DCT

2:23-cv-00624

DISH Tech LLC v. Vidgo Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-000624, D. Utah, 09/11/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah primarily because Defendant Vidgo is incorporated in Utah.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online streaming services infringe eight patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology.
  • Technical Context: Adaptive bitrate streaming is a foundational technology for modern internet video delivery, enabling services to adjust video quality in real-time to match a user's available network bandwidth, thereby preventing buffering and optimizing the viewing experience.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originated with MOVE Networks, whose ABR patent portfolio was acquired by an EchoStar subsidiary for $45 million in 2010 before being transferred to Plaintiff DISH. Plaintiff alleges it sent notice letters to Defendant's CEO regarding its ABR patent portfolio beginning on March 17, 2023, but received no response before filing this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-01-01 MOVE Networks, Inc. founded
2004-04-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2010-12-01 EchoStar acquires MOVE Networks and the ABR Patent portfolio
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 issues
2016-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564 issues
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 issues
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555 issues
2020-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156 issues
2021-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680 issues
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 issues
2023-03-17 Plaintiff sends first pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 issues
2023-07-11 Plaintiff sends second pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2023-07-31 Plaintiff sends third pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2023-09-11 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 - “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (issued November 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, internet streaming was unreliable and offered inferior quality compared to cable, satellite, or downloading a file, suffering from problems of latency, buffering, and inefficient use of bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21; ’554 Patent, col. 2:1-4, 59-61). Existing proprietary streaming protocols were expensive to deploy and required custom server architectures (Compl. ¶ 20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an HTTP-based adaptive bitrate streaming system where a media file is segmented into smaller files called "streamlets" (Compl. ¶ 22; ’554 Patent, col. 7:40-41). These streamlets are encoded at multiple different bitrates, creating parallel streams of varying quality (Compl. ¶ 24; ’554 Patent, Fig. 2b). The invention shifts the intelligence from the server to the client device, which monitors network performance and dynamically requests streamlets from the appropriate bitrate stream to ensure continuous playback at the highest sustainable quality, thereby avoiding buffering (Compl. ¶ 25; ’554 Patent, col. 17:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: This client-driven, HTTP-based approach improved the user experience while significantly reducing operating costs by allowing content to be served from standard, commodity web servers and caches rather than specialized, proprietary streaming servers (Compl. ¶ 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶ 40).
  • The essential elements of Claim 16 are:
    • An end user station to stream a live event video.
    • A processor and memory with instructions that cause the processor to:
    • Establish network connections with a server configured to access groups of streamlets.
    • Wherein the video is encoded at different bitrates into low, medium, and high quality streams, each comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one stream is encoded at no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each quality stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the video.
    • Select one of the quality streams based on a determination to select a higher or lower bitrate.
    • Place a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested streamlet.
    • Provide the received streamlet for playback.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶ 40, fn. 1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 - “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming” (issued June 13, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’554 Patent: the unreliability, poor quality, and high cost of pre-ABR internet streaming technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21; ’798 Patent, col. 2:1-4, 59-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an end user station that implements a client-controlled adaptive bitrate streaming method. It segments digital content into "streamlets," creates multiple versions at different bit rates, and enables the client device to monitor network conditions to select and request the appropriate streamlet, ensuring seamless playback without buffering (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25; ’798 Patent, Abstract, col. 17:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows high-quality video to be delivered reliably over standard HTTP protocols, leveraging commodity web infrastructure to improve performance and reduce costs for content providers (Compl. ¶ 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶ 64).
  • The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
    • An end user station.
    • A processor and memory with instructions that cause the processor to:
    • Establish network connections to at least one server configured to access groups of streamlets.
    • Wherein digital content is encoded at different bit rates into at least first, second, and third bit rate streams, each comprising a group of streamlets.
    • Wherein at least one stream is encoded at no less than 600 kbps.
    • Wherein the first streamlets of each bit rate stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the digital content.
    • Determine whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy and select a specific stream based on that determination.
    • Place a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream.
    • Receive the requested streamlet.
    • Provide the received streamlet for output to a presentation device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 64, fn. 1).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564, “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content,” issued August 2, 2016 (Compl. ¶ 11).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams. The method involves a media player automatically requesting subsequent video files from different quality copies based on successive determinations, which are made by repeatedly generating a factor indicative of the network's performance and ability to sustain the stream (Compl. ¶ 89).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶ 89).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Vidgo's streaming services, which allegedly adapt requests for video segments based on network quality by using a client-side media player to determine which quality level to request (Compl. ¶ 89).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued March 16, 2021 (Compl. ¶ 9).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an end-user station for streaming video that is structurally similar to that of the ’554 Patent. A distinguishing feature of the asserted claim is the requirement for the end-user station to "place at least one virtual timeline request for at least one virtual times" based on the selected stream (Compl. ¶ 114).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶ 114).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Vidgo's streaming services, which allegedly receive video segments and adapt requests based on network connection quality, purportedly performing the claimed steps including the selection and request based on a timeline (Compl. ¶ 114).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued November 5, 2019 (Compl. ¶ 13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a content player device with a processor and memory that execute instructions to perform adaptive bitrate streaming. The claimed system involves establishing a connection, selecting a stream based on a client-side determination of a higher or lower bitrate, and requesting/receiving "streamlets" that encode the same portion of video at different bitrates (Compl. ¶ 139).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶ 139).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Vidgo's "Accused Streaming Services" function as the claimed content player device, adapting requests for video segments based on network quality (Compl. ¶ 139).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued October 21, 2014 (Compl. ¶ 14).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams. The claimed method involves a media player automatically requesting subsequent portions of a video from different quality copies based on "successive determinations" that are informed by "one or more factors indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming" (Compl. ¶ 164).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 164).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Vidgo's streaming services that allegedly receive segments of video and adapt requests based on network connection quality, thereby performing the claimed method (Compl. ¶ 164).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued October 11, 2022 (Compl. ¶ 15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an end-user station for ABR streaming, similar to the ’554 and ’680 patents. The asserted claim recites establishing an "internet connection," selecting a stream based on a client-side determination, and placing a "streamlet request to the server over the internet connection" (Compl. ¶ 189).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶ 189).
  • Accused Features: Vidgo's streaming services are accused of functioning as the claimed end-user station that adapts requests for video segments based on network quality (Compl. ¶ 189).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156, “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content,” issued August 25, 2020 (Compl. ¶ 16).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus for rendering adaptively received video. The claimed method recites requesting sequential streamlets via "hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) GET requests" and repeatedly generating a "factor relating to the performance of the network" to adapt playback quality (Compl. ¶ 214).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 214).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services allegedly function as the claimed apparatus, adapting requests for video segments based on network connection quality and thereby infringing the patent (Compl. ¶ 214).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products and services are the "Vidgo Application and the Vidgo Server(s)," which are collectively referred to as the "Accused Streaming Services" (Compl. ¶ 33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Streaming Services operate as an online content distribution platform (Compl. ¶ 33). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the services use the Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) protocol (Compl. ¶ 34). This protocol is designed for media streaming where control lies primarily with the client device, which requests data segments using standard HTTP from web servers. A key function of this protocol is to allow the client to switch seamlessly between different quality representations of media based on varying network bandwidth, thereby improving the user experience (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for its infringement allegations but does not attach them (Compl. ¶ 40, fn. 1; ¶ 64, fn. 1). Therefore, a summary of the narrative infringement theory is provided in lieu of a claim chart table.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Accused Streaming Services, which comprise the Vidgo application on an end-user device and Vidgo's servers, perform the client-side adaptive bitrate streaming methods claimed in the asserted patents. The complaint alleges that Vidgo's services use the DASH protocol, which involves encoding content into segments at varying qualities (Compl. ¶ 34). It further alleges that the Vidgo client application adapts its requests for these segments based on the quality of the network connection (Compl. ¶ 40). This functionality is alleged to meet the key claim limitations of an "end user station" or "content player device" that selects a stream based on a determination of network conditions and requests, receives, and plays back the corresponding "streamlets" (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 64).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted claims are directed to an "end user station," a "content player device," an "apparatus," or a "method executable by an end user station." The complaint accuses a "service" that combines a client-side application with server-side components (Compl. ¶ 33). This raises the question of whether claims written to a client device are directly infringed by a party that provides a service composed of distinct client and server elements, which may raise issues of divided infringement.
    • Technical Questions: The claims recite a specific data structure where multiple streams are composed of "streamlets," and the "first streamlets" of each stream have "an equal playback duration and ... encode[] the same portion of the live event video" (’554 Patent, cl. 16). A central technical question will be whether the segments generated and used by Vidgo's DASH protocol meet this specific structural and functional definition of a "streamlet," or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the accused protocol and the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "streamlet"

    • Context and Importance: This is a foundational term of the claimed inventions, representing the discrete segments of video that are requested by the client. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the video "segments" allegedly used in Vidgo's DASH-based service fall within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating that "streamlet refers to any sized portion of the content file 200" (’554 Patent, col. 7:40-41).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims add significant structural requirements, such as groups of streamlets corresponding to the same portion of video having "an equal playback duration" across different bitrates (’554 Patent, cl. 16). The specification further describes a streamlet as being "encapsulated as an independent media object" with a "unique time index" (’554 Patent, col. 7:42-45), which could support a more limited definition than any generic video segment.

  • The Term: "end user station"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the apparatus recited in several independent claims (e.g., '554 Patent, cl. 16; '798 Patent, cl. 11). Its construction will be central to the dispute over whether Vidgo, by providing a software application for use on third-party hardware, can be held liable for directly infringing a claim to a physical "station."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "end user station 104 may comprise a personal computer (PC), an entertainment system ... or a portable electronic device" (’554 Patent, col. 6:45-48). This language may support an interpretation where the "station" is a general-purpose device configured by software to perform the claimed functions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the "end user station" itself to comprise a processor and memory, which are physical hardware components. An argument may be made that Vidgo only provides software (the "Vidgo Application") and does not make, use, or sell the complete claimed "station" that includes the underlying hardware, potentially shifting the focus to indirect infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Vidgo encourages and trains customers to use the Accused Streaming Services in an infringing manner, citing website articles on topics like device compatibility and simultaneous stream limits (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 73). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Accused Streaming Services constitute a material part of the invention, are especially made for infringement, and are not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 81).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶ 1). The complaint alleges that Vidgo knew or should have known of the patents due to its position in the "small and well-defined market" for ABR technology (Compl. ¶ 50). More specifically, it pleads pre-suit notice based on three unanswered letters sent to Vidgo's CEO between March 17, 2023, and July 31, 2023, which allegedly informed Vidgo of the patent portfolio and invited licensing discussions (Compl. ¶¶ 36-38).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: does the segment-based architecture of the DASH protocol, as allegedly implemented by Vidgo, meet the specific structural and functional limitations of the claimed "streamlet"-based system, particularly with respect to requirements like equal playback durations for segments encoding the same temporal portion of video?
  • A central legal question will be one of infringement liability: can DISH establish that Vidgo's act of providing a software application for use on customer-owned hardware constitutes direct infringement of apparatus claims directed to an "end user station," or will the case turn on the more stringent knowledge and intent requirements of indirect infringement?
  • A key question for damages will be willfulness: does Vidgo's alleged failure to respond to a series of pre-suit notice letters from DISH demonstrate the objective recklessness necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?