Onstream Media Corp v. Webcast Plus LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Onstream Media Corporation (Florida)
  • Defendant: Webcast Plus, LLC d/b/a GlobalMeet (Arizona)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daignault Iyer LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00385, W.D. Tex., 05/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant employs individuals within the district who use their homes to transact business, and because Defendant conducts regular business and derives substantial revenue from customers in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual event and webcasting platforms infringe nine U.S. patents related to systems and methods for remotely recording, storing, and delivering audio and video streams via a web browser.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns browser-based, server-side media streaming and recording, a foundational technology for the modern virtual events, webinar, and online meeting markets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of the patents-in-suit since at least February 17, 2023, following a letter from Plaintiff's counsel. This allegation forms the basis for Plaintiff's claims of willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068 - Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued October 13, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that new systems for online business communications often introduce "increased intellectual complexity and/or increased computer system requirements," which discourages widespread adoption (Compl. ¶26; ’068 Patent, col. 1:31-39). The patent identifies a need for an improved system that is "simple, efficient, and does not have extensive computer system requirements" (Compl. ¶28; ’068 Patent, col. 1:48-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an audio and video recording and delivery system where the core functionality resides on a "host back end" (server-side) rather than the "user front end" (client-side) (Compl. ¶25; ’068 Patent, Abstract). A user accesses a "virtual recording room" via a standard web browser, streams audio/video to the host server for processing and storage, and in turn, the system generates code (e.g., a URL or embed code) that can be pasted into other websites to provide access to the recorded content (Compl. ¶¶25, 29; ’068 Patent, col. 2:8-23). This architecture claims to solve the stated problems by reducing or eliminating the need for users to install special software or have local storage devices (Compl. ¶29).
• Technical Importance: This server-side architecture lowered the technical barrier for creating and distributing recorded video content, making it accessible to users without specialized software or hardware.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶79).
• Based on the complaint's allegations, the essential elements of the asserted method claim include:
  • Recording audio and video material over an Internet browser connection between a user front end and a host back end.
  • Delivering a browser-executable, browser-independent recording application that initiates the stream to be recorded.
  • Capturing the audio and video material without using any recording software installed on the user front end.
  • Transmitting a stream of audio and video material to the host's servers as the material is being captured.
  • Making and storing the audio and video recording on the host back end as a complete file.
  • Providing access to the entire audio and video recording after completion.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 - Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The specification of the ’728 patent is asserted to be the same as that of the ’068 patent, addressing the same problems of complexity and high system requirements in existing online communication and recording systems (Compl. ¶35).
• The Patented Solution: The ’728 Patent discloses the same server-side recording architecture as the ’068 Patent, where recording, processing, and storage functions are handled by a host back end, accessible to a user through a standard web browser on a user front end (Compl. ¶35; ’068 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to simplify content creation and distribution by minimizing requirements on the user's device.
• Technical Importance: As with the ’068 Patent, this approach lowered the technical barrier for creating and distributing recorded video content.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶100).

• Based on the complaint's allegations, the essential elements of the asserted method claim include:

  • Transmitting a platform-independent web application from servers to a user's device via a network.
  • Using the application to initiate streaming of audio and video material from the user's device as it is captured.
  • Recording the audio and video material on the servers via the web application.
  • Storing the material as a complete file.
  • Generating codes (e.g., URL, HTML) to facilitate access to the stored material from other locations.

• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,038,930, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued July 31, 2018.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, sharing a specification with the lead patents, describes an audio/video recording and delivery system centered on a "host back end" that performs the recording and storage, thereby reducing the software and hardware burden on the "user front end" (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 41). The system is accessed via a browser and facilitates sharing of the recorded media.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).

• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Premiere Global Services System's method of transmitting a browser-independent recording application from its servers to user devices to capture and record media streams (Compl. ¶¶ 116, 118, 120).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,200,648, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued February 5, 2019.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an Internet-based recording method where audio and video are captured via a browser connection and recorded on a host back end (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47). This architecture is intended to simplify the user experience by centralizing the recording and storage functionality on remote servers.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶129).

• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Premiere Global Services System's functions for recording audio and video over a browser connection, storing the material on its servers, and generating codes to facilitate access to the recordings (Compl. ¶¶ 130, 132, 133).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,674,109, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued June 2, 2020.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for browser-based, server-side media recording (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53). A browser-independent application is transmitted from a server to a client device, where it executes to capture and stream media back to the server for recording, without requiring installation of dedicated recording software on the client device.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶143).

• Accused Features: The accused features include the Premiere Global Services System's method of transmitting a browser-based application to a client device, receiving a media stream from that device, and recording the stream on its servers (Compl. ¶¶ 144, 146, 147).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,694,142, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued June 23, 2020.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent pertains to a method for recording audio and video over an internet connection between a user front end and a host back end (Compl. ¶¶ 58-59). The system is designed to be accessible via standard desktop or mobile browsers and initiates recording through server-delivered code executed by the browser.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶157).

• Accused Features: The complaint targets the Premiere Global Services System's method of initiating recording via server-delivered code executed on a user's browser, streaming the captured media, and storing it on the host's servers (Compl. ¶¶ 158, 160, 162).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,848,707, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued November 24, 2020.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for receiving and recording streamed digital audio and video at one or more host back-end servers from a user's computing device over a packet-based network (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65, 174). The system is designed to capture this material without requiring the installation of recording software on the user's device.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶173).

• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Premiere Global Services System of remotely recording streamed media that is captured on a user device without requiring local recording software, and then generating a URL to facilitate access to the stored file (Compl. ¶¶ 175, 176, 177).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,855, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued March 16, 2021.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a secure, distributed digital audio and video recording system comprising a mobile front-end capturing device and a host back-end server system (Compl. ¶¶ 70-71). The system is configured to securely stream media from the mobile device to the host for recording, using a stream number for initiation.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶188).

• Accused Features: The accused features include the Premiere Global Services System's components for secure, distributed recording, including its application for mobile devices and its host back-end servers that initiate and record secure streams (Compl. ¶¶ 189, 190, 191, 193).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,128,833, Remotely Accessed Virtual Recording Room, issued September 21, 2021.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for network-based recording and delivery of digital media, where the recording is accomplished using only executable code delivered from a host back end to a user front end and a recording device on the user front end (Compl. ¶¶ 76-77). The system stores the recording on the host back end and generates code to facilitate access.

• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶206).

• Accused Features: The accused features include the Premiere Global Services System's method of recording media using only server-delivered code and a user's recording device, storing the media on the host back end, and generating code to access the stored material (Compl. ¶¶ 207-211).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses the "Premiere Global Services System," which includes products and services marketed under the "GlobalMeet" brand, such as GlobalMeet Webcast, GlobalMeet Virtual Events, GlobalMeet Hybrid Events, and GlobalMeet Webinar (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is a "virtual events platform" that enables users to create, broadcast, and record audio and video presentations for online audiences (Compl. ¶5). A feature chart provided in the complaint shows that the platform supports functions such as a "Live Event Studio," "Presenter HD Video," on-demand viewing, and cloud storage for recordings (Compl. p. 18). The system is allegedly accessible via standard web browsers on desktop and mobile devices without requiring users to download and install a dedicated application, a feature marketed as "Unmatched Scalability" with "100% browser-based access" (Compl. ¶81, p. 47, 111). The complaint alleges the platform is used globally by thousands of enterprises, including Fortune 500 companies, and engages "hundreds of millions of viewers" (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,161,068 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "recording software installed on the user front end." Defendant may argue that a modern web browser's built-in media capture APIs (e.g., WebRTC) constitute "software installed on the user front end," whereas Plaintiff will likely contend the term refers to third-party applications or plugins requiring a separate installation process, which the accused system allegedly avoids.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the server-delivered code is a "browser-independent recording application" as recited in the claims, versus standard browser-executed script? The infringement analysis will likely require a technical deep-dive into how the accused GlobalMeet platform initiates and manages media streams through a browser, and whether this mechanism meets the specific limitations of the asserted claims, which were drafted in an earlier era of web technology.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "without using any recording software installed on the user front end"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears central to the infringement theory for the ’068 patent. The case may turn on whether the accused system, which relies on the native media capture capabilities of modern web browsers, is deemed to be "using" software "installed" on the user's device. Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates a potential factual and legal dispute over the nature of browser-based applications.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., "installed" means any software, including the browser itself): The claims do not qualify the term "software" with "third-party" or "additionally." A defendant could argue that a web browser is itself "software installed on the user front end," and its media functions are part of that software.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., "installed" means a separate program or plug-in): The patent's background and summary repeatedly emphasize solving the problem of "increased computer system requirements" and avoiding the need for users to "download and install" additional custom software (Compl. ¶¶ 26-29; ’068 Patent, col. 1:31-52). This stated objective may support an interpretation that "installed software" refers to applications or plugins that add a burden to the user beyond simply having a standard web browser.

• The Term: "browser-independent recording application"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for multiple asserted patents. Infringement depends on whether the code delivered by Defendant's servers and executed by the browser constitutes such an "application." The term's meaning will be debated in the context of both the patent's 2004 priority date and the accused system's modern architecture.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in broad, functional terms as an "Internet-based recording system" (e.g., ’068 Patent, col. 2:10-14). This may support a construction where any set of executable code that performs the claimed recording functions, regardless of the specific technology (e.g., Flash, Java Applet, JavaScript/WebRTC), qualifies as the claimed "application."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that in the 2004 technological context, a browser-based "application" would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean something distinct from simple scripts, such as a Flash or Java application. They may argue that the term does not read on the use of native APIs in modern browsers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by providing customers with user guides, support documents, blog posts, and other instructions on how to use the accused system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 94, 97, 109).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least February 17, 2023, as a result of a notice letter sent by Plaintiff's counsel (Compl. ¶¶ 93, 108).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation and claim scope: can claim terms drafted in the context of the web in 2004 (e.g., "browser-independent recording application," "software installed") be construed to cover the functionality of modern web browsers that use native, standardized APIs like WebRTC for media capture, a technology not prevalent at the time of the invention?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused GlobalMeet system's browser-based functionality operate "without using any recording software installed on the user front end"? The resolution will depend on whether a court construes a browser's built-in media APIs as "installed recording software" within the meaning of the patent.
• A central dispute regarding damages and willfulness will be the effect of pre-suit notice: given the alleged notice of infringement in February 2023, Defendant's conduct after this date will be scrutinized to determine whether any continued infringement was willful, potentially exposing it to enhanced damages.