Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:17-cv-02097-CBS
`
`
`
`
`
`AND SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND ARRIS
`
`GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. in which Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`
`LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Realtime”) makes the following allegations against Defendants Sling
`
`TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., Sling Media, L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C., DISH
`
`Network L.L.C., and Arris Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Realtime is a Texas limited liability company. Realtime has a place of
`
`business at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701. Realtime has researched and
`
`developed specific solutions for data compression, including, for example, those that
`
`increase the speeds at which data can be stored and accessed. As recognition of its
`
`innovations rooted in this technological field, Realtime holds multiple United States
`
`patents and pending patent applications.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV L.L.C. (“Sling TV”) is a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`Colorado limited liability company with its principal office at 9601 S. Meridian Blvd.,
`
`Englewood, CO 80112. On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District and conducts business throughout the United
`
`States, including in this District. On information and belief, Sling TV can be served
`
`through its registered agent, R. Dodge Stanton, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO
`
`80112.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants Sling Media Inc. and Sling Media
`
`L.L.C. (collectively, “Sling Media”) are, respectively, a Delaware corporation and a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with their principal office at 1051 E. Hillsdale Blvd,
`
`Suite 500, Foster City, CA 94404. On information and belief, Sling Media has a regular
`
`and established place of business in this District and conducts business throughout the
`
`United States, including in this District, for example, at 100 Inverness Terrace E.,
`
`Englewood, CO 80112 and P.O. Box 6655, Englewood, CO 80155. On information and
`
`belief, Sling Media can be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust
`
`Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. is a Texas
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business at 11717 Exploration Lane,
`
`Germantown, MD 20876. Upon information and belief, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C.
`
`has a regular and established place of business in this District. On information and belief,
`
`EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. can be served through its registered agent, Corporation
`
`Service Company D/B/A CSC-Lawyers Inc., 211 E. 7th Street Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.
`
`EchoStar Technologies LLC is an indirect subsidiary of DISH Networks LLC. EchoStar
`
`Technologies LLC designs the set-top boxes used to deliver the DISH TV service.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) is a
`
`Colorado limited liability company with its principal office at 9601 S. Meridian Blvd.,
`
`Englewood, CO 80112. Upon information and belief, DISH Network L.L.C. has a regular
`
`and established place of business in this District. On information and belief, Defendant
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`DISH Network L.L.C. conducts business throughout the United States, including in this
`
`District. On information and belief, DISH can be served through its registered agent, R.
`
`Dodge Stanton, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO 80112. EchoStar Technologies,
`
`L.L.C. and DISH Network L.L.C. are hereinafter referred to collectively as “DISH” or
`
`“Dish”.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris”) is a
`
`Delaware Corporation with its principal office at 3871 Lakefield Drive, Suwanee, GA,
`
`30024. On information and belief, Arris maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business in this District. On information and belief, Defendant Arris conducts business
`
`throughout the United States, including in this District. On information and belief, Arris
`
`can be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 40 Technology
`
`Pkwy South, #300, Norcross, GA 30092.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, DISH, EchoStar, Sling TV, and Sling Media
`
`promotes and offers for sale DISH and Sling-branded products and services which infringe
`
`certain asserted patents. Accordingly, each of the Defendants is properly joined in this
`
`action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Arris sells and offers for sale products and
`
`services incorporating technology from Sling Media which infringes certain asserted
`
`patents. Accordingly, Arris is properly joined in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sling TV L.L.C. in this action
`
`because Sling TV L.L.C. has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action
`
`and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`over Sling TV L.L.C. would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`justice. Sling TV L.L.C. directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the
`
`named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV has a regular and established place of
`
`business in this District.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sling Media in this action because
`
`Sling Media has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`Sling Media would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Sling
`
`Media directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the named Co-
`
`Defendants) or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has committed
`
`and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things,
`
`offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents. On
`
`information and belief, Sling Media has a regular and established place of business in this
`
`District, including, e.g., at 100 Inverness Terrace E., Englewood, CO 80112 and P.O. Box
`
`6655, Englewood, CO 80155.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. in
`
`this action because EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. has committed acts within this District
`
`giving rise to this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that
`
`the exercise of jurisdiction over EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. would not offend traditional
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice. EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. directly and
`
`through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Upon information and belief, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. has a regular and established
`
`place of business in this District.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over DISH Network L.L.C. in this
`
`action because DISH Network L.L.C. has committed acts within this District giving rise to
`
`this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over DISH Network L.L.C. would not offend traditional notions of fair play
`
`and substantial justice. DISH Network L.L.C. directly and/or through subsidiaries
`
`(including one or more of the named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, retailers, and others), has committed and continues to commit acts of
`
`infringement in this District by, among other things, offering to sell and selling products
`
`and/or services that infringe the asserted patents. Upon information and belief, DISH
`
`Network L.L.C. has a regular and established place of business in this District.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Arris Group, Inc. in this action
`
`because Arris Group, Inc. has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action
`
`and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`over Arris Group, Inc. would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice. Arris Group, Inc. directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the
`
`named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`On information and belief, Arris maintains a regular and established place of business in
`
`this District.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants have conducted and do conduct business within the State of
`
`Colorado. Defendants ship, distribute, sell, offer for sale and advertise their respective
`
`products or services in the United States, the State of Colorado and the District of Colorado.
`
`Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed their products and services into the
`
`stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the
`
`United States, the State of Colorado and the District of Colorado.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and/or
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`1400(b). Defendant Sling TV and DISH are organized under the laws of Colorado. Sling
`
`Media’s officers are located in Colorado. Upon information and belief, all Defendants
`
`have transacted business in this District and have committed acts of direct and indirect
`
`infringement in this District, and have regular and established place of business in this
`
`District.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`17.
`
`The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,867,610 (“the ‘610 Patent”) and
`
`8,934,535 (“the ‘535 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).
`
`18.
`
`The Asserted Patents have been cited as prior art during the prosecution of
`
`at least 400 patent applications of Realtime and other companies. Those other companies
`
`include well-known technology companies such as: Quantum, Fujitsu, IBM, Seagate,
`
`STMicroelectronics, Cisco, LSI, Skyfire Labs, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Thomson
`
`Reuters, OSR Open Systems Resources, Exegy, RIM, Renesas, Red Hat, Xerox, and
`
`Microsoft.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,867,610
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing
`
`paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`8,867,610 (“the ‘610 Patent”) entitled “System and methods for video and audio data
`
`distribution.” The ‘610 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on October 21, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ‘610 Patent is
`
`included as Exhibit A.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, Sling TV has made, used, offered for sale, sold
`
`and/or imported into the United States Sling TV products and services that infringe the
`
`‘610 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
`
`products include, without limitation, Sling TV’s streaming video products and services
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
`
`the Sling Orange and Sling Blue TV services, and all versions and variations thereof since
`
`the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.Sling.com/ (“Sling TV offers two domestic streaming services: The single-
`
`stream Sling Orange
`
`service and
`
`the multi-stream Sling Blue
`
`service.”);
`
`https://www.reddit.com/r/Slingtv/comments/2ynmxx/what_resolutions_are_the_channels
`
`_in/ (“OTA broadcasts use MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than the H.264 used by
`
`Sling, which needs far less data than MPEG-2 to deliver similar quality.”).
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, Sling Media has made, used, offered for sale,
`
`sold and/or imported into the United States Sling Media products and services that infringe
`
`the ‘610 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
`
`products include, without limitation, Sling Media’s streaming video products and services
`
`compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
`
`Slingbox set-top boxes (including, but not limited to, Slingbox 500, Slingbox M2, Slingbox
`
`M1, Slingbox 350, and Sling Adapter), and all versions and variations thereof since the
`
`issuance of
`
`the
`
`‘610 patent
`
`(“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.tivocommunity.com/community/index.php?threads/capturing-Slingbox-350-
`
`500-video.504853/
`
`(“For
`
`the
`
`newer Slingboxes
`
`the
`
`video
`
`is H.264.”);
`
`https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“I have the SlingBox Solo and by all accounts
`
`it streams h.264.”).
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, DISH has made, used, offered for sale, sold
`
`and/or imported into the United States DISH products and services that infringe the ‘610
`
`patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`include, without limitation, DISH’s streaming video products and services compliant with
`
`various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., the DISH TV
`
`service, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“DISH
`
`Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`https://forum.DISH.com/viewtopic.php?t=9864&p=58341 (“[S]atellite services (e.g.,
`
`DirecTV, XstreamHD and DISH Network) utilize the 1080p/24-30 format with MPEG-4
`
`AVC/H.264 encoding for pay-per-view movies that are downloaded in advance via satellite
`
`or on-demand via broadband.”); http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/hd-bitrate-is-
`
`under-5-mb-s-for-most-channels-is-this-correct.256211/ (“For HD video DN exclusively
`
`uses H.264 compression (sometimes ambiguously referred to here as MPEG-4, as there is
`
`more than one MPEG-4 video compression format). H.264 is about 2X more efficient than
`
`MPEG-2 for the same video quality.”).
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Arris has made, used, offered for sale, sold
`
`and/or imported into the United States Arris products and services that infringe the ‘610
`
`patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`include, without limitation, Arris’s streaming video products and services compliant with
`
`various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., Arris MS4000,
`
`and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”). See, e.g., http://www.Arris.com/products/media-streamer-ms4000/
`
`(“Transcode to H.264 with adaptive bitrate up to 4 Live/DVR streams”).
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, each of Defendants has directly infringed and
`
`continues to infringe the ‘610 patent, for example, through its own use and testing of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, which when used, practice the method claimed by Claim 1 of
`
`the ‘610 patent, namely, 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 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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`26.
`
`The DISH Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
`
`portion of a video data block. Different parameters correspond with, for example, different
`
`moment to moment requirements, e.g., the degree of motion of a video data block at any
`
`given time. See, e.g., http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/hd-bitrate-is-under-5-mb-s-
`
`for-most-channels-is-this-correct.256211/ (“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of
`
`the DN HD channels clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates
`
`are averages only. DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their
`
`compressors can dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based
`
`on moment to moment requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far
`
`less than a high action scene on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change
`
`drastically and the average rate does appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality.
`
`Furthermore DN reduces the resolution of a number of their HD channels from
`
`1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to a softer picture more amenable to higher
`
`compression.”).
`
`27.
`
`The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
`
`portion of a video data block, e.g. based on different
`
`types of content.
`
`https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/2/9/Sling-tv-technical-details
`
`(“First off,
`
`I
`
`found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
`
`watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
`
`content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
`
`using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
`
`qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).
`
`28.
`
`The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at
`
`least a portion of a video data block. Different parameters are determined, for example,
`
`based
`
`on
`
`statistics
`
`observed
`
`by
`
`the Slingplayer
`
`client.
`
` See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
`
`methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
`
`choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+[i] while connected to the Slingbox.”).
`
`29.
`
`The DISH Accused Instrumentalities select one or more 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 communications channel, at least one of the
`
`plurality
`
`of
`
`compression
`
`algorithms
`
`being
`
`asymmetric.
`
`
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/hd-bitrate-is-under-5-mb-s-for-most-channels-is-
`
`this-correct.256211/ (“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of the DN HD channels
`
`clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates are averages only.
`
`DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their compressors can
`
`dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based on moment to moment
`
`requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far less than a high action scene
`
`on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change drastically and the average rate does
`
`appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality. Furthermore DN reduces the
`
`resolution of a number of their HD channels from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to
`
`a softer picture more amenable to higher compression.”).
`
`30.
`
`The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities select one or more 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 communications channel, at least one of the
`
`plurality
`
`of
`
`compression
`
`algorithms
`
`being
`
`asymmetric.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/2/9/Sling-tv-technical-details
`
`(“First off,
`
`I
`
`found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
`
`watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
`
`content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
`
`using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
`
`qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).
`
`31.
`
`The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`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 communications channel, at least one of the
`
`plurality
`
`of
`
`compression
`
`algorithms
`
`being
`
`asymmetric.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
`
`methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
`
`Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
`
`choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+[i] while connected to the Slingbox.”).
`
`32.
`
`Based on a throughput of the communications channel—reflected by the
`
`max video bitrate—and resolution parameter identified, any H.264-compliant system such
`
`as the Accused Instrumentalities would determine which profile (e.g., “baseline,”
`
`“extended,” “main”, or “high”) and/or which “level” within a profile (which corresponds,
`
`e.g., to a maximum picture resolution, frame rate, and bit rate) corresponds with that
`
`parameter, then select between at least two asymmetric compressors. If, for example,
`
`baseline or extended is the corresponding profile, then the system will select a Context-
`
`Adaptive Variable Length Coding (“CAVLC”) entropy encoder. If, for example, main or
`
`high is the corresponding profile, then the system will select a Context-Adaptive Binary
`
`Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”) entropy encoder. Both encoders are asymmetric
`
`compressors because it takes a longer period of time for them to compress data than to
`
`decompress data. See https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/how-h-264-works-part-ii/
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`See http://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/fall03/cs218/paper/H.264_MPEG4_Tutorial.pdf
`
`
`
`at 7:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, the H.264 Standard requires a bit-flag descriptor, which is set to
`
`
`
`determine the correct decoder for the corresponding encoder. As shown below, if the flag
`
`= 0, then CAVLC must have been selected as the encoder; if the flag = 1, then CABAC
`
`must have been selected as the encoder. See
`
`https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-H.264-201304-S!!PDF-
`
`E&type=items (Rec. ITU-T H.264 (04/2013)) at 80:
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities compress the at least the portion of the data
`
`block with the selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or more, compression
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`algorithms. After its selection, the asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) will
`
`compress the video data, in accordance with the specifications of the profile and level
`
`selected,
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`various
`
`compressed
`
`data
`
`blocks.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/how-h-264-works-part-ii/:
`
`See
`
`http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.602.1581&rep=rep1&type=pdf
`
`
`
`at 13:
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants also directly infringe and continue
`
`to infringe other claims of the ‘610 patent, for similar reasons as explained above with
`
`respect to Claim 1 of the ‘610 patent.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, use of the Accused Instrumentalities in their
`
`ordinary and customary fashion results in infringement of the methods claimed by the ‘610
`
`patent.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘610
`
`patent since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter, and on information
`
`and belief, Defendants knew of the ‘610 patent and knew of their infringement, including
`
`by way of this lawsuit.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, the affirmative acts of each of Defendants of
`
`making, using, and selling the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing implementation
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`services and technical support to users of the Accused Instrumentalities, have induced since
`
`the filing of this Amended Complaint and continue to induce users of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities to use them in their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘610 patent
`
`by practicing 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 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. For
`
`example, Sling Media instructs customers that “Sling Media believes their programming
`
`methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
`
`Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
`
`choses the parameters” https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940. For example, DISH
`
`instructs customers (e.g., of the Hopper with Sling) that they can, “Watch Live TV: Live
`
`sporting events, weather, news, and more – with a broadband-connected, Sling-enabled
`
`DVR and DISH Anywhere, you can watch all of your favorite channels anywhere you go!
`
`Watch Recorded TV: Access recorded shows from your broadband-connected, Sling-
`
`enabled DVR anywhere. You can even start watching on your TV and resume watching
`
`later on your computer or mobile device!”. See, e.g., https://www.myDISH.com/DISH-
`
`anywhere. For example, Arris instructs its customers that the MS4000 can “[t]ranscode to
`
`H.264 with adaptive bitrate up
`
`to 4 Live/DVR
`
`streams”.
`
` See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.Arris.com/globalassets/resources/data-sheets/365-095-24637_ms4000.pdf.
`
`For similar reasons, each of Defendants also induces its customers to use the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities to infringe other claims of the ‘610 patent. Each of Defendants
`
`specifically intended and was aware that these normal and customary activities would
`
`infringe the ‘610 patent. Each of Defendants performed the acts that constitute induced
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 31
`
`
`
`infringement, since the filing of the Complaint, and would induce actual infringement, with
`
`the knowledge of the ‘610 patent and with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the
`
`probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement. On information and belief,
`
`each of Defendants engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. Accordingly, each of Defendants has induced, since the filing of the
`
`Complaint, and continue to induce users of the Accused Instrumentalities to use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘610 patent,
`
`knowing that such use constitutes infringement of the ‘610 patent.
`
`38.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United
`
`States the Accused Instrumentalities, and touting the benefits of using the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities’ compression features, each of Defendants has injured Realtime and is
`
`liable to Realtime for infringement of the ‘610 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`39.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ‘610 patent by Defendants, Plaintiff
`
`Realtime is entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate Defendants’
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,934,535
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs
`
`above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`8,934,535 (“the ‘535 patent”) entitled “Systems and methods for video and audio data
`
`storage and distribution.” The ‘535 patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office on January 13, 2015. A true and correct copy of the
`
`‘535 patent is included as Exhibit B.
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, Sling TV has made, used, offered for sale, sold
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 32 Filed 11/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 31
`
`
`
`and/or imported into the United States Sling TV products and services that infringe the
`
`‘535 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
`
`products include, without limitation, Sling TV’s streaming video products and services
`
`compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
`
`the Sling Orange and Sling Blue TV services, and all versions and variations thereof
`
`since the issuance of the ‘535 patent (“Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.Sling.com/ (“Sling TV offers two domestic streaming services: The single-
`
`stream Sling Orange service and the multi-stream Sling Blue service.”);
`
`https://www.reddit.com/r/Slingtv/comments/2ynmxx/what_resolutions_are_the_channels
`
`_in/ (“OTA broadcasts use MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than the H.264 used by
`
`Sling, which needs far less data than MPEG-2 to deliver similar quality.”).
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, Sling Media has made, used, offered for sale,
`
`sold and/or imported into the United States Sling Media products and services that
`
`infringe the ‘535 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these
`
`infringing products include, without limitation, Sling Media’s streaming video products
`
`and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard,
`
`such as, e.g., Slingbox set-top boxes (including, but not limited to, Slingbox 500,
`
`Slingbox M2, Slingbox M1, Slingbox 350, and Sling Adapter), and all versions and
`
`variations thereof since t