DCT

1:25-cv-00918

Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems LLC v. Codelathe Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00918, W.D. Tex., 06/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the district, including a physical office with employees in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FileCloud online cloud storage platform infringes a patent related to methods for storing and delivering media content in a cloud-based computing environment.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses systems for on-demand media storage and delivery, a foundational component of modern cloud storage, content delivery networks (CDNs), and video streaming services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which considered numerous prior art references before allowing the claims to issue. The complaint also identifies a nominal expiration date for the patent of no earlier than November 21, 2031.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-08-29 ’221 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2014-10-07 ’221 Patent - Issue Date
2031-11-21 ’221 Patent - Nominal Expiration Date
2025-06-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221, “System and Method for Storing Broadcast Content in a Cloud-based Computing Environment,” issued October 7, 2014 (the “’221 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in prior on-demand media systems, including billing models (e.g., flat-rate monthly fees) that did not align with a consumer's actual usage and delays in fulfilling consumer requests for content not already stored by the service provider (’221 Patent, col. 1:48-57; col. 2:3-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that distinguishes between different types of user requests. The system receives a request message from a consumer device that identifies the device and the desired media content (’221 Patent, Abstract). The server’s processor then determines if the request is a “storage request message” (a command to acquire and store content for future access) or a “content request message” (a command to deliver already-stored content) and processes them differently (’221 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 9:56-col. 10:2). This allows the system to manage storage and delivery based on specific, granular user commands.
  • Technical Importance: The described technical approach sought to create a more dynamic and economically efficient on-demand media system by tailoring server actions and potentially costs to specific user intentions for either storing new content or accessing existing content (’221 Patent, col. 2:13-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 7 (’221 Patent, Compl. ¶31).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 7, a method claim, include:
    • receiving a request message including media data indicating requested media content and a consumer device identifier corresponding to the consumer device;
    • determining whether the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device;
    • if the device is registered, determining whether the request message is a "storage request message" or a "content request message";
    • if it is a "storage request message", determining whether the requested content is available for storage; and
    • if it is a "content request message", initiating delivery of the requested content to the consumer device.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 7," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "online cloud storage platform under the 'FileCloud' name" (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that FileCloud is an infringing platform offered for sale and used by Defendant (Compl. ¶31). The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart (Exhibit B) that purportedly details the infringing functionality; however, that exhibit was not filed with the public complaint, and the complaint itself does not describe the specific technical operations of the FileCloud platform (Compl. ¶38). The complaint does allege that FileCloud is a "global organization, used by over 2,000 enterprises from 90+ countries," and provides a screenshot showing its U.S. headquarters in Austin, Texas (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in an "Exhibit B" but does not include the exhibit itself (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The complaint’s narrative theory is that the Accused Instrumentalities "practice the technology claimed by the '221 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of exemplary claim 7" (Compl. ¶38). Without the specific mappings from the claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general description of the accused product, the dispute may focus on the following:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general-purpose file upload/download commands in a platform like FileCloud meet the claim limitations of a "storage request message" and a "content request message." The court may need to determine if these claim terms require distinct, specialized message types or if they can be read more broadly to cover conventional file transfer operations.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the FileCloud platform performs the specific decision logic recited in Claim 7? For example, the claim requires first identifying a request as a "storage request" and then determining if the content is "available for storage." The infringement analysis will turn on evidence that the accused system follows this specific sequence, rather than a more generic process like checking available disk space upon any upload attempt.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "storage request message" and "content request message"
  • Context and Importance: The logical distinction between these two message types is the central inventive concept recited in Claim 7. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue its general-purpose cloud storage system does not make this specific, formal distinction, while the plaintiff will argue the terms cover the functional difference between uploading a new file and downloading/accessing an existing one.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the initiation of a storage request in functional, user-centric terms, such as "pushing a record/storage button" or a "voice activated record button" (’221 Patent, col. 7:15-17). This could support an interpretation where the user's intent, rather than a specific data format, defines the message type.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart in Figure 2 depicts distinct processing paths originating from decision blocks for a "Storage Request Message Received?" (Step S106) and a "Content Request Message Received?" (Step S124). This, along with language about a storage request having a "triggering flag" (’221 Patent, col. 5:28-29), could support a narrower construction requiring formally distinct message structures or specific data flags.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of fact to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant through its own actions, such as making, selling, and using the FileCloud platform, including internal testing by its employees (Compl. ¶¶35-36).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶34). It further states that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached Claim Chart... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶37). These allegations establish a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any infringement that occurs after the complaint was served, but they do not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the operational logic of the general-purpose FileCloud storage platform be mapped onto the specific, sequential decision-making process required by Claim 7? The case will depend on evidentiary proof that FileCloud distinguishes between requests to store new content versus requests to deliver existing content in the manner recited by the patent.
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "storage request message" and "content request message," which arise in the patent's context of on-demand broadcast media, be construed to cover the standardized file upload and download protocols of a commercial cloud storage service? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are interpreted functionally or as requiring a specific technical implementation.