Err Content IP LLC v. Warner Bros Discovery Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ERR Content IP, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01967, W.D. Tex., 12/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Discovery and Discovery Plus applications and related systems infringe a patent related to methods for providing supplemental content on a second screen that is synchronized with primary content playing on a first screen.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for enhancing a primary media viewing experience, such as a television broadcast, with related, interactive "extra content" that can be displayed simultaneously on the primary screen or on a secondary device like a tablet.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, which Plaintiff contends did not create any marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-26	’542 Patent Priority Date
2020-07-21	’542 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-03	Complaint Filing Date

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"

• Patent Identification: 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, watching primary media content on one device, would have to interrupt that experience ("leave the main content") to access related supplemental information or "extra content." (’542 Patent, col. 1:35-41). The patent also notes that interaction between the device showing the main content and a second device is often "not possible or very limited." (’542 Patent, col. 1:47-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a first device (e.g., a TV) receives "main content" and associated "metadata" from a first source. This metadata links to "extra content" from a different, second source. The system can then either display the main and extra content together on the first device, or forward the metadata to a second device (e.g., a tablet), which then retrieves and displays the extra content while the first device continues to display the main content. (’542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-38). This enables a synchronized, multi-screen or picture-in-picture viewing experience without interrupting the primary media.
• Technical Importance: This technical approach aims to deepen user engagement by seamlessly integrating supplementary data with linear or on-demand video content, a key feature for interactive television and modern streaming applications. (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a specific main content and metadata broadcasted together from a first source.
  • Displaying the main content on a first device.
  • The metadata links the main content with an extra content.
  • Forwarding the metadata to a second device, where the forwarding is "executed by scanning said metadata by said second device."
  • The second device receives the extra content from a second source, which is different from the first source.
  • The main content is displayed on the first device "while said extra content is displayed on said second device."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims and claims 1-14 in the context of indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶¶22-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's "discovery and discovery plus app and related systems." (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products provide "enhanced content distribution." (Compl. ¶23). It does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused applications, such as how they handle supplemental data or multi-device synchronization. The complaint alleges these products are made available to consumers throughout the United States. (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B that purportedly details infringement of claims 1 and 3; however, this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint’s narrative allegations of infringement are conclusory and do not specify which features of the accused products allegedly meet the limitations of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Based on the language of the asserted independent claim and the general nature of streaming applications, several technical and legal questions may become central to the infringement analysis.
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires "forwarding said metadata... by scanning said metadata by said second device." A primary point of contention will be whether the accused Discovery+ applications include a feature where a user employs a second device (e.g., a phone) to optically scan a code or other metadata from a first device's screen (e.g., a TV) to retrieve supplemental content. The complaint provides no factual allegations to support the existence of such a feature.
  • Technical Question: The claim requires a "first source" for the main content and a "second source" for the extra content, where the "first source is different from the second source." A key question will be whether different servers or content delivery networks (CDNs) operated by a single entity like Defendant can constitute "different" sources as required by the claim, or if the claim requires two distinct corporate or network providers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term appears in a dispositive limitation of claim 1. The viability of the direct infringement allegation against the accused products may depend entirely on whether their functionality can be characterized as "scanning." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific, physical user action not commonly associated with modern second-screen synchronization, which often occurs via automated network pairing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that the "reference item" (which contains the metadata) can include a "QR-code, a bar code, machine-readable data or optical machine-readable data," suggesting the term encompasses a range of optical data-capture methods. (’542 Patent, col. 4:57-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s phrasing, "forwarding... is executed by scanning," could be construed to require an active, user-initiated optical capture step, as opposed to an automatic background data transfer between two already-paired applications over a network like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.

• The Term: "first source is different from the second source"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "different" is critical to determining whether the claim applies to integrated streaming services that deliver both primary video and supplemental data from their own infrastructure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests sources can be distinguished by multiple factors, including "location of the server, type of content retrieved or by the interface used to access and retrieve contents." (’542 Patent, col. 2:60-col. 3:1). This language could support an argument that logically or architecturally distinct components within a single provider's system qualify as "different."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background describes a scenario contrasting a traditional "TV broadcaster" with extra content "stored on a server and is accessible over an internet connection," which may suggest that "different sources" was intended to mean different entities or service providers. (’542 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages its customers to use its services for "enhanced content distribution." (Compl. ¶¶23-24). Knowledge is alleged from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willfulness, but the prayer for relief requests a declaration that infringement is willful and seeks treble damages. (Compl. p. 9, ¶e). The factual basis for willfulness appears to rely on knowledge acquired post-filing. (Compl. ¶¶23-24).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Discovery+ ecosystem contain a feature that performs the act of "scanning metadata" from a first screen using a second device to link content, as explicitly required by claim 1? The complaint’s lack of factual detail on this point suggests it will be a significant focus of discovery and dispute.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "different sources" be construed to cover architecturally separate servers within a single, unified streaming service, or does the patent’s language and context require that the main content and extra content originate from distinct providers? The resolution of this claim construction issue may determine whether the patent can be applied to modern, vertically integrated media platforms.