DCT
2:24-cv-00066
DISH Tech LLC v. Aylo Freesites Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dish Network LLC L.L.C. and Sling TV LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Aylo Freesites Ltd (Cyprus) and 9219-1568 Quebec Inc (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hatch Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00066, D. Utah, 05/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign companies, allowing suit in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges that Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the District of Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online streaming services, including numerous adult content websites, infringe nine patents related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming technology.
- Technical Context: Adaptive bitrate streaming is a foundational technology for delivering high-quality video over the internet by segmenting content and dynamically adjusting the quality of segments delivered to a user based on real-time network conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint describes a litigious history, alleging that Defendants’ predecessor was notified of the patent portfolio in March 2023. It further alleges that after this notice, Defendants filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in January 2024, after which Defendants filed a similar suit in Delaware. This history may be used to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Move Networks, original owner of the asserted patent technology, is founded. |
| 2004-04-30 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents (U.S. Provisional No. 60/566,831). |
| 2010-12-01 | EchoStar Advanced Technologies L.L.C. acquires Move and its ABR Patent portfolio. |
| 2014-10-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 issues. |
| 2015-01-01 | Launch of Sling TV LLC, which practices the patents-in-suit. |
| 2016-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564 issues. |
| 2018-01-01 | Accused Streaming Services available in the U.S. since at least this date. |
| 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 | DISH sends correspondence to Defendants’ predecessor regarding its ABR patent portfolio. |
| 2023-06-13 | U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 issues. |
| 2023-07-25 | Defendants (as MG Freesites Ltd) file declaratory judgment action in N.D. California. |
| 2023-08-22 | DISH files a related complaint against "Paid Site Operators" in D. Utah. |
| 2024-01-24 | N.D. California court dismisses Defendants’ declaratory judgment action. |
| 2024-01-24 | Defendants file a new complaint in the District of Delaware. |
| 2024-05-17 | DISH sends correspondence to Defendants regarding the imminent issuance of the '234 Patent. |
| 2024-05-21 | U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 issues. |
| 2024-05-21 | First Amended Complaint filed in D. Utah. |
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. (Compl. ¶11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the unreliability, expense, and poor quality of early internet streaming technologies (Compl. ¶23). Prior art methods either required long downloads, which prevented immediate viewing, or streamed content at low quality that was susceptible to buffering and network congestion, sacrificing quality for immediacy (’554 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a client-centric adaptive bitrate streaming system. A media file is encoded into multiple streams at different quality levels (e.g., low, medium, high), and each stream is segmented into smaller files called "streamlets" (’554 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3b). A client device monitors its own network conditions and intelligently requests ("pulls") the appropriate quality streamlet for the next segment of video, allowing it to seamlessly shift quality up or down to ensure continuous playback at the highest sustainable bitrate (Compl. ¶25, ¶28; ’554 Patent, col. 3:5-20).
- Technical Importance: This client-side "pull" approach using standard HTTP protocols eliminated the need for specialized, expensive streaming servers and allowed content to be scaled through standard web caches, significantly improving both user experience and economic viability (Compl. ¶12, ¶28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of claim 16 include:
- An end user station to stream live event video.
- A processor and memory with instructions to establish network connections to a server having access to groups of streamlets.
- The video is encoded at different bitrates to create at least a low, medium, and high quality stream, each comprising a group of streamlets.
- At least one stream is encoded at no less than 600 kbps.
- The first streamlets of each quality stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the video.
- The end user station selects a specific stream based on a determination to select a higher or lower bitrate version.
- The end user station places a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream, receives it, and provides it for playback.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 22-30 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48, ¶21 n.7).
U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 – “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming”
- Issued: June 13, 2023. (Compl. ¶12).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '554 patent from the same family, this patent addresses the challenge of delivering high-quality, reliable video streams over networks with variable bandwidth, which caused buffering and a poor user experience in prior systems (’798 Patent, col. 2:24-41).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for adaptive bitrate streaming where digital content is encoded into multiple streams (e.g., first, second, and third bit rate streams) segmented into "streamlets" (’798 Patent, Abstract). A client-side end user station determines whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy of the stream based on network conditions and then requests the corresponding streamlet, enabling seamless adaptation to network fluctuations (’798 Patent, col. 3:9-20; Compl. ¶25).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables a high-quality viewing experience comparable to cable or satellite by allowing a client device to intelligently manage stream quality in real-time using standard internet protocols (Compl. ¶23, ¶28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶73).
- Essential elements of claim 11 include:
- An end user station with a processor and memory.
- Instructions cause the processor to establish network connections to a server configured to access groups of streamlets.
- Digital content is encoded into at least a first, second, and third bit rate stream, each comprising a group of streamlets.
- At least one stream is encoded at a bit rate of no less than 600 kbps.
- The first streamlets of each stream have an equal playback duration and encode the same portion of the digital content.
- The processor determines whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy and, based on that, selects a specific stream.
- The processor places a request for the first streamlet of the selected stream, receives it, and provides it for output.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 1-10 and 12-25 (Compl. ¶73).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564
- Patent Identification: US9407564B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content,” issued August 2, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for an end user station to present rate-adaptive streams. The method involves automatically requesting subsequent video portions based on the client device's successive determinations to shift playback quality, which are based on a generated "factor" indicative of network performance (Compl. ¶98). The client upshifts or downshifts quality when the factor crosses certain thresholds.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶98).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services are alleged to infringe by receiving video segments and adapting requests for subsequent segments based on network connection quality (Compl. ¶98).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680
- Patent Identification: US10951680B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued March 16, 2021. (Compl. ¶14).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an end user station that streams video using ABR technology. A key feature is the client placing "at least one virtual timeline request for at least one virtual times" based on the selected quality stream and receiving the virtual timeline (Compl. ¶123). This virtual timeline helps manage the sequence of streamlets for playback.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶123).
- Accused Features: The general ABR functionality of the Accused Streaming Services, which adapt requests for video segments based on network quality, is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶123).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772
- Patent Identification: US8868772B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued October 21, 2014. (Compl. ¶15).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for presenting rate-adaptive streams where a media player requests sequential files over a plurality of TCP connections. The client repeatedly generates a "set of one or more factors" related to network performance to make successive determinations on shifting playback quality to achieve continuous playback (Compl. ¶148).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶148).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services' ABR functionality is alleged to infringe by adapting requests for video segments from sets of varying quality based on network conditions (Compl. ¶148).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555
- Patent Identification: US10469555B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued November 5, 2019. (Compl. ¶16).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a content player device that establishes network connections and selects a specific stream from multiple quality options based on a determination by a "client module" to use a higher or lower bitrate. The device then requests and receives streamlets from the selected stream for playback (Compl. ¶173).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶173).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services allegedly infringe by using ABR technology to adapt requests for video segments based on network quality (Compl. ¶173).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138
- Patent Identification: US11470138B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued October 11, 2022. (Compl. ¶17).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to an end user station that establishes an internet connection to stream video using ABR. The client device selects a quality stream based on its own determination and places a request for a streamlet over the internet connection for playback (Compl. ¶198). The claims specify requirements for bitrates and equal playback durations for corresponding streamlets.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶198).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services' ABR functionality, which adapts segment requests based on network quality, is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶198).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156
- Patent Identification: US10757156B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content,” issued August 25, 2020. (Compl. ¶18).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus with a media player configured to stream video by requesting sequential streamlets using HTTP GET requests. The player repeatedly generates a factor related to network performance and adapts its determinations to shift playback quality based on that factor to achieve continuous playback (Compl. ¶223).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶223).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services are alleged to infringe by adapting requests for video segments based on network connection quality (Compl. ¶223).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234
- Patent Identification: US11991234B2, “Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming,” issued May 21, 2024. (Compl. ¶19).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method executable by a client device for rate-adaptive streaming. The method involves automatically requesting subsequent portions of digital content based on successive determinations to change the requested bit rate, which are in turn based on a repeatedly generated factor indicative of network performance (Compl. ¶248). The method specifies requesting a higher or lower bitrate version when the factor crosses first and second thresholds.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶248).
- Accused Features: The Accused Streaming Services are alleged to infringe by adapting requests for video segments based on network quality (Compl. ¶248).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "Accused Streaming Services," which collectively refer to online streaming services operated through numerous websites, applications, sites, and servers (Compl. ¶36). The complaint specifically identifies websites including Pornhub.com, redtube.com, youporn.com, and others (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Streaming Services distribute multimedia content, primarily adult videos, to viewers on either a "free" or subscription basis (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges that these services employ ABR technology, where they "receive segments of a selected video program for playback" and "adapt requests for segments from a set of segments with the same content but varying quality based upon the quality of the network connection" (Compl. ¶20, ¶26, ¶31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Commercial Importance
The complaint alleges Defendants operate "numerous adult video websites" and are a "distributor of multimedia content via the Internet," suggesting a significant commercial operation (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'554 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An end user station to stream a live event video over a network from a server for playback of the video... | The Accused Streaming Services are used by end users to stream video content over a network. | ¶48 | col. 6:50-54 |
| wherein the live event video is encoded at a plurality of different bitrates to create a plurality of streams including at least a low quality stream, a medium quality stream, and a high quality stream... | The Accused Streaming Services provide video encoded at multiple different quality levels or bitrates. | ¶20 | col. 7:59-64 |
| wherein the first streamlets of each of the low quality stream, the medium quality stream and the high quality stream each has an equal playback duration and each of the first streamlets encodes the same portion of the live event video... | The Accused Streaming Services allegedly provide corresponding segments of video content that are time-aligned across different quality levels. | ¶20 | col. 8:1-11 |
| select a specific one of the low quality stream, the medium quality stream, and the high quality stream based upon a determination by the end user station to select a higher or lower bitrate version of the streams; | The client-side players of the Accused Streaming Services allegedly determine and select the appropriate quality stream based on network conditions. | ¶20, ¶28 | col. 13:16-27 |
| place a streamlet request to the server... for the first streamlet of the selected stream; | The client-side player requests the specific video segment corresponding to the selected quality level. | ¶20, ¶28 | col. 13:58-61 |
| receive the requested first streamlet... and provide the received first streamlet for playback... | The client-side player receives the requested segment from the server and presents it to the user for viewing. | ¶20 | col. 14:1-3 |
'798 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An end user station comprising: a processor; a digital processing apparatus memory device comprising non-transitory machine-readable instructions... | The Accused Streaming Services are used on end user devices (e.g., computers, mobile devices) containing processors and memory. | ¶73 | col. 6:40-45 |
| wherein the digital content is encoded at a plurality of different bit rates to create a plurality of streams including at least a first bit rate stream, a second bit rate stream, and a third bit rate stream... | The Accused Streaming Services provide video content encoded at multiple bitrates corresponding to different quality streams. | ¶25 | col. 7:51-57 |
| wherein the first streamlets of each of the first bit rate stream, the second bit rate stream and the third bit rate stream each has an equal playback duration and each... encodes the same portion of the digital content... | The Accused Streaming Services allegedly use time-aligned segments of video across different quality streams. | ¶25, ¶27 | col. 8:1-11 |
| determine whether to select a higher or lower bit rate copy of the stream and based on that determination, select a specific one... | The client-side player of the Accused Streaming Services is alleged to make the determination of which quality stream to request based on network performance. | ¶26, ¶28 | col. 13:16-27 |
| place a first streamlet request... receive the requested first streamlet... and provide the received first streamlet for output... | The client-side player requests, receives, and plays the selected video segment. | ¶26 | col. 13:58-67 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Many asserted claims require at least three distinct quality streams (e.g., "low," "medium," "high") and specify that at least one stream is encoded at "no less than 600 kbps" (’554 Patent, cl. 16; ’798 Patent, cl. 11). A potential point of contention is whether the Accused Streaming Services consistently offer at least three quality tiers and whether one of those tiers meets the 600 kbps bitrate floor as required by the claims.
- Technical Questions: The core of the patented invention is the "determination by the end user station" to shift bitrates (’554 Patent, cl. 16). The infringement allegations will raise the factual question of where this decision-making intelligence resides in the Accused Streaming Services. The analysis will focus on whether the client-side player performs the claimed network monitoring and streamlet selection, or if this logic is primarily controlled by the server, which could suggest a non-infringing "push" system (Compl. ¶25-26).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "streamlet"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patents' architecture of segmenting content for adaptive streaming. Its construction will determine the scope of what constitutes an infringing segment of video. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused video segments meet the definition of a "streamlet."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating a "streamlet refers to any sized portion of the content file" (’554 Patent, col. 7:39-40). This language may support an argument that any segment of video, regardless of its specific technical properties, falls within the claim scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes streamlets as being "encapsulated as an independent media object" and consistently refers to embodiments where streamlets have a fixed, equal duration, such as two seconds (’554 Patent, col. 7:42-45, col. 8:1-4). This may support a narrower construction requiring segments to be independently playable objects of a uniform duration.
The Term: "determination by the end user station"
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the client-centric "pull" nature of the invention, which the complaint identifies as a key improvement over prior art "push" systems (Compl. ¶28). The definition of this term is critical to distinguishing the patented method from potentially non-infringing server-side ABR implementations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the client making this determination by "continuous observation of time intervals between successive receive times of each requested streamlet" (’554 Patent, col. 13:23-27). This suggests the determination is based on performance metrics available at the client, supporting a construction that covers a wide range of client-side decision-making algorithms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other patents in the family explicitly tie this determination to specific calculations, such as "repeatedly generating a factor indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming" and comparing it to thresholds (’564 Patent, cl. 8). A defendant might argue that "determination" requires more than a simple check, implying a specific computational process must be performed by the client as taught in the broader patent family.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants have knowledge of the patents (from pre-suit notice) and knowingly "encourage," "train," and "promote" the use of the infringing ABR features by their customers (Compl. ¶54-57, ¶79-82). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Streaming Services are a material part of the invention, are known by Defendants to be especially adapted for infringement, and are not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶65, ¶90).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the Asserted Patents "well before the time of filing this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶50, ¶75). This knowledge is allegedly based on direct correspondence sent to Defendants' predecessor in March 2023, which identified the patent portfolio and its relevance to their streaming technology, as well as Defendants' alleged monitoring of the ABR technology market (Compl. ¶39, ¶59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can DISH produce evidence, likely through reverse engineering or discovery, demonstrating that the client-side players of the Accused Streaming Services independently perform the claimed functions of monitoring network conditions and making the "determination" to request specific-quality streamlets, as opposed to receiving instructions from a server?
- A key dispute will be one of claim scope and mapping: Will the term "streamlet" be construed broadly to cover any video segment, or narrowly to require specific properties like fixed duration and independent playability? Furthermore, can DISH prove that the various quality levels offered by the Accused Streaming Services map to the specific bitrate floors and qualitative labels (e.g., "low," "medium," "high") recited in the asserted claims?
- A central legal question will be one of willfulness and intent: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice letters and subsequent litigation history, a primary focus will be on whether Defendants' continued operation of their streaming services after being notified of the patents constitutes the kind of objective recklessness required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.