Err Content IP LLC v. ADT LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Err Content IP, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Adt LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01674, W.D. Tex., 11/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the Western District of Texas, including a specific office in Austin, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home video security systems infringe a patent related to methods for providing a primary media content on a first device while simultaneously providing related secondary content on a second device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue generally relates to "second screen" or "enhanced media" experiences, where a user can employ a secondary device, such as a smartphone, to access and display supplementary information related to a main content stream being viewed on a primary device, like a television.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, and argues that because those licenses did not involve the production of a patented article or an admission of infringement, any patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 are not applicable.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROVIDING A MAIN CONTENT AND AN EXTRA CONTENT TO A USER THROUGH REFERENCE ITEM, issued July 21, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in then-current systems where a user viewing "main content" (e.g., a television show) who wishes to access related "extra content" (e.g., supplementary information) via a reference item like a link must navigate away from the main content, forcing a choice between the two (’542 Patent, col. 1:33-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where "main content" is received from a first source and displayed on a first device (e.g., a TV) (’542 Patent, Abstract). Metadata broadcasted along with the main content can be forwarded to a second device (e.g., a smartphone), which then retrieves "extra content" from a second, different source for display on that second device, allowing the user to view both the main and extra content simultaneously on separate screens (’542 Patent, col. 2:22-38). A specific embodiment involves the second device "scanning" the metadata from the first device's display to initiate the process (’542 Patent, col. 9:56-59).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates an uninterrupted, interactive "second screen" experience, allowing for the consumption of supplementary data without disrupting the primary viewing experience on the main device (’542 Patent, col. 1:59-col. 2:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata together from a first source.
  • Displaying the specific main content on a first device.
  • Forwarding the metadata to a second device, wherein the forwarding is "executed by scanning said metadata by said second device."
  • The second device receiving extra content from a second source (different from the first source).
  • Displaying the main content on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims, and the indirect infringement allegations reference claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "ADT's smart home video security system and related systems" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused products as video security systems available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 20). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of these systems, particularly regarding any functionality for displaying separate "main" and "extra" content streams on distinct devices based on scanned metadata.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart detailing infringement of Claim 1 of the ’542 Patent is attached as Exhibit B; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶22). The body of the complaint does not provide a narrative theory explaining how the accused ADT security systems practice the specific limitations of the asserted claims. Allegations are limited to general assertions that Defendant's products infringe by making, using, selling, or offering them for sale (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• The apparent mismatch between the patent's technology and the accused products raises several potential questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions:
    • A central question may be whether a video stream from a security camera can be construed as "specific main content" and whether associated system data qualifies as "metadata" broadcasted together with it, as those terms are used in a patent specification focused on broadcast television programs and interactive media (’542 Patent, col. 2:42-44).
    • The analysis may also question whether the accused ADT systems involve a "second device" that performs an act of "scanning" metadata from a first device's display to trigger the receipt of "extra content" from a different "second source," as explicitly required by Claim 1.
  • Technical Questions:
    • A primary technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused security systems, which are designed for surveillance, perform the claimed method of linking broadcast media to supplementary interactive content on a second screen. The complaint does not offer this evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "specific main content" / "extra content"

• Context and Importance: The construction of these terms appears critical. The dispute may turn on whether a security video feed and its associated data fall within definitions that the patent's disclosure frames in the context of television programs and supplementary information designed to "deepen the subject of the main content" (’542 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit "main content" to television broadcasts, which could support an argument that any primary video or data stream is covered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently provides examples of "main content" as a "television programme, internet TV programme or multimedia content" (’542 Patent, col. 2:42-44), which suggests the terms were understood in the context of consumer media entertainment, not security surveillance.

The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"

• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific, active step for linking the two devices and triggering the display of extra content. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of Claim 1 requires proof that the accused systems instruct or cause users to perform this precise action.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "scanning" could encompass non-optical forms of data capture between devices, such as a data transfer initiated by a Bluetooth or NFC pairing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests an optical process, stating that using "visual codes systems, such as QR-codes, bar codes or optical machine-readable data" is a "particularly advantageous" implementation of this step (’542 Patent, col. 4:8-10).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant actively encouraging or instructing its customers on how to use its products and services, such as for "enhanced content distribution" (Compl. ¶23). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the products and services (Compl. ¶24). For both, knowledge of the ’542 Patent is alleged to exist from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint seeks a declaration that Defendant's infringement is willful, which appears to be based on the allegation of continued infringement after the filing of the lawsuit established knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 9, ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s claim terms, which are rooted in the technological context of interactive broadcast television and "second screen" media consumption, be construed to cover the functions of a smart home video security system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mismatch: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused ADT security systems perform the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1, particularly the requirement that a user "scan" "metadata" from a first device with a second device to trigger the display of "extra content" from a distinct second source?