AT&T U-verse set-top boxes and mobile applications infringe four patents related to the management, templated display, and personalized delivery of video-on-demand (VOD) content.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture of interactive VOD systems, focusing on how content from various providers is ingested, categorized using hierarchical metadata, and presented to users in a navigable electronic program guide (EPG).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with an infringement notice letter on December 16, 2019, one day prior to filing the complaint, which may form a basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-07-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388 Issues
2018-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791 Issues
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,349,101 Issues
2019-12-16 Plaintiff serves infringement notice letter on Defendant
2019-12-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 - "System for addressing on-demand TV program content on TV services platform of a digital TV services provider"

Issued July 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of enabling a large number of content publishers, including non-studio or "citizen" creators, to make their programs available on VOD platforms and for viewers to navigate the resulting "vast numbers of new programs" to find content of interest (’026 Patent, col. 3:9-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where content is uploaded to a web-based management server with a hierarchical address tag (e.g., /News/Financial/). The system then converts this content and automatically lists it in the subscriber's electronic program guide (EPG) using the same hierarchical structure for navigation (’026 Patent, col. 3:15-52; Abstract). This architecture, depicted in Figure 1A, is designed to streamline the ingestion and display of content from many different sources (’026 Patent, Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a standardized vehicle for bringing large volumes of non-traditional content, like blogs or podcasts, to TV VOD platforms, making them discoverable within the existing EPG framework (’026 Patent, col. 4:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An Internet-connected digital device configured to present a "templatized video-on-demand display" that enables "drill-down" navigation.
    • The display is generated in a "plurality of layers," including a first background layer, a second template layer with reserved areas, and a third layer with content (text, images, links) filling those reserved areas.
    • Navigation involves moving from a first level of a hierarchical structure to a second level, using different display templates for each level.
    • The video content is received from a web-based content management system where it was uploaded with hierarchical metadata and associated images.
    • At least one of the uploaded images is displayed with its associated title in the templatized display.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 5, 8, and 11 (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 10,349,101 - "System for addressing on-demand TV program content on TV services platform of a digital TV services provider"

Issued July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’026 Patent, the invention addresses the challenge of navigating large VOD libraries. It further addresses the need to personalize the EPG to reduce the number of user interactions needed to find a program of interest (’101 Patent, col. 16:13-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method performed by the user's device. The device sends a login request, generates an initial EPG, tracks the user's navigation path, and sends this data to a "profiling system." This profiling system provides feedback to a "targeting system," which is then used by the device to generate an "updated" and personalized EPG in response to a subsequent user request (’101 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a closed-loop system for personalizing the VOD experience by using a subscriber's explicit navigation behavior to dynamically adjust the EPG content (’101 Patent, col. 21:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include a method comprising the steps of:
    • Transmitting a login request from the user's device to a television service platform.
    • Generating an initial interactive EPG on the device.
    • Tracking the user's navigation data at the device.
    • Providing the tracked navigation data from the device to a profiling system, which prepares profile data for a targeting system to generate feedback.
    • Generating an updated EPG on the device based on the feedback data from the targeting system.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 6, and 12 (Compl. ¶40).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791 ("Video-on-demand content delivery method for providing video-on-demand services to TV service subscribers"), issued June 12, 2018 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’791 Patent claims a VOD content delivery method performed by a service provider's system. The method involves receiving digital content and metadata specifying a hierarchical location (e.g., categories, subcategories) from a web-based content management system, storing the content on a video server, and providing a VOD menu to a subscriber's set-top box that uses the same hierarchical structure for navigation (Compl. ¶¶65-72).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AT&T's U-verse platform uses the Comcast Technology Solutions "Express Lane" platform as a web-based content management system to ingest VOD content and metadata, which is then used to generate the hierarchical VOD menu on AT&T set-top boxes (Compl. ¶¶65-66).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388 ("Video-on-demand content delivery system for providing video-on-demand services to TV services subscribers"), issued May 9, 2017 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’388 Patent claims a system, embodied as a set-top box, that is programmed to perform a method similar to that of the ’791 patent. The set-top box receives application-readable metadata from a VOD content delivery system and uses it to generate a VOD menu that allows a user to navigate through titles in a drill-down manner using the hierarchical category and subcategory information provided by the content provider (Compl. ¶¶89-92).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses AT&T U-verse set-top boxes, which allegedly receive metadata from the AT&T VOD content delivery system and generate the navigable, hierarchical VOD content menu for subscribers (Compl. ¶¶89-90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the AT&T U-verse set-top boxes ("STBs") and the AT&T U-verse mobile device applications for iOS and Android (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶13, 39).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products provide AT&T subscribers with access to VOD services over the internet (Compl. ¶15). They generate an EPG which presents VOD content in a "templatized" format, allowing users to navigate "in a drill-down manner through titles by category information" (Compl. ¶16). A screenshot in the complaint depicts the AT&T U-verse STB EPG, showing a featured content menu with categories like "My Videos" and "Top New Releases" (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that AT&T uses Comcast Technology Solutions' "Express Lane" service as a web-based Content Management System to ingest video content, metadata, and images from providers for use in generating these EPGs (Compl. ¶22). The mobile apps are further alleged to track user navigation paths to provide personalized content recommendations (Compl. ¶¶46-47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

I. 10,028,026 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An Internet-connected digital device for receiving, via the Internet, video content... AT&T provides STBs and the U-verse mobile app for receiving VOD content. ¶15 col. 22:11-15
...configured to obtain and present... a templatized video-on-demand display... to enable a subscriber... to navigate in a drill-down manner... The Accused Products provide an EPG that functions as a templatized display, allowing users to drill-down through categories to find titles. ¶16 col. 22:16-25
(a) a first layer comprising a background screen to provide at least one of a basic color, logo, or graphical theme to display; The EPGs include a background screen with a black background, digital clock, and graphical theme. A complaint screenshot shows this first layer on an STB (Compl. p. 6). ¶17 col. 22:31-34
(b) a second layer comprising a particular display template... layered on the background screen, wherein the particular display template comprises one or more reserved areas... The EPGs include a second layer with a display template that has reserved areas for displaying content provided by a different layer. ¶18 col. 22:35-40
(c) a third layer comprising reserved area content generated using the received video content, the associated metadata, and an associated plurality of images... The EPGs fill the reserved areas with content such as text, images (e.g., movie posters), and navigation links. A screenshot shows these areas filled (Compl. p. 8). ¶19 col. 22:41-47
...wherein the received video content was uploaded to a Web-based content management system... along with associated metadata... and... images... AT&T is alleged to use Comcast Technology Solutions' "Express Lane" platform as a web-based system to ingest video content, metadata, and images. ¶21-22 col. 22:58-68
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of the "plurality of layers" limitation. The analysis may question whether the standard rendering process of a modern graphical user interface inherently creates the specific first, second, and third layers required by the claim, or if the patent requires a more distinct technological implementation of layering.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation that AT&T uses Comcast's "Express Lane" platform is made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶22). A key factual question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system actually receives content and metadata uploaded via this or a similar third-party web-based content management system, as required by the claim.

II. 10,349,101 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) transmitting, from the Internet-connected digital device to a television service platform, a request by the subscriber to log in... The U-verse app allows subscribers to log in to the VOD system, which includes transmitting a request from the device to the TV service platform. The complaint includes a visual of the app's login screen (Compl. p. 19). ¶42 col. 22:20-23
(b) generating, by the Internet-connected digital device in response to a first request... an interactive electronic program guide... as a templatized VOD display... After a user logs in, the U-verse app generates and presents an interactive EPG to the subscriber for accessing VOD programs. ¶43 col. 22:24-34
(c) tracking, at the Internet-connected digital device, navigation data related to a navigation path taken by the subscriber... The accused U-verse app allegedly uses MediaKind's technology platform (MediaRoom and MediaFirst) to track navigation data related to the path a user takes through the EPG. ¶46 col. 22:35-41
(d) providing, by the Internet-connected digital device to a profiling system, the tracked navigation data for the subscriber for preparing subscriber profile data... to generate feedback data... The app provides the tracked navigation data to the MediaKind platform to generate feedback on subscriber preferences. AT&T's privacy policy is cited as evidence it collects "TV Viewing Information" (Compl. p. 23). ¶47 col. 22:42-49
(e) generating, by the Internet-connected digital device in response to a second request... an updated interactive electronic program guide... prepared based on the feedback data from the targeting system... The complaint provides a sequence of screenshots alleging that after a user watches a show, the app generates an updated EPG with recommendations for the next episode, which is allegedly based on the feedback data (Compl. p. 24). ¶48 col. 22:50-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of the phrase "prepared based on the feedback data from the targeting system" will be critical. The analysis will question whether a simple "next episode" recommendation function meets this limitation, or if it requires proof of a more complex personalization engine that actively generates an "updated" guide based on a calculated "subscriber profile."
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the complaint can establish a direct causal link between the tracked user navigation, the generation of "feedback data" by a "targeting system," and the specific content shown in the "updated" EPG. The complaint's visual evidence suggests a correlation (Compl. p. 24), but the underlying technical mechanism will be a point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

I. The Term: "templatized video-on-demand display" (’026 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theory of the ’026 Patent. Whether AT&T's EPG constitutes a "templatized" display will be a threshold issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the claim covers a broad class of modern GUIs or is limited to a specific VOD interface architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes templates in functional terms, such as providing "navigation buttons and viewer selection options in a frame around currently displayed video content" (’026 Patent, col. 5:50-54), which could support a reading on any UI that uses predefined layouts for content.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1C of the patent is explicitly titled "Template Layer Model" and depicts a distinct layering of a "Background," a "Template," and "Text, Image & Buttons" (’026 Patent, Fig. 1C). This could support an argument that the term is limited to this specific structural arrangement, rather than any interface with a pre-set layout.

II. The Term: "updated interactive electronic program guide is prepared based on the feedback data from the targeting system" (’101 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the personalization feedback loop that is central to the claimed method of the ’101 Patent. The infringement case depends on showing not just that the EPG changes, but that it changes because of this specific data feedback mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the benefit of dynamically adjusting the EPG to minimize user navigation (’101 Patent, col. 16:13-20). This purpose could support reading the claim on any system that uses viewing history to alter future guide presentations, such as by recommending a subsequent episode.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's architecture in Figure 1A shows a "Profiling System (16)" and a "Targeting System (17)" as distinct components that receive data from a "Tracking System (15)" (’101 Patent, Fig. 1A). This suggests the possibility that the claim requires proof of discrete systems performing these specific profiling and targeting functions to generate the feedback data, rather than a single, monolithic recommendation algorithm.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that AT&T instructs its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner through user guides, app store descriptions, and other materials (Compl. ¶¶31, 55, 79, 101). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the U-verse mobile app is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is especially adapted for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶32, 56, 80).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents from at least the filing of the complaint and from a pre-suit notice letter allegedly served on December 16, 2019 (Compl. ¶¶33, 57, 81, 102).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "templatized... display" generated in a "plurality of layers" (’026 Patent) be construed to cover the common rendering of a modern EPG, or is it limited to a more specific technical architecture suggested by the patent's figures?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causation: does the accused app's recommendation feature generate an "updated" EPG that is causally "prepared based on the feedback data from the targeting system" as required by the ’101 Patent, or does it perform a generic function (e.g., "play next episode") that does not rely on the claimed feedback loop?
  • A third central question will be one of factual proof: can Plaintiff substantiate its "information and belief" allegations that AT&T's system uses a third-party, web-based content management system to ingest hierarchically-tagged metadata from content providers in the specific manner claimed by the ’791 and ’388 patents?