Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`Judge R. Brooke Jackson
`
`
`Civil Action No 17-cv-02097-RBJ
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., and
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., Dish Technologies L.L.C., and Dish
`
`Network L.L.C. (collectively “Dish”) move for summary judgment, contending that the subject
`
`patent is invalid because it claims what amounts to an abstract idea. The Court agrees and grants
`
`summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims in this case.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) filed this suit on August 31,
`
`2017, claiming that three Dish-related companies had infringed three patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,275.897 (“the ‘897 patent”); 8,867,610 (“the ‘610 patent”); and 8,934,535 (“the ‘535 patent”).
`
`By the time of the Markman Order the case had evolved to claims against the present defendants;
`
`a related company, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C.; and the Arris Group, Inc. Only the ‘610 and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15
`
`‘535 patents were still involved. Since then, the Arris Group settled, and plaintiff dropped its
`
`claims under the ‘535 patent. The remaining claim against the Dish defendants for infringement
`
`of Claim 1 and, on information and belief, “other claims” of the ‘610 patent. ECF No. 32 at 8,
`
`⁋25; 14, ⁋34. Plaintiff’s infringement claims and defendants’ counterclaim for invalidity are set
`
`for trial beginning August 16, 2021.
`
`The ‘610 patent is titled “System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution.”
`
`The ‘535 patent, although no longer accused in this case but nevertheless relevant as discussed
`
`below, is titled “System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution.” The
`
`specifications for both patents are virtually identical.
`
`The two patents concern data compression and decompression algorithms. They are
`
`directed to selecting a compression scheme based on characteristics of the digital data being
`
`compressed. The patents purport to optimize compression time for digital files to prevent
`
`problems such as download delay, data buffering, and reduced system speeds. Basically, the two
`
`patents first assign a data or access profile to the user based on the frequency that the data is
`
`accessed or written. Then they assign a compression algorithm to each profile. A symmetrical
`
`compression algorithm is optimal when the profile has a similar read to write ratio (meaning the
`
`number of reads and writes is balanced). In contrast, an asymmetrical compression algorithm is
`
`preferred when the profile writes often but reads seldom, or vice versa. In the former
`
`asymmetrical scenario, the preferred algorithm would compress quickly and decompress slowly.
`
`The opposite is true for the latter scenario.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`At the claim construction stage, the parties focused on eight terms or groups of related
`
`terms, several of which essentially were common to the ‘610 and ‘535 patents. The Court
`
`construed those terms in its Markman Order. ECF No. 151. I will refer to that order as needed.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`The Court may grant summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
`
`fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
`
`moving party has the burden to show that there is an absence of evidence to support the
`
`nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The nonmoving
`
`party must “designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324. A
`
`fact is material “if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”
`
`Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A material fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a
`
`reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
`
`The Court will examine the factual record and make reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
`
`most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City
`
`and Cty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1517 (10th Cir. 1994).
`
`ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS
`
`
`
`An inventor may obtain a patent for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
`
`or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” under §101 of the Patent
`
`Act. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, that does not permit patenting of “laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
`
`(2014).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
`
`The distinction is made in a two-step process: first, the court must determine “whether
`
`the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. at 217 (citing
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-78 (2012)). If
`
`the answer is “yes,” then in the second step the court determines whether the claim “contains an
`
`‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Id. at 221 (citing Mayo at 72, 79). The court must look at the claims and the
`
`specification “to determine whether the claims contain an element or combination of elements
`
`that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
`
`upon the ineligible concept itself.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
`
`1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Dish contends that the ‘610 patent is invalid because it claims an abstract idea, i.e.,
`
`selection of a data compression technique based on characteristics of the data in order more
`
`efficiently to transmit or store the data.1 Claim 1 of the ‘610 patent claims
`
`A method, comprising:
`
`determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a portion of a data block having
`video or audio data;
`
`selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a plurality of
`compression algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based
`upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communication
`
`1 Dish also contends that the asserted claims of the ‘610 patent are invalid because the Patent &
`Trademark Office (the “PTO”) has rejected them. In a pending ex parte reexamination, in a first non-
`final office action on February 4, 2021 and in a second non-final office action on June 9, 2021, the
`examiner rejected Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`6,216,157 (“Vishwanath”); and found that Claim 14 is obvious over Vishwanath in view of U.S. Patent
`5,675,789 (“Ishii”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,953,506 (“Kalra”); and rejected Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-13 as well as
`claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Vishwanath in view of Ishii and Kalra. ECF
`No. 257-2 and 257-3. However, while these office actions raise questions of validity based on the prior
`art, they are not final and are not the subject of the pending motion for summary judgment.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
`
`channel, at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric;
`and
`
`compressing at least the portion of the data block with the selected compression
`algorithm after selecting the one or more, compression algorithms.
`
`
`ECF No. 2-2 20: 2–13.
`
`Dish argues that Claim 1 “recites three vague steps, all performed in the abstract and
`
`untethered to a specific device or system – 1) determine a parameter; 2) choose a compression
`
`scheme based on the parameter and throughput; and 3) compress data).” ECF No. 234 at 5. As
`
`such, the claim is nothing more than an “abstract idea with no concrete application, for which
`
`patent protection is unavailable.” Id.
`
`ECF No. 234 at 5.
`
`Dish adds that the ‘610 patent acknowledges that data compression was a widely used
`
`means of reducing the amount of data required to process, transmit or store information prior to
`
`the ‘610 patent, citing the patent, ECF No. 2-2, at 2: 44-46 (‘610 Specification). Realtime
`
`admitted during discovery that the ‘610 patent did not invent any of its cited compression
`
`standards or the algorithms that perform the compression. See ECF No. 234 at 5.
`
`
`
`Moreover, argues Dish, the ‘610 patent fails to add a meaningful “inventive concept” to
`
`the abstract idea. Although the patent claims “selecting a compression scheme based on
`
`characteristics of the digital data being compressed,” it provides no technological solution for
`
`doing so, that is, no particular encoder structure, no new compression techniques, and no
`
`innovative means of storage or transmission. Id. at 13. In short, it provides no details as to how
`
`to apply the abstract idea in a concrete way. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
`
`Dish analogizes this patent to a patent recently considered by the Federal Circuit. In
`
`Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2020)
`
`(unpublished), a case decided on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The patent at issue claimed
`
`systems for communicating audio and video signals between devices that use different formats.
`
`The first source (device) would capture the information and transcode it into multiple
`
`compressed signals, at least one of which was more suitable for reception by another device. Id.
`
`at 901-902. The court held that the claims failed the first Alice step because they “were directed
`
`to the abstract idea of ‘collecting information and transcoding it into multiple formats.’” Id. at
`
`903. At the second step, the court determined that the claims “do not incorporate anything that
`
`would transform their subject matter into an eligible application of the abstract idea. . . .In
`
`particular, there is no identification in the claims or written description of specific,
`
`unconventional encoding, decoding, compression, or broadcasting techniques.” Id. at 904.
`
`Realtime notes that an unpublished opinion does not create a binding precedent. True, but in this
`
`instance, the Court finds the court’s order to be persuasive.
`
`Dish also points out that two courts have already invalidated Realtime’s similar ‘535
`
`patent as expressing an ineligible abstract idea. As previously mentioned, the ‘535 and ‘610
`
`patents share essentially identical specifications. Their claims share similar language as well, as
`
`the following chart provided in Dish’s motion illustrates:
`
`
`
`
`’610 Patent, Claim 1
`A method, comprising:
`
`determining a parameter or an attribute of
`at least a portion of a data block having
`video or audio data;
`
`
`
`
`selecting one or more compression
`algorithms from among a plurality of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’535 Patent, Ineligible Claim 15
`A method comprising:
`
`determining a parameter of at
`at least a portion of a data block
`
`
`selecting one or more asymmetric
`compressors from among a
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
`
`compression algorithms to apply to the at
`least the portion of the data block based
`upon the determined parameter or
`
`attribute and a throughput of a
`communication channel, at least one of the
`plurality of compression algorithms being
`asymmetric; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compressing the at least the portion of the
`data block with the selected compression
`algorithm after selecting the one or more,
`compression algorithms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ECF No. 234 at 16.
`
`plurality of compressors based
`upon the determined parameter or
`attribute;
`
`
`
`
`compressing the at least the
`portion of the data block with the;
`selected one or more asymmetric
`compressors to provide one or
`more compressed data blocks; and
`
`storing at least a portion of the one or
`more compressed data blocks.
`
`In Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC, et al., No CV 18-3629-GW(JCx)
`
`(C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018), a case decided on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court noted that
`
`the ‘“Fallon Patents” (a group of patents with James J. Fallon as an inventor, including the ‘535
`
`and ‘610 patents) “are specifically related to data compression/decompression technology.” Id.
`
`at 5.2 Claim 15 was deemed to be representative of at least Claims 16-30 of the ‘535 patent. It
`
`“refers to selecting one of a collection of ‘asymmetric compressors’ to compress at least a
`
`portion of a data block depending on a parameter or attribute of the data block.” Id. Claim 15
`
`recites four method steps: (1) determining a data block parameter, (2) selecting an asymmetric
`
`compressor based on the parameter, (3) compressing the data, and (4) storing the data. Id. at 8.
`
`At Alice step one the court found that the focus of Claim 15 “is not on a particular system for
`
`carrying out the claimed steps, but on the abstract idea of making a choice between known
`
`options based on an identified parameter.” Id. “[T]here is not a suggestion, for instance, that the
`
`
`2 A copy of this order is found in our file at ECF No. 234-6.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
`
`available compressors are related to improving, for instance, compression speed.” Id. at 9.
`
`Turning to step two, the court noted that the use of the ineligible concept “cannot supply the
`
`inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
`
`Id. (citing BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). But
`
`choosing between asymmetric compressors is the abstract idea itself, not something significantly
`
`more. Id. at 10.
`
`The second ‘535 case is Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., No 17-
`
`1692-CFC-SRF, 2018 WL 6521978 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018). The magistrate judge
`
`recommended the granting of defendants’ motion to dismiss Realtime’s claim under that patent.
`
`At Alice step one, the court concluded that the Fallon patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`encoding and decoding data and the digital compression of data. Id. at *5. The court noted
`
`Realtime’s contention that the ‘535 patent “marked an improvement in computer functionality
`
`because it ‘overcame limitations and issues relating to a compromise between efficient data
`
`storage, access speed, and addressable data space.’” Id. at *6. “However, Realtime has not
`
`identified how the ‘535 solved these issues, or how the solution is reflected in the claim
`
`language.” Id. (emphasis added). Rather,
`
`The ‘535 patent does not improve the functioning of a computer. Claim 15 of the
`‘535 patent is drawn to the abstract idea of: (1) determining a parameter, (2)
`selecting a method of compression, (3) compressing the data with the chosen
`algorithm, and (4) storing the data. The claims use a wholly generic computer
`system to obtain functional results of determining a parameter, selecting a
`compression algorithm, applying that algorithm, and storing the resulting data,
`with no technical detail describing how to achieve those results. The claims of
`the ‘535 patent “do[ ] not sufficiently describe how to achieve” the results “in a
`non-abstract way.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874
`F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similar claims that recite a computer
`“evaluating and selecting” have been found to be abstract and patent ineligible.
`See SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
`
`(Fed Cir. 2014. The Federal Circuit has also found that “the concept of data
`collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known.” Content
`Extraction [and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d
`[1343] at 1347 [Fed. Cir. 2014].
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`At step two the court described Realtime’s argument concerning the Fallon patents:
`
`[T]he combination of claim elements (“(1) asymmetric compressors, (2) two or
`more compressors, (3) selecting compressor based on parameter/throughput,
`and/or (4) access profile”) in the patents are unconventional technical solutions
`that transform their abstract ideas into patented inventions. Realtime asserts that
`the Fallon patents solve several problems, including data storage and retrieval
`bandwidth limitations, access delays, data rate limitations, and compression
`ratios.
`
`Id. at *11.
`
`
`
`Specific to the ‘535 patent, the court found that the alleged unconventional features are
`
`asymmetric compressors and the plurality of compressors.
`
`However, the claim elements that apply selected compression algorithms are
`conventional and generic. .... Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent is directed towards the
`abstract idea of selecting between the compressors that are allegedly
`unconventional. The use of the compressors themselves does not add anything
`significant, but instead restates part of the abstract idea. The compressors, despite
`their type or number, do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea of
`selecting. . . . [T]he ‘535 patent does not disclose any particular encoding process
`or any specific encoding algorithms, but simply states that the method described
`can choose between encoding algorithms and then apply the chosen algorithm.
`
`Id. at 11-12. Accordingly, the court recommended that the Article III judge find Claim 15 of the
`
`‘535 patent to fail Alice step two. Id. at *12.3
`
`
`3 I have found no indication as to whether the recommendation was later acted upon.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`In response Realtime argues that the Court’s Markman interpretation of four terms
`
`confirms that the ‘610 claims are directed to specific improvements in computer technology.
`
`ECF No. 267 at 1. The Court’s constructions were:
`
`The term “throughput of a communication channel” in Claims 1, 9, and 12–14
`of the ‘610 patent is defined as the “number of pending transmission requests over
`a communication channel.”
`
`The term “asymmetric compressor(s)” in Claims 12, 15, 16, and 24 of the ‘535
`patent, “asymmetric data compression” in Claims 1 and 10 of the ‘535 patent,
`“asymmetric compression data algorithm/compression algorithms being
`asymmetric” in Claims 1 and 9 of the ‘610 patent, and “asymmetric” in Claims 6
`and 16 of the ‘610 patent means “a compression algorithm in which the execution
`time for compression and decompression differ significantly.”
`
`The term “compressing / compressed /compression” in Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–14, 16,
`and 18 of the ‘610 patent and Claims 1–2, 4-6, 8, 10–12, 14–17, 19, and 21–22 of
`the ‘535 patent means “[representing / represented / representation] of data with
`fewer bits.”
`
`The term “data block” in Claim 1, 2, 8–14, and 18 of the ‘610 patent and Claims
`1, 2–6, 8–12, 14–17, 19, 21–22, and 24 of the ‘535 patent is defined as “a single
`unit of data, which may range in size from individual bits through complete files
`or collection of multiple files.”
`
`ECF No. 151 at 26-27 (bolding added to identify the specific terms listed in Realtime’s
`
`response).
`
`
`
`According to Realtime, the ‘610 patent addresses “the problem of ‘bottlenecks’ in data
`
`transmission systems caused by slow compression/decompression of digital data.” ECF No. 267
`
`at 2. Realtime focuses primarily on the term “throughput of a communication channel.” This
`
`term is only mentioned once in the Specification, which states “[i]n one embodiment, a controller
`
`marks and monitors the throughput (data storage and retrieval) of a data compression system and
`
`generates control signals to enable/disable different compression algorithms when, e.g., a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
`
`bottleneck occurs as to increase the throughput and eliminate the bottleneck.” ECF No. 2-2 at
`
`9:53-58. Realtime explains,
`
`[t]he controller then generates control signals to enable/disable different
`compression algorithms “so as to increase the throughput and eliminate the
`bottleneck.” Id. at 9:58-59. To accomplish this, the controller uses at least one
`“asymmetric” algorithm with, for example, slow compression and fast
`decompression. When the throughput falls below a threshold, the controller
`selects a different algorithm to provide “a faster rate of compression so as to
`increase the throughput.” Id. at 8:1-3.
`
`ECF No. 267 at 2.
`
`
`
`Dish replies that Realtime is improperly importing details from the Specification,
`
`particularly from one embodiment, into the claim. ECF No. 280 at 2. I am inclined to agree.
`
`More importantly, I find that the use of “throughput of the communication channel” to select a
`
`compression algorithm is itself an abstract concept. Most importantly, neither the claim nor the
`
`reference to the term “throughput of the communication channel” in the Specification explains
`
`how the system tracks the number of pending transmission requests to determine throughput of
`
`the communication channel. I agree with Dish that a mechanism for determining the number of
`
`requests might not be abstract, but no such mechanism is found in the patent.
`
`
`
`Realtime attempts to distinguish or discredit the two cases addressing Realtime’s ‘535
`
`patent. First, Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent did not recite “throughput of a communication
`
`channel” as a factor in selecting the compression algorithm. ECF No. 267 at 13. But I have
`
`found that the term “throughput of a communication channel” did not render the ‘610 patent
`
`eligible.
`
`Second, Realtime asserts that the Google court’s ruling on Claim 15 is inapposite because
`
`the ‘610 patent’s claims are more like the claims in Realtime’s ‘046 and ‘477 patents and claims
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
`
`1-14 of the ‘535 patent that were not dismissed. Id. However, the response does not provide an
`
`explanation of or support for this conclusory statement. Notably, the Google court stated that the
`
`defendants “effectively acknowledged that the claims of the ‘046 and ‘477 Patents may include
`
`aspects that might make it inappropriate to address § 101 invalidity at the motion to dismiss
`
`stage. Not so as to Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent or the asserted claims of the ‘610 patent.
`
`Realtime argues that the magistrate judge’s recommendation in Netflix was wrong
`
`because he treated Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent as representative, and because it was contrary to
`
`the Google court’s rulings on the ‘046 and ‘477 patents. Id. at 14. Again, Realtime’s notion that
`
`the Google court’s denial of a motion to dismiss as to the ‘046 and ‘477 is significant to the
`
`present case is a conclusory statement that lacks explanation. As for whether Claim 15 is
`
`representative of all claims in the ‘535 patent the Google court held that it was representative of
`
`at least Claims 16-30 (and didn’t decide whether Claims 1-14 were invalid, only that Realtime
`
`had identified additional limitations related to selecting an access profile that potentially could be
`
`an unconventional aspect of the claims that would render dismissal at the motion to dismiss stage
`
`inappropriate).
`
`Near the end of Realtime’s response it suggests that Claim 1 is not representative of all
`
`the asserted claims (the “other claims” in the Amended Complaint) in the ‘610 patent. ECF No.
`
`267 at 18-19. It identifies certain words in Claims 8-10, 12-14 and 18 that are not found in
`
`Claim 1. What’s missing is an explanation as to why the distinctions make a difference. “Courts
`
`may treat a claim as representative . . . if the patentee does not present any meaningful argument
`
`for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim.
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
`
`I conclude that the similarities between Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent and the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘610 patent are such that the holdings of the Google and Netflix courts are
`
`persuasive here. But I would find that the ‘610 patent claims an ineligible abstract idea even
`
`were it not for the Google and Netflix courts’ views.
`
`
`
`My interpretation of the ‘610 patent and the cases discussed in this order is buttressed by
`
`certain opinions of Dr. Alan Bovik, which I find to be persuasive. Dr. Bovik is a Professor and
`
`holder of an endowed chair at the University of Texas at Austin. He has appointments in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Department of Computer Sciences.
`
`He is also the Director of the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering. In his report, filed at
`
`ECF No. 234-1, he relates that he has more than 30 years of experience in video compression.
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`He states that the ‘610 patent is directed to an abstract idea. In support of that opinion he
`
`notes, among other things, that the ‘610 patent itself acknowledges that compression is a well-
`
`known concept; that the patent did not invent a new compression algorithm; and that it did not
`
`invent the concept of algorithms having parameters that can be varied to change the performance
`
`of the algorithm. There is no genuine dispute of material facts as to what the patent states.
`
`Dr. Bovik comments on the significance of the Court’s construction of the term
`
`“throughput of a communication channel” to mean the “number of pending transmission requests
`
`over a communication channel.” Translated, “the patent is simply saying that the system
`
`consider[s] an additional well-known factor that is considered for choosing the best compression
`
`algorithm.” Id. at 8. The Court finds that plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence that
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
`
`raises a genuine dispute of material fact about whether consideration of the number of pending
`
`transmission requests was a new or inventive concept.
`
`Notably, Dr. Bovik adds, “the ‘610 Patent provides no technical details as to how the
`
`number of pending transmission requests would be monitored.” Id. This echoes the finding of
`
`the Netflix court that “Realtime has not identified how the ‘535 solved these issues, or how the
`
`solution is reflected in the claim language.” 2018 WL 6521978 at *6. Similarly, in concluding
`
`that the patent at issue in Adaptive Streaming failed at Alice step two, the court noted that “there
`
`is no identification in the claims or written description of specific, unconventional encoding,
`
`decoding, compression, or broadcasting techniques.” 836 F. App’x at 904. The absence of
`
`implementation details is evident on the face of the patent.
`
`
`
`Whether a patent claims an abstract concept is a question of law. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d
`
`at 1368. Whether the patent claims an inventive concept sufficient to remove it from ineligibility
`
`could present disputed questions of fact that would preclude summary judgment. Id. However,
`
`the issues must be genuinely disputed and material to the resolution of the case. Here, as in the
`
`Adaptive Streaming, Google, and Netflix cases, I conclude that the plaintiff has not come forward
`
`with evidence that shows a genuine dispute about a fact that is material to the resolution of the
`
`case. The patent itself acknowledges that most, if not all, of the concepts in the patent were
`
`previously known. Importantly, the absence of details as to how the invention would work is
`
`evident without resort to any disputed issues of fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 305 Filed 07/31/21 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 234, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims
`
`against the Dish defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Pending motions ECF Nos. 230, 231, 237, 241, 242, 257, and 260 are MOOT.
`
`3. The half-day hearing set for August 6, 2021 and the jury trial set for August 16, 2021
`
`are vacated.
`
`
`
`4. As the prevailing party defendant is awarded its reasonable costs to be taxed by the
`
`Clerk pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
`
`DATED this 30th day of July, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`R. Brooke Jackson
`United States District Judge
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`