DCT
7:24-cv-00207
Err Content IP LLC v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Err Content IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00207, W.D. Tex., 08/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and methods for displaying content from different sources infringe a patent related to providing main content on a first device while simultaneously providing related "extra" content on a second device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "second screen" experiences, where a user watching primary content (e.g., a video on a TV) can access supplementary, related information (e.g., actor biographies, trivia) on a secondary device like a smartphone or tablet.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, none of which involved producing a patented article. Plaintiff argues these prior licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-04-26 | Earliest Priority Date Claimed by the ’542 Patent (PCT) |
| 2020-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 Issues |
| 2024-08-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 "main content" (e.g., a TV program) must interrupt that content to view related "extra content" on the same device. This forces the user to choose between the primary program and the supplementary information (’542 Patent, col. 1:35-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to decouple the main and extra content. It describes a "reference item" (metadata) broadcast with the main content on a first device. This reference item can be forwarded to a second device, which then uses it to retrieve and display the extra content from a separate source. This allows the user to view the main content on the first device (e.g., a TV) and the extra content on the second device (e.g., a tablet) simultaneously (’542 Patent, col. 2:22-39, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The described method facilitates a "second screen" viewing experience, a model that allows for interactive, context-aware content augmentation without disrupting the primary media consumption (’542 Patent, col. 1:40-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-14 of the ’542 patent (Compl. ¶8).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying the main content on a first device;
- said metadata and main content being broadcasted together from the first source;
- said metadata linking the specific main content with an extra content;
- forwarding said metadata to a second device;
- the forwarding being executed by scanning said metadata by said second device;
- the second device receiving the extra content from a second, different source; and
- displaying the main content on the first device while the extra content is displayed on the second device.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify a specific accused product by name. It broadly accuses "systems and methods for displaying content from sources" that are developed, operated, and sold by Amazon (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Amazon provides systems that enable the display of content, implying functionalities that align with the second-screen experience described in the patent (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation or market positioning of any particular Amazon service (e.g., Prime Video with X-Ray, Fire TV). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶9). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’542 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for providing a main content and an extra content to a user, said method comprising: receiving a specific main content and metadata from a first source and displaying said specific main content on a first device... | Defendant’s systems and methods are alleged to provide main content (e.g., a video stream) and associated metadata to a user's first device. | ¶7, ¶8 | col. 9:48-51 |
| wherein said metadata and said specific main content are broadcasted together from the first source, and wherein said metadata links said specific main content with an extra content; | The complaint asserts that Amazon's systems provide main and extra content, implying that metadata linking the two is delivered with the main content. | ¶7, ¶8 | col. 9:51-55 |
| forwarding said metadata to a second device, wherein: the forwarding of said metadata is executed by scanning said metadata by said second device, | The complaint alleges infringement of claims requiring this step but provides no specific factual allegations describing how any Amazon product performs a "scanning" operation from a first device to a second device. | ¶8 | col. 9:56-60 |
| the second device receives said extra content from a second source... | Defendant’s systems allegedly provide extra content, which is retrieved by a second device from a source distinct from the main content source. | ¶7, ¶8 | col. 9:61-62 |
| and said specific main content is displayed on said first device while said extra content is displayed on said second device; | The accused functionality allegedly results in the simultaneous display of main content on a first screen and extra content on a second screen. | ¶7, ¶8 | col. 10:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The central technical question is whether any of Amazon's accused systems practice the "scanning" limitation of claim 1. The complaint offers no factual support for this element, which is critical for literal infringement. The court will require evidence of a second device performing an operation that can be technically characterized as "scanning" metadata off a first device's display or transmission.
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the definition of "metadata." The patent describes this as a "reference item" that can be a hyperlink, QR-code, or other data (’542 Patent, col. 3:57-65). The parties may dispute whether the data signals used in Amazon’s ecosystem to synchronize second-screen experiences qualify as "metadata" that is "scanned" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "scanning said metadata by said second device"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims and is a highly specific limitation describing the mechanism for transferring the reference item from the first to the second device. The viability of the infringement case may hinge on its construction, as it appears to be a significant point of difference between the claimed method and modern, account-based device synchronization. Practitioners may focus on this term because it dictates the specific user and device actions required to infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as a "QR-code, a bar code, machine-readable data or optical machine-readable data" (’542 Patent, col. 3:62-65), but the claim language itself is not explicitly limited to optical scanning. A party might argue "scanning" could encompass any active electronic interrogation or polling of data presented by the first device for use by the second.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the patent, "scanning" implies an active, directional capture of information, such as using a camera or NFC reader on the second device to read a code or tag from the first. The detailed description emphasizes this type of interaction ('542 Patent, col. 5:39-43, "said forwarding... is executed by scanning said reference item by means of said second device"). This interpretation would likely exclude passive data synchronization between two applications logged into the same user account.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Amazon induces infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers on how to use its products and services in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’542 patent (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement on a similar basis (Compl. ¶11).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’542 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1; ¶11, fn. 2). The plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can the plaintiff produce evidence that any of Amazon’s accused, but unspecified, services practice the claim limitation requiring a second device to "scan" metadata from a first device? The complaint currently lacks specific factual allegations to support this crucial step.
- The case will likely involve a significant dispute of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "scanning"? A narrow construction limited to optical or near-field capture could present a substantial non-infringement defense, whereas a broader construction covering certain types of electronic data polling might allow the plaintiff's theory to proceed.
- A further issue will be one of specificity: The complaint's failure to identify any specific accused Amazon product or service may be challenged early in the proceedings. The resolution of this will determine the factual basis upon which the technical and claim construction disputes are built.