DCT
2:24-cv-00279
Media Key LLC v. F5 Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Media Key LLC (New York)
- Defendant: F5, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mann Law Group PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00279, W.D. Wash., 02/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in Washington, has an established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for distributing updatable content to end-users via a software application stored on portable media.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for delivering dynamic, network-updated information to users who initiate the process from a physical, portable medium like a CD-ROM or flash drive.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 Priority Date |
| 2009-10-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 Issued |
| 2024-02-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876 - "Media Keying for Updateable Content Distribution"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,606,876, "Media Keying for Updateable Content Distribution," issued October 20, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue of content distributed on physical media (e.g., CDs) becoming static and outdated upon distribution. Traditional methods made it impractical for content providers to update information, such as a product catalog, after the media was sent to a consumer ('876 Patent, col. 1:13-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable storage medium is provided to an end-user containing not just content, but a "Keying Application" and a unique "Source ID." When the user runs the application on a network-connected device, the application contacts a remote "Content Server," transmits the Source ID, and receives dynamic, up-to-date content tailored to that ID, which is then displayed to the user ('876 Patent, col. 2:10-23, Fig. 1). This effectively turns a static piece of media into a gateway for live information.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method to link physical media distribution campaigns with the benefits of dynamic, server-side content, allowing for continuously updated marketing materials, catalogs, or directories without needing to re-issue physical media ('876 Patent, col. 1:4-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers, but incorporates by reference an external claim chart exhibit not attached to the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A system for distributing and remotely updating information on portable external storage media.
- The system comprises at least one network-connected content server that creates and updates information according to a user profile.
- The user profile is generated from factors including a storage media identifier, a user ID, and transaction histories.
- The system also comprises a "keying application" stored on the media.
- The keying application, when run on an electronic device, selects the user ID and transmits it and the storage media identifier to the content server.
- The keying application records the user ID on the local electronic device if the external storage media is non-recordable.
- The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific F5, Inc. product, service, or method in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). It states that these products are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement but relies on an external, unattached Exhibit 2 to provide the specific mapping of claim elements to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). The narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '876 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Lacking specific product details, the following chart summarizes the allegations for representative independent claim 1 based on the complaint's general assertions.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'876 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for distributing and remotely updating information contained on processor readable portable external storage media... | The complaint alleges Defendant makes, uses, sells, or offers for sale products that comprise such a system (Compl. ¶11). The specific products are identified in the unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16). | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 8:37-43 |
| at least one content server connected to the network and adapted for automatically creating and updating the information according to a profile associated with the user... | The complaint alleges the accused system includes server-side components that perform the claimed functions (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:44-49 |
| wherein the profile is generated from factors including the storage media identifier, a user identity (user ID), a history of transactions involving the user ID, and a history of transactions involving the electronic device; | The complaint alleges the accused system generates and uses a profile based on such factors (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:50-54 |
| and a keying application stored on the external storage media for launching and running on the electronic device for selecting the user ID and transmitting the user ID and the storage media identifier to said content server; | The complaint alleges the accused system includes a "keying application" with this functionality (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:55-59 |
| wherein said keying application selects the user ID based on the storage media identifier and other indicia of user identification, | The complaint alleges the accused system performs this selection function (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:60-62 |
| and wherein if said external storage media containing said keying application is non-recordable, said keying application records the user ID generated by said content server on the local electronic device running said keying application. | The complaint alleges the accused system performs this conditional recording function (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 8:62-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be identifying the specific F5 product features that allegedly constitute the "keying application" and "storage media identifier" recited in the claims. The evidence for how F5's system generates a "profile" based on the claimed factors will be critical.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether software distributed digitally (e.g., downloaded) and stored on a user's local drive can be considered a "processor readable portable external storage media" within the meaning of the patent, which illustrates its concepts with physical media like CDs ('876 Patent, col. 2:11-12).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "keying application"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention and appears in every independent claim. It is not a standard term of art. Its construction will determine what type of software functionality can be accused of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of infringement hinges on whether an accused software module performs the specific functions described for the "Keying Application" in the specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term broadly as an application that "interacts with a Content Server via the network connection" and displays content to the user ('876 Patent, col. 2:17-23). This could support a construction covering a wide range of client-server software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific functions for the application, including launching, checking for an internet connection (col. 3:40-42), sending a "Source ID" to a server (col. 3:56-59), and handling the local storage of a "User ID" (col. 4:8-24). This could support a narrower construction requiring a multi-step process initiated from a distinct piece of media.
The Term: "storage media identifier"
Context and Importance: This identifier is a key input to the claimed system, used to differentiate content. The distinction between this identifier and the "user identity (user ID)" is crucial for understanding the claim's logic. Infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system uses a distinct identifier tied to the media or distribution source, as opposed to just a user-specific ID.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the format of the identifier, leaving its implementation open.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the "Source ID" may "identify the distribution point of the media, or the identity/profile of an end user who will be given the media" and can be associated with, for example, a specific department in a store ('876 Patent, col. 3:1-6). This suggests an identifier tied to the context of distribution, not just the media itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that F5 induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the '876 patent (Compl. ¶14). The complaint states that these materials are referenced in the unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving "actual knowledge" of the '876 Patent via the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14). This frames the allegation as one of post-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, a threshold question is what specific F5 products, services, and software features will Plaintiff identify as corresponding to the core elements of the claims, particularly the "keying application" and "storage media identifier."
- The case will likely involve a significant claim construction dispute over the scope of foundational but non-standard terms like "keying application". The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a narrow definition tied to the patent's physical media examples or a broader one encompassing modern digital software distribution.
- A key legal and factual question will be one of technological scope: can the patent’s claims, which are described in the context of physical media like CDs distributed in the early 2000s, be interpreted to cover the architecture of modern, network-centric services and applications, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technology?