Media Key LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: Media Key LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:24-cv-00201, W.D. Tex., 02/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified Microsoft products infringe a patent related to distributing dynamically updated content to users via an application stored on media.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for delivering current, customized information from a server to a user who initiates the process from a local application, a method that addresses the problem of static, outdated content on distributed physical or digital media.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 - "Media Keying for Updateable Content Distribution"

• Issued: October 20, 2009
• Short Form: ’876 Patent

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue of content distributed on physical media, such as a CD-ROM, becoming outdated (’876 Patent, col. 1:22-38). For example, a product catalog distributed on a CD would be static, and any price changes or inventory updates would render the user's copy obsolete, requiring the content provider to distribute a new physical medium (’876 Patent, col. 1:28-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the physical medium contains a "Keying Application" and a "Source ID." When a user runs the application on a network-connected device, it contacts a remote "Content Server" (’876 Patent, col. 2:10-24). The application transmits the Source ID (which can identify the origin or type of media, such as a specific retail promotion) and a unique User ID to the server, which in turn delivers customized and up-to-date content back to the user's application (’876 Patent, col. 4:21-36; Fig. 4). This allows for "dynamic" content delivery initiated from a static piece of media (’876 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
• Technical Importance: This approach combines the distribution advantages of physical media with the real-time update capabilities of network-based content delivery, enabling personalized and current information to be served to a broad user base.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims of the ’876 Patent," identified as the "Exemplary ’876 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • At least one network-connected content server adapted to create and update information based on a user profile.
  • The profile is generated from factors including a "storage media identifier," a "user identity (user ID)," and transaction histories.
  • A "keying application" stored on an "external storage media" for launching on an electronic device.
  • The keying application selects the user ID and transmits both the user ID and the storage media identifier to the content server.
  • If the external storage media is non-recordable, the keying application records the user ID (generated by the server) on the local electronic device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its text. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts included as Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the ’876 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific factual basis for its allegations by reference to claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the dispute may involve several technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether modern software, distributed digitally and updated automatically, constitutes an "external storage media" containing a "keying application" as contemplated by the patent, which describes physical media like CDs (’876 Patent, col. 1:15-18). The interpretation of "storage media identifier" will also be critical—whether a standard software license key or product ID meets this limitation, which the patent describes as potentially identifying a user's demographic profile (’876 Patent, col. 3:1-9).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products generate and use a "user identity (user ID)" in the specific manner claimed, particularly the step of recording a server-generated ID on the local device if the source "media" is non-recordable, as required by claim 1 (’876 Patent, col. 9:61-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "keying application"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in every independent claim and is central to the invention's architecture. The scope of this term will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether a standard software client, a web browser, or an operating system component that communicates with a server for updates or content can be considered a "keying application," or if the term is limited to a specific type of application launched from distinct "media" for the primary purpose of obtaining customized content.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the application as potentially being a "network browser or browser-like application" (’876 Patent, col. 4:41-43), which could support an argument that it covers a wide range of network-aware software.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is consistently used in the context of being stored on and launched from a distinct piece of "media" that also contains a "Source ID" to initiate a specific content delivery process (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-16). This context suggests an application whose function is tied to the identity of the media itself, potentially distinguishing it from a general-purpose browser or software updater.

• Term: "storage media identifier"

  • Context and Importance: This identifier is a key input to the "profile" used for customizing content. Its definition will determine whether the accused system generates a user profile in the claimed manner. The dispute will likely center on whether a generic product identifier or serial number in the accused products meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not narrowly restrict the form of the identifier.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests this identifier is more than a serial number, stating it "may identify the distribution point of the media, or the identity/profile of an end user" and can be used to establish a "specific demographic or profile" (’876 Patent, col. 3:1-9). This could support a narrower construction requiring the identifier to carry specific profiling information beyond simple product identification.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’876 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15). The factual specifics supporting this allegation are referenced as being in the missing Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it explicitly pleads "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). This allegation provides a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any infringement occurring after the defendant was served with the complaint.

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

1. A central issue will be one of technological translation: can the patent's architecture—premised on a "keying application" launched from distinct physical "media" carrying a "source ID"—be mapped onto modern software distribution models where applications are often downloaded directly and updated in place? The definition of "external storage media" in this context will be a primary battleground.
2. A second key question will be one of identifying function: does an accused product's use of a standard login credential or software license key meet the claim requirements for a "user ID" and a "storage media identifier" used to generate a dynamic user "profile" as specifically described in the patent? The answer will depend on whether these terms are given their plain meaning or are limited by the more specific embodiments described in the specification.
3. An immediate procedural question will be the sufficiency of the complaint: given that the factual basis for infringement is contained entirely within an unfiled exhibit, the initial stages of the case may focus on whether the complaint provides sufficient notice under federal pleading standards.