DCT

1:25-cv-00865

Tir Tech Ltd v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00865, W.D. Tex., 09/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are registered to do business in Texas and maintain regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Prime Video and Amazon Web Services (AWS) platforms infringe four U.S. patents related to network traffic monitoring, video caching, and content delivery optimization.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of content delivery networks (CDNs) and video streaming, which are fundamental to managing internet traffic, reducing latency, and ensuring a high-quality user experience for media consumption.
  • Key Procedural History: This is an Amended Complaint, superseding an original complaint. The allegations of induced, contributory, and willful infringement are asserted to have begun upon Defendants’ knowledge of the patents through the filing and service of the original complaint, a procedural detail that focuses the dispute on post-filing conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-06-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,792,347
2012-07-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,800,633 and 10,484,442
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,347 Issues
2015-02-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,375,444
2017-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,800,633 Issues
2019-08-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,375,444 Issues
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,484,442 Issues
2025-09-08 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,347 - "Real-time network monitoring and subscriber identification with an on-demand appliance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,792,347, issued July 29, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where mobile service providers lack detailed visibility into network congestion, forcing them to use "coarse tools" that apply data optimization broadly, including to traffic flows that may not require it, which is inefficient. (’347 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a network controller system that works "on-demand" by selectively monitoring only certain network flows (e.g., large video files) to gather real-time statistics. (’347 Patent, col. 3:15-19). This data is then used to map traffic to specific subscribers, estimate network congestion, and determine whether optimization is necessary, thereby avoiding the system burden of monitoring every bit of traffic. (’347 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more "surgical" and efficient application of network resources, aiming to improve user experience for high-bandwidth content like video while reducing unnecessary processing and infrastructure costs for service providers. (’347 Patent, col. 4:28-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Claim 1 of the ’347 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a notice for a beginning of a network data flow for delivering media content.
    • Determining whether to monitor the data flow.
    • In response to a determination to monitor, collecting statistic information corresponding to the data flow.
    • Storing the collected statistic information to a flow record in a database.
    • Mapping the flow record to a subscriber of the service provider network based on an analysis of the statistic information.
    • Determining historical bandwidth provided to the subscriber based on the mapped flow records.
    • Estimating bandwidth to be consumed by the data flow based on the collected statistic information and the historical bandwidth.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,800,633 - "Just-in-time distributed video cache"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,800,633, issued October 24, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in video streaming where transcoding a video file for a specific user device introduces delays. It notes that local caches used to store these transcoded (optimized) files are typically purged after a session, forcing the system to repeat the resource-intensive transcoding process for each new user requesting the same content. (’633 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system of distributed "video optimizers" (servers) that use a central cache database to track the locations of already-optimized video files across the network. (’633 Patent, Fig. 1). When a request for a video is received, the optimizer first queries this database. If an appropriately optimized version already exists on another optimizer in the cluster, the system can retrieve it directly, avoiding redundant transcoding. (’633 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This distributed caching architecture aims to reduce latency, save computational resources, and improve scalability in large-scale video delivery systems by minimizing duplicative transcoding operations. (’633 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶24).
  • Claim 1 of the ’633 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a request from a client device to optimize an original source file, the request including a key specifying optimization parameters.
    • Identifying, based on the key, a preview (a first portion) of an optimized version of the source file in a local cache of a video optimization server.
    • Generating a query to a cache database that maintains reference keys for optimized files stored on other video optimization servers.
    • Receiving a response from the database indicating whether the key matches a reference key.
    • Receiving, in response to a match, the address of another video optimizer storing a subsequent segment of the optimized file.
    • Stitching the first portion from the local cache with the segment from the other optimizer to generate a stitched version.
    • Streaming the stitched optimized version for playback on the client device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,484,442 - "Just-in-time distributed video cache"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,484,442, issued November 19, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the ’633 patent, this patent similarly discloses a system for reducing redundant video transcoding. It describes a distributed network of video optimizers that query a cache database to locate and reuse previously optimized video files stored elsewhere in the system, thereby improving streaming efficiency and reducing latency. (’442 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon Prime Video and AWS CloudFront, alone and in combination with AWS Elemental MediaTailor, of infringement. (Compl. ¶35).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,375,444 - "Partial video pre-fetch"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,375,444, issued August 6, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of long start-up times for streaming video. The invention is a method of pre-fetching only an initial portion of a video file for "instant play" capability, while the remainder of the file is retrieved on-demand. This approach is designed to provide immediate playback without the high data consumption of pre-fetching an entire video that a user may not watch in full. (’444 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon Prime Video, AWS CloudFront, and AWS Elemental MediaTailor of infringement. (Compl. ¶46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' streaming video services, primarily Amazon Prime Video and the underlying infrastructure services AWS CloudFront and AWS Elemental MediaTailor. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 24, 35, 46).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes AWS CloudFront as a content delivery network (CDN) that caches and delivers video and other web content from a global network of "edge locations" to reduce latency for users. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 53). Amazon Prime Video is identified as the user-facing video-on-demand streaming service that utilizes this infrastructure. (Compl. ¶13). AWS Elemental MediaTailor is described as a service for personalized ad-insertion. (Compl. ¶35).
  • The complaint alleges that these services, in concert, perform selective traffic monitoring, distributed caching, pre-fetching, and optimization of video streams delivered to end-users. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 24, 35, 46). A screenshot in the complaint from an Amazon presentation highlights the importance of measuring metrics for "each and every stream," such as available bandwidth and bitrate, to optimize the customer experience. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 56). This visual evidence is used to support the allegation that Amazon's services perform the claimed monitoring functions.
  • The complaint positions these services as central to Amazon's significant presence in the global video streaming market. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,347 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a notice for a beginning of a network data flow...in response to a request for the media content from the user device; AWS CloudFront allegedly receives a notice from user devices (e.g., through the Prime Video app) when a user requests media content, which establishes a TCP connection to a CloudFront Point of Presence (PoP). ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 54 col. 11:57-61
determining whether to monitor the data flow between the origin server and the user device; The Accused Services allegedly determine to monitor data flows, for example, by using real-time logs that can be configured with specific sampling rates and restricted to certain cache behaviors. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 57 col. 5:32-35
responsive to a determination to monitor the data flow, collecting statistic information corresponding to the data flow; AWS CloudFront allegedly collects statistics such as round trip time during the TCP handshake. Amazon Prime Video allegedly measures and stores parameters for each stream, including available bandwidth and buffer length. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 58-59 col. 3:20-24
storing the statistic information collected for the data flow to a flow record in a database; AWS CloudFront allegedly compiles and stores a table of network latencies in real time. Amazon Prime Video allegedly measures and stores various parameters for each stream. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 63 col. 3:25-28
mapping the flow record in the database to a subscriber...where mapped flow records are aggregated for the subscriber; AWS CloudFront allegedly maintains a table of "PoP-to-user" network latencies, which the complaint asserts means statistics are collected and aggregated on a per-subscriber basis. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 67 col. 15:20-30
determining historical bandwidth provided to the subscriber based on the mapped flow records aggregated for the subscriber; The complaint alleges that aggregating statistics, such as measured throughput (MTP), over time determines historical bandwidth, and that grouping records by session ID enables aggregation on a per-subscriber basis. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 71, 75 col. 3:3-14
estimating bandwidth to be consumed...based on the statistic information collected for the data flow and the historical bandwidth provided to the subscriber. The Accused Services allegedly use a capacity management system and CDN balancer that measures bandwidth and server capacity to adjust traffic routing, which necessarily involves estimating the bandwidth that will be consumed. ¶13; Ex. 2, p. 76 col. 2:59-65

U.S. Patent No. 9,800,633 Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 10, which was not provided for this analysis. The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Amazon's streaming services, including Amazon Prime Video and AWS CloudFront, directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’633 patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that Amazon's multi-tiered CDN architecture—which uses local Points of Presence (PoPs), Regional Edge Caches (RECs), and origin servers—functions as the claimed "just-in-time distributed video cache." (Compl. ¶24; Ex. 10 reference). The allegation suggests that when a user requests a video, the system's process of checking a local cache at a PoP and then, upon a miss, checking a larger REC before going to the origin, maps onto the claimed method of querying a "cache database" to locate an "optimized version of the source file" stored in a "cluster of video optimizers." (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Amazon's standard multi-tiered CDN architecture constitutes the specific "cluster of video optimizers" and "cache database" recited in the claims. The defense may argue that a general-purpose CDN caching hierarchy is distinct from the patent's more specific system for tracking and retrieving transcoded files among designated "optimizer" servers.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’347 Patent, a key factual question will be what evidence shows that Amazon's systems perform the claimed step of "determining whether to monitor" a flow. The analysis may explore whether the continuous, passive collection of performance data for load-balancing purposes meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more discrete, active decision to initiate monitoring for specific flows.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selectively monitoring" (’347 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the ’347 patent's asserted novelty over prior art systems that allegedly monitored all traffic. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Amazon's practice of collecting performance metrics across its CDN—which may be comprehensive but used for specific purposes—falls within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the selection can be based on content type, stating that "network flows can be monitored selectively or on-demand based on the types of the content carried in the flows." (’347 Patent, col. 3:16-19). This could support a reading where simply choosing to monitor video flows but not other data types constitutes "selective monitoring."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "network controller" that "determines if a given network flow should be ignored, monitored further or optimized." (’347 Patent, col. 5:32-35). This language suggests an active decision-making step for each flow, which could support a narrower construction requiring more than just a general policy of monitoring certain traffic categories.

  • The Term: "video optimizer" (’633 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The claims of the ’633 patent require a "local cache of a video optimization server" and communication with "another video optimizer." Whether Amazon's CDN edge servers and regional caches qualify as "video optimizers" will be a central point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the video optimizer as a "computer server that provides source file...optimization and delivers optimized video and image content." (’633 Patent, col. 7:23-26). This could be interpreted broadly to encompass any server in the delivery chain that handles or delivers optimized content.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly associates the "video optimizer" with the function of transcoding source files. (’633 Patent, col. 1:41-44, col. 8:43-51). Language stating the optimizer "transcodes the source file...to produce a reduced bit rate stream" may support an argument that a server that only caches and forwards already-optimized content, without performing the transcoding itself, is not a "video optimizer" as contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that Defendants provide user manuals, developer guides, and online instructional materials that encourage and instruct customers to use the accused AWS services in a manner that directly infringes. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, 26-27, 37-38, 49-50). The contributory infringement claims allege that the accused services are a material part of the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially made or adapted for infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28, 39, 51).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The basis for this claim is Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringing nature "at least as of the filing and service of the original Complaint." The complaint explicitly states that it does not allege willful infringement prior to the filing of the original lawsuit. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 32, 43, 55).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional mapping: Can the standard components and operations of a modern, multi-tiered Content Delivery Network—such as PoP servers, regional caches, and performance analytics—be directly mapped onto the specific claim elements of a "selective monitor" (’347 patent) and a "distributed video cache" among "video optimizers" (’633 and ’442 patents), or is there a fundamental mismatch in their described technical roles and operations?
  • The case will likely turn on questions of definitional scope during claim construction. Key disputes will center on whether "selectively monitoring" requires an active, flow-by-flow decision or is met by a general policy of monitoring certain traffic types, and whether a "video optimizer" is limited to a server that performs transcoding or can also be construed to cover a caching server that merely stores and delivers pre-optimized content.
  • A central evidentiary question regarding indirect and willful infringement will be one of post-filing conduct: What specific actions did Amazon take or fail to take after being served with the original complaint that demonstrate the requisite intent for inducement and the objective recklessness required to prove willfulness, given the continued public operation of its established services?