DCT
6:22-cv-01236
Nimitz Tech LLC v. CH Robinson Worldwide Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nimitz Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'Kelly & O'Rourke, LLC; Raymond W. Mort, III
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01236, W.D. Tex., 11/30/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, citing specific office locations.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s corporate website infringes a patent related to methods for encapsulating and delivering broadcast content with multiple versions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for efficiently transmitting digital content, such as video or audio, by organizing it into distinct "components" (e.g., different codecs, languages) and mapping them to data streams for delivery over a network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes that the USPTO, during prosecution, identified a key set of limitations as novel over the prior art, specifically the assignment of a distinguishing value to a component according to a second communication protocol without actually encapsulating the data stream in that second protocol.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-07-03 | '328 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-12-07 | '328 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-11-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,848,328 - "Broadcast Content Encapsulation"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: When broadcasting digital content to a diverse population of user devices, it is desirable to offer multiple versions of that content (e.g., using different CODECs, languages, or resolutions) to accommodate the varied capabilities of the receiving devices (’328 Patent, col. 1:5-20). The challenge is to provide a mechanism for efficiently organizing and identifying these different versions for transmission and reception (’328 Patent, col. 1:16-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a single content item is broken into multiple "components" (’328 Patent, col. 3:13-14). For example, one component could be a video stream with CODEC A, another with CODEC B, and a third could be a German language subtitle track (’328 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:59-65). Each component is mapped to a distinct data stream, which is then encapsulated into packets using a first protocol (e.g., UDP). Crucially, the packets contain a field (e.g., a UDP port number) that identifies their corresponding component, allowing a receiving device to select only the components it needs (’328 Patent, col. 6:30-44). The method also involves assigning an identifier to components based on a second protocol (e.g., IP) but without actually encapsulating the streams in that second protocol at the transmission stage, preserving bandwidth (’328 Patent, col. 10:26-44).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide flexibility and efficiency in digital broadcasting by allowing a service provider to offer many versions of content simultaneously while enabling user devices to selectively and efficiently reconstruct their desired version from the broadcast signal (’328 Patent, col. 2:28-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- Mapping each of a plurality of data streams to a different "component" of a service.
- Encapsulating each data stream into packets according to a "first communication protocol."
- Ensuring the packets have a value in a "common field" that identifies the mapped component.
- Forwarding the packet streams for transmission.
- Assigning a specific value to each component for a predefined field of a packet according to a "second communication protocol," where this value distinguishes the component from others.
- The encapsulating step involves using one or more lower layer protocols "without encapsulating the packet streams according to the second communication protocol."
- The complaint notes that dependent claims are also infringed (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentality" is identified as "streaming the content found in https://www.chrobinson.com/en-us/" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant "practiced and continues to practice the method of at least Claim 1 of the '328 Patent by streaming the content" on its corporate website (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the architecture of the website's streaming functionality, the protocols it uses, or how it delivers different versions of content. The complaint contains a screenshot from the patent, Figure 4, to illustrate the claimed "mapping" of data streams to components (Compl. ¶11). No screenshots or diagrams of the Accused Instrumentality itself are provided.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart exhibit, but it outlines its infringement theory for Claim 1 through a narrative description supported by patent figures.
'328 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapping, with at least one processor, each of a plurality of data streams related to a specific content to a different component of a service... | The complaint alleges that upon receiving content, the provider processes it into a series of files packaged into a series of "components," which can be specific to bit rates, languages, codecs, etc. | ¶9, ¶10 | col. 5:21-36 |
| encapsulating each data stream of the plurality into a stream of packets according to a first communication protocol... | The complaint alleges the specific content is delivered in different versions via multiple data streams, with each stream corresponding to a component, and that each data stream is encapsulated into packets. | ¶11, ¶12 | col. 6:60-65 |
| as to each of the packet streams, the packets have a value in a common field identifying the component mapped to the data stream... | It is alleged that the packets have a value in a common field that identifies the component mapped to its data stream. The complaint references the patent's Figure 4, which shows a UDP destination port used for this purpose. | ¶12 | col. 6:38-44 |
| the mapping further comprises assigning a specific value to each component for a predefined field of a packet according to a second communication protocol... and the encapsulating comprises encapsulating the packet streams according to one or more lower layer protocols without encapsulating the packet streams according to the second communication protocol. | The complaint alleges this step involves assigning a specific value to components for a second protocol (e.g., an IP address) but not encapsulating the streams in that second protocol, a feature the USPTO allegedly found novel. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 5:56-65 |
| forwarding the packet streams for transmission in a transmission channel... | This element is alleged to be met by the delivery of the content to the consumer. | ¶14 | col. 6:1-2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof can be adduced that Defendant's general corporate website performs the highly specific, multi-protocol mapping and encapsulation method required by Claim 1? The complaint alleges the functionality but offers no technical evidence from the Accused Instrumentality itself.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the routine delivery of embedded video on a website can be characterized as practicing the claimed method. For example, does the streaming technology used by the website create "components" and map them to distinct data streams identified by a "common field value" in the manner contemplated by the patent?
- Negative Limitation: The claim requires encapsulation without using the "second communication protocol." A key factual question will be whether the accused system assigns a value (e.g., an IP address) for component identification but forbears from actually using that protocol for encapsulation at the same layer, as the claim requires.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"component"
- Context and Importance: The entire claim revolves around mapping data streams to "components." The definition of this term will be critical. If "component" is construed narrowly to mean only the specific examples in the patent (e.g., distinct files for different CODECs or languages), Plaintiff would need to show the accused website generates such discrete versions. A broader construction might cover more general variations in a data stream.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that components "can be used to offer multiple versions of a specific item of content" and gives a non-limiting list of examples including "higher or lower resolution versions," "telemetry associated with events," and "software programs" (’328 Patent, col. 3:13-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates components as discrete technological elements, such as streams encoded with "CODEC A," "CODEC B," or different language text streams like "English" and "German" (’328 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:59-65). This may support a narrower definition tied to distinct encoding or content types.
"without encapsulating the packet streams according to the second communication protocol"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is presented in the complaint as a point of novelty (’16). The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system performs this specific two-step process: (1) assigning a value based on a second protocol (e.g., IP) for identification purposes, while (2) refraining from actually using that protocol to encapsulate the first protocol's packets (e.g., UDP).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains the benefit is to avoid "undesirable consequences" like increased transmission overhead, suggesting the "without encapsulating" limitation should be interpreted functionally to prohibit any method that adds the data overhead of the second protocol at the service provider side (’328 Patent, col. 9:18-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific embodiment where the user equipment (UE), not the service provider, performs the encapsulation into the second protocol (IP) after receiving the initial stream (’328 Patent, col. 9:25-31). This could support an interpretation where the limitation requires a system architecture that explicitly offloads the second-protocol encapsulation to the client side.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶¶ A-C, p. 9).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central issue is factual: does the complaint's broad allegation that Defendant’s corporate website practices the claimed method withstand scrutiny? The case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals that the website's streaming architecture implements the specific, multi-layered protocol handling recited in Claim 1, an assertion for which the complaint currently provides no direct evidence.
Claim Scope and Negative Limitations: A key legal and technical question will be the interpretation of the claim requiring the assignment of a value under a "second communication protocol" while simultaneously proceeding "without encapsulating" the stream in that protocol. The patentability of this feature was highlighted during prosecution, and its application to the accused system will be a focal point of the infringement analysis.
Definitional Boundaries: The dispute may hinge on the construction of the term "component." The court's interpretation will determine whether the term is broad enough to read on any variation in a modern adaptive bitrate stream or if it is limited to the discrete, content-differentiated streams (e.g., separate CODECs or languages) described in the patent's specific embodiments.