IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: __________________
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. (“VL”) and VL Collective IP LLC (“VL IP”) (collectively
`
`“VideoLabs” or “Plaintiffs”) file this Complaint against Defendant Roku, Inc. (“Roku” or
`
`“Defendant”), and in support thereof allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Digital video has become fundamental to how society interacts, communicates,
`
`educates, and entertains. In fact, video consumption now accounts for more than 82% of all Internet
`
`traffic.1 The ability to reliably provide high-quality and secure video content drives the growth of
`
`digital platforms that are increasingly integral to the global economy.
`
`2.
`
`The advent of high-quality video as a staple of digital consumption did not happen
`
`instantaneously. As with any complex technology, digital video presented implementation
`
`challenges. Many companies spent many years and resources to develop new and innovative
`
`technologies that guide how video is created, streamed, secured, managed, and consumed.
`
`
`1 See Ex. 1, The Sustainable Future of Video Entertainment, INTERDIGITAL (Aug. 2020),
`https://www.interdigital.com/white_papers/the-sustainable-future-of-video-
`entertainment?submit_success=true (last visited October 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Various inventions and technological advances have transformed digital video. Some
`
`of these technologies, such as techniques to efficiently compress video file size, address central
`
`challenges to storing and transmitting video. Others enable video content to be efficiently and
`
`securely streamed to the many user devices that exist today. Yet others involve managing and
`
`organizing videos to provide viewers easier access to content and address how they interact with
`
`content. Successful video streaming thus requires a myriad of technologies that necessarily coordinate
`
`with one another.
`
`4.
`
`Because various companies played roles in developing the foundational technology
`
`for today’s digital video, no single company can provide the high-quality video experiences that
`
`consumers have come to expect without using technology owned by other companies. Companies
`
`wisely focus their innovation activities and R&D investments on developing unique products and
`
`services while relying on the sum total of all other industry investment in the various technologies
`
`that enable their products and services to work in the global, connected technology market.
`
`5.
`
`The founders of VideoLabs recognized this problem and understood that collective
`
`action was needed to address it. If the companies that developed critical video technologies worked
`
`together, everyone could benefit: all innovators could receive fair compensation for their
`
`contributions, companies deploying video technology could respect other innovators’ patented
`
`technologies and license them on affordable and predictable terms, and consumers could experience
`
`better and more affordable video technology.
`
`6.
`
`In 2019, with support from widely recognized industry leaders, VideoLabs launched
`
`a platform to achieve these goals. VideoLabs spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours
`
`analyzing the video space and identifying the patents that reflect the innovations with the highest
`
`impact. VideoLabs then compiled a portfolio of these core patents, obtaining them from leading
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`companies, including Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Alcatel-Lucent S.A., Siemens AG, Swisscom AG,
`
`3Com, Panasonic, LG, and Nokia.
`
`7.
`
`VideoLabs then opened-up participation in its platform to all willing companies. In
`
`exchange for low-cost membership or licensing fees, VideoLabs provides efficient access to its
`
`aggregated patent portfolio and a commitment to seek out the most important patents in the video
`
`industry and acquire them to the benefit of the industry. Many prominent companies recognized the
`
`benefits of the VideoLabs platform and worked with VideoLabs to efficiently and responsibly license
`
`its video technology patents.
`
`8.
`
`Today, VideoLabs’ licensing platform has evolved and grown significantly from the
`
`early days. VideoLabs’ primary focus continues to be serving patent implementers in the broader
`
`video industry by identifying, acquiring, aggregating, and licensing high-quality patents through its
`
`unique collective platform and providing companies flexible licensing structures (including
`
`membership) for more efficient licensing. VideoLabs has expanded its focus on serving patent
`
`innovators to provide them a better path to realize fair compensation for their patents. VideoLabs also
`
`works in partnership with patent owners by building and running independent licensing programs
`
`specifically focused on licensing the partner’s patent portfolio as a service to them and the IP industry.
`
`9.
`
`To this day, VideoLabs continues to promote an efficient, respected, and balanced
`
`intellectual property environment where technology companies have predictable design freedom and
`
`innovators who contribute impactful patented inventions can obtain fair and just compensation. It has
`
`and continues to successfully bring on many patent owners, licensees and members to its efficient
`
`and equitable licensing platform. Equitable licensing dictates that all patent implementers accept their
`
`responsibility to license. When one (or many) peer company(ies) elects to holdout or refuses to
`
`negotiate in good faith for a license to valid patents that are infringed and enforceable, it unfairly
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`disadvantages those companies who chose to license responsibly.
`
`10.
`
`Unfortunately, Roku has not worked responsibly to license VideoLabs’ video
`
`technology patents. Roku is one of the world’s largest users of video technologies and sells digital
`
`media players, smart TVs, a streaming video service, an advertising platform, and also provides an
`
`operating system platform for third-party OEMs to manufacture their own smart TVs. It is enmeshed
`
`in practically every aspect of video, from creation to processing, delivery, and display.
`
`11.
`
`VideoLabs contacted Roku multiple times in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 to offer
`
`Roku the benefit of VideoLabs’ platform and to alert it to its use of VideoLabs’ patented technology.
`
`Roku never responded. Accordingly, VideoLabs felt that it had no recourse but to file an action to
`
`stop Roku’s unauthorized use of VideoLabs’ patents. Failure to take action would undermine the
`
`equity and viability of VideoLabs’ licensing platform and permit further free riding by Roku of the
`
`significant innovations of VideoLabs’ patents.
`
`12.
`
`This case is ultimately about ensuring the integrity of the patent system and
`
`compensating patent owners for their protected innovations. Respect for intellectual property, as the
`
`law requires, is essential to incentivize innovation and promote technological progress. Accordingly,
`
`VideoLabs brings this action under the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in order to stop Roku’s
`
`willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,440,559, 8,605,794, 7,233,790, RE43,113, 8,291,236 and
`
`8,667,304 (collectively, “patents-in-suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`VL was founded in 2018 as part of an industry-sponsored and funded effort to reduce
`
`the cost and risk of technological gridlock associated with diverse patent ownership. VL’s leadership
`
`has decades of experience in intellectual property licensing, during which they have completed over
`
`1,000 intellectual property transactions worldwide and drawn more than $6 billion in revenue.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`14.
`
`VL is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`VL IP was founded in 2019 as a subsidiary of VideoLabs, Inc.
`
`VL IP is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Roku is a publicly traded corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered to do business in the State of
`
`Delaware. On information and belief, Roku’s headquarters are located at 1155 Coleman Ave., San
`
`Jose, California 95110.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`19.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Roku because, on information and belief,
`
`Roku conducts business in and has committed acts of patent infringement in this District and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Roku
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Roku is incorporated in this
`
`District. On information and belief, Roku offers products and/or services, including those accused
`
`herein of infringement, to customers and potential customers located in this District.
`
`20.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Roku resides in
`
`this District. Roku has chosen to incorporate in the state of Delaware, thereby receiving the benefits
`
`offered to Delaware corporations. Roku must accordingly assume responsibilities to Delaware and
`
`its citizens.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Further, on information and belief, Roku has offered and sold, and continues to offer
`
`and sell, its infringing products and services in this District. On information and belief, Roku makes,
`
`uses, distributes, sells, and/or offers to sell the infringing products and services to consumers and
`
`businesses in this District.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, Roku is a corporation with global reach and annual revenue
`
`in the billions of dollars. Roku accordingly cannot reasonably claim it would be inconvenient to
`
`litigate in the forum in which it is incorporated.
`
`23. Moreover, litigating in this District is convenient and would serve the interests of
`
`judicial economy because of related pending lawsuits in this District.2
`
`THE VIDEOLABS PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`24.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (the “’559 patent”), titled “System and Associated
`
`Terminal, Method and Computer Program Product for Controlling the Flow of Content,” issued on
`
`October 21, 2008. VL IP owns all rights and title to the ’559 patent, as necessary to bring this action.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’559 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`25.
`
`The original assignee of the ’559 patent is Nokia Corporation, one of the largest
`
`consumer electronics and information technology companies in the world at the time of the invention
`
`and a major innovator of digital communications technologies. In 2003, the year in which Nokia filed
`
`for patent protection for the innovations of the ’559 patent, Nokia was a world leader in mobile device
`
`sales and technology. That year, Nokia launched its first media device, the Nokia 7700, and invested
`
`nearly one billion euros in research and development.3
`
`
`2 See Starz Entertainment, LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC, 1:21-cv-01448 (D. Del. filed Oct. 13,
`2021); VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., 1:22-cv-00229 (D. Del. filed Feb. 23, 2022).
`3 See Press Release, Nokia, Nokia Closes 2003 With Excellent Fourth Quarter, (Jan. 24, 2004), at 6,
`9, available at https://www.nokia.com/system/files/files/q4-2003-earnings-release-pdf.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Customers are consuming more content via streaming services, commonly referred to
`
`in the industry as OTT (Over-The-Top) services, than ever before. At the same time, competition
`
`among video services is increasing. The number of OTT providers is constantly growing, and
`
`consumer confusion is mounting. Consumers expect the same level of innovation and development
`
`for OTT video as they do for other online services, and broadcasters and content providers are under
`
`constant pressure to distinguish their offerings through personalization and availability of innovative
`
`apps that entice and retain customers. The management, curation and optimization of audience
`
`viewing experiences across screens is becoming a core customer need, and at the same time an
`
`opportunity for service differentiation.
`
`27.
`
`In the early 2000s, the deployment of high bit-rate mobile networks such as 3G
`
`enabled the delivery of new digital services, including video calling and streaming. See, e.g.,’559
`
`patent at 1:17-40. While audio could be delivered adequately using the bit rates available at the time,
`
`the limited transfer rates made it difficult to handle data-intensive tasks like delivering high quality
`
`full-motion video. See, e.g., id. For this and other reasons, alternative broadband delivery techniques
`
`were being investigated to support the delivery of data-intensive content. As digital broadband data
`
`broadcast networks evolved, there was increasing interest in combining use of mobile
`
`telecommunications with a broadband delivery technique to achieve efficient delivery of digital
`
`services to users on the move. But this led to new technical challenges for content providers as they
`
`had to learn new techniques to efficiently deliver content to the myriad mobile devices that could
`
`consume broadband content over mobile networks.
`
`28.
`
`At the time, mobile terminals would typically download content by “pulling” it from
`
`a server. See, e.g., id. at 2:25-39. This is because content providers tended to use content flow policies
`
`that had been used in non-mobile networks. See id. In those cases, the content provider typically
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`maintained control over the content flow policy to the mobile terminal to enforce content access rights
`
`requirements. See id. The “pull” technique was thus rooted in the industry’s established habits, which
`
`ignored input from the devices consuming the content that might otherwise affect an operator’s
`
`content flow policy. Such outdated content flow policies were inefficient and undesirable as
`
`broadband content became accessible to mobile users everywhere and with myriad devices. When
`
`controlling content sent to a mobile device, they did not take into account, for example, the user
`
`preferences, terminal capabilities, previous content downloads, and/or use of previous content for that
`
`device. See id. at 2:40-53.
`
`29.
`
`The inventors of the ’559 patent recognized that the Internet disrupted traditional
`
`channels of delivering video content, such as television and cable, and that new solutions were needed
`
`to optimize online video access. The ’559 patent addresses these problems, among others, by
`
`describing and claiming an improved network architecture that enables efficient content access,
`
`providing myriad improvements over previous means of controlling access to video. The ’559 Patent
`
`addresses the disconnect between user devices and content provided by adding a separate “content
`
`flow manager” that obtains status information and uses it to control the flow of content. See, e.g.,
`
`’559 patent at 3:10-25. The ’559 patent describes and claims a departure from the conventional “pull”
`
`technique for accessing content. For example, the ’559 patent describes giving a network entity
`
`control of the flow of content to the terminal based, in part, on status information from the terminal.
`
`See ’559 patent at 2:57-3:9. The addition of a content flow manager was a modification to then-
`
`existing network architectures for content delivery, and its inclusion led to a variety of benefits.
`
`Content flow is controlled, for example, by instructing the terminal to perform actions, such as
`
`downloading pieces of content from an origin server, or other content related actions based, in part,
`
`on the status information provided to the network entity from the terminal. See id. at 3:20-51. For
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`example, the content provider can control the downloading and storage of content, as well as the
`
`deletion of content, at the terminal based upon status information regarding the terminal, and if so
`
`desired, further based upon status information regarding a source of content, such as the digital
`
`broadcast receiver, an origin server, or the like. See id. at 11:6-30. For instance, terminals can now
`
`automatically be instructed to download certain content, such as when a new season of a previously
`
`watched show is released. Id. at 3:1-66, 11:21-30, 12:60-13:37. As another example, content already
`
`stored on a terminal can be automatically deleted, like when digital rights management (“DRM”)
`
`dictates that the user no longer has access to the content, potentially due to a time or geographic
`
`restriction. Id. Terminal preferences can also be matched with available advertisement content to
`
`better tailor advertisements to particular users. Id. at 11:17-21. In view of the foregoing, the flow of
`
`content to the terminal is more efficient since the flow of new content to the terminal is affected by
`
`aspects of the terminal itself. See id. at 10:45-59.
`
`B.
`
`30.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794 (the “’794 patent”), titled “Method for Synchronizing
`
`Content-Dependent Data Segments of Files,” issued on December 10, 2013. VL IP owns all rights
`
`and title to the ’794 patent, as necessary to bring this action. A true and correct copy of the ’794 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`31.
`
`The original assignee of the ’794 patent is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (“Siemens”),
`
`one of the largest consumer electronics companies at the time of the invention and a major innovator
`
`in Internet technologies. In 2005 alone, the year in which Siemens filed for patent protection for the
`
`inventions of the ’794 patent, Siemens invested €5.2 billion in research and development.4
`
`
`4https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/downloadcenter/e05_00_gb2005_13
`36469.pdf (last visited October 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In the early 2000s, the inventors realized that the way that audiovisual content (e.g.,
`
`television shows and movies) was transmitted to consumers was fundamentally changing. While
`
`content could be stored and accessed from media such as VHS tapes and DVDs, content was
`
`transmitted to consumers primarily through televisions––and had been for decades. Moreover, within
`
`each global region (e.g., the United States or Europe), all television content was encoded in a single
`
`formatting standard (e.g., the PAL standard in Europe and the NTSC standard in the United States)
`
`that could be played by all televisions. ’794 patent at 1:23-33.
`
`33.
`
`But with the increasing importance of the Internet, the types of devices to which
`
`content could be transmitted was proliferating. See, e.g., id. at 1:34-43. Content was now being
`
`streamed to computers, laptops, PDAs, and other electronic devices. Unlike the conventional
`
`televisions, which were all designed to play content formatted in the same way, these new devices
`
`could play content encoded in any number of formats based on their capabilities. For example, a
`
`PDA, with its limited screen resolution and processing capabilities, could not process the higher
`
`quality content intended for high-resolution monitors connected to desktop computers. Additionally,
`
`a computer running a Windows operating system could play different content formats than an Apple
`
`computer.
`
`34.
`
`The varying strength of Internet connections, particularly on wireless devices, also
`
`necessitated multiple content formats. For example, while a desktop computer might be capable of
`
`playing high resolution content, doing so was not desirable if the Internet connection for that
`
`computer was slow. Instead, it can be a better viewer experience for a lower quality version of the
`
`content to be transmitted more quickly rather than having the user constantly waiting for higher
`
`quality content to download. Content delivery companies further realized that it would be beneficial
`
`to be able to change the quality of content during a stream. That is, when an Internet connection is
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`weak, send lower quality content; when the connection is strong, send higher quality content. Thus,
`
`not only were different content formats necessitated by different device capabilities –– even for the
`
`same device and during a single stream, but it was also advantageous to be able to vary the quality of
`
`the transmitted content.
`
`35.
`
`Consumer expectations for the delivery of content also began to change. Whereas
`
`consumers could previously only watch whatever was “on TV,” consumers increasingly began to
`
`expect to watch whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, i.e., “on demand.” Consumers expected
`
`content to start playing at the click of a mouse, and to be able to jump to any point in the content and
`
`have playback resume immediately.
`
`36.
`
`These changes in technology and consumer expectations led to new techniques for
`
`managing and processing audiovisual content. Content was no longer stored as a single file in a single
`
`location. Instead, for example, a movie’s audio and video data was broken up into numerous
`
`“segments” that might be stored on various Internet servers. These segments could be more easily
`
`transmitted over the Internet to consumer devices, and content could be played as soon as the first
`
`few segments were received instead of waiting until the entire file had been downloaded.
`
`37.
`
`Prior to the innovations of the ’794 patent, however, there was not a suitable method
`
`for aligning the various audio and video segments that comprised a piece of content. The need was
`
`all the greater when switching between content formats midstream (e.g., to account for changing
`
`Internet bandwidth) or skipping to different points within a piece of content.
`
`38.
`
`Known techniques at the time would align the segments for playback using timestamp
`
`information stored in each segment. Essentially, each segment included metadata indicating when in
`
`the timeline of the content the segment should be played (e.g., audio content from 5 minutes and 30
`
`seconds of the movie to 6 minutes and 30 seconds of the movie). Once a segment was downloaded,
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`this information would have to be read out (which could require decoding the segment), and then
`
`additional processing would be needed to order this segment with the other segments. This technique
`
`was rooted in the nature of the old technologies, in which viewers received content in the order it was
`
`to be played, did not alternate in real time between different versions of the same content, and could
`
`not selectively play different parts of the content. Disadvantageously, this technique had a large
`
`overhead, and so could be slow and resource intensive. See, e.g., id. at 2:4-12, 2:36-54.
`
`39.
`
`The ’794 patent improves upon these timestamp-based implementations. It describes
`
`a novel technique in which segments are ordered chronologically and aligned with corresponding
`
`segments (e.g., aligning a video segment with the correct audio segment) using predefined assignment
`
`rules. See id. at 2:36-42; 5:10-13. These assignment rules are not based on timestamps. See id. at 2:2-
`
`43. Instead, they flexibly permit the alignment of segments using rules appropriate for different
`
`contexts. This could include implementations in which, for example, each sequential video segment
`
`is aligned with every fourth audio segment. See id. at 2:55-60; 5:35-6:42. Alternatively, the
`
`assignment rules could be used to build pseudo-timelines that order and match audio and video
`
`segments based on the context of the content. See id. at 6:50-60. For example, key audio and video
`
`segments will align at the start of new scenes, changes in camera viewpoint, or the start of a song.
`
`The assignment rules of the ’794 patent require little overhead and are thus significantly faster than
`
`timestamp-based techniques while also providing more options in the management of segments. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 2:4-12, 2:36-54. This flexibility enables, for example, a user to jump to a key scene in a
`
`movie, and the corresponding segments to quickly be located, downloaded, and played. See id. at
`
`3:20-28. This is because the context of content can be mapped to a particular segment, and then
`
`assignment rules can be used to quickly identify the corresponding and subsequent segments.
`
`40.
`
`The assignment rules of the ’794 patent are therefore much more compact and make
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`the processing and playback of content much faster and require fewer computer and network
`
`resources. As described in the ’794 patent, conventional methods require “a sizeable quantity of data”
`
`and such “a large overhead” that it was “generally not made possible to synchronize different data
`
`types.” Id. at 2:6-9. However, the inventions of the ’794 patent “enable[s] content-related first and
`
`second data segments to be synchronized in a simple and standard-complaint manner” through use of
`
`assignment rules. Id. at 2:27. The improvements described and claimed in the ’794 patent result in
`
`computing benefits including, e.g., less data, less overhead, lower processing costs, flexibility, and
`
`simplicity. As such, the ’794 patent is rooted in improvements to computer technology.
`
`41.
`
`Today, online video streaming is ubiquitous, and the ability to alter the format of
`
`content mid-stream has been standardized and is known as “adaptive bitrate streaming.” There are
`
`two main protocols for this type of delivery: HTTP Live Streaming (“HLS”) and Dynamic Adaptive
`
`Streaming over HTTP (“DASH”). These protocols are used to stream the vast majority of online
`
`video and by major streaming services.
`
`42.
`
`The ’794 patent is core to these technologies, which has been recognized by the video
`
`technology industry. MPEG LA, which pioneered the concept of technology-specific patent pools
`
`and has created and maintained patent pools that efficiently license key technologies worldwide,
`
`launched a patent pool for DASH in November 2016.5 The ’794 patent was submitted for inclusion
`
`into MPEG LA’s DASH patent pool, evaluated by MPEG LA’s patent experts, and declared as
`
`essential to using DASH to stream content. Indeed, the ’794 patent is one of just 10 U.S. patents that
`
`have been deemed essential to DASH, and its importance to the streaming technology and
`
`
`5 MPEG LA Releases MPEG-DASH Patent Portfolio License, MPEG LA (Nov. 17, 2016),
`https://www.mpegla.com/media/ (last visited October 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`foundational nature is evidenced by the fact that it has the earliest invention date of all patents in the
`
`pool. Numerous companies have taken a license to the ’794 patent to obtain the right to use its
`
`technology to implement DASH.6
`
`C.
`
`43.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,233,790
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,233,790 (the “’790 patent”), titled “Device Capability Based
`
`Discovery, Packaging and Provisioning of Content for Wireless Mobile Devices,” issued on June 19,
`
`2007. The U.S. Patent Office confirmed the validity of claims 1 (as amended), 2, 4, 8 (as amended),
`
`and 9 the ’790 patent and issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate on August 11, 2023.7 VL
`
`owns all rights and title to the ’790 patent, as necessary to bring this action. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’790 patent and Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`44.
`
`The original assignee of the ’790 patent is Openwave Systems, Inc. (“Openwave”), a
`
`leading developer of software applications for mobile devices. In the early 2000s, when the inventions
`
`of the ’790 patent were in development, Openwave’s operating system and web browser software
`
`was being installed on billions of mobile phones.8 This provided Openwave with a front seat to the
`
`many new products and services available to consumers on mobile devices.
`
`45.
`
`The TV industry has been heavily affected by the rise of video on demand (“VOD”)
`
`and OTT services, which allow users to conveniently stream over the Internet their favorite video
`
`content and watch it at any time, in any place, and in the format that best fits their needs. Today,
`
`digital video content is available from myriad streaming services and Pay TV operators and can be
`
`
`6 DASH Licensees, MPEG-LA, https://www.mpegla.com/programs/dash/licensees/ (last visited
`October 10, 2023).
`7 The remaining, duly issued and valid claims of the ’790 patent were not reexamined.
`8 Openwave Announces Mobile Browser Integration for Qualcomm’s Brew Solution, INTERNET
`ARCHIVE WAYBACK MACHINE, (Sept. 12, 2006),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20061127222501/http://www.openwave.com/us/news_room/press_rele
`ases/2006/20060912_opwv_brew_0912.htm, at 1 (last visited October 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`consumed on an ever-growing number of different connected consumer devices.
`
`46.
`
`In the early 2000s, when digital video delivery over the Internet was in its nascent
`
`period, delivering media to large numbers of mobile users presented challenges due to the stringent
`
`requirements of streaming media, mobility, wireless, and scaling to support large numbers of users.
`
`While advances in next-generation cellular networks and wireless networks were bringing higher
`
`bandwidths to mobile users, these higher bandwidths naturally created the demand for media-rich
`
`content, which in turn created requirements for a media delivery infrastructure that could handle the
`
`challenges of streaming media, user mobility, and scaling to large numbers of users accessing content
`
`with different types of devices. Traditional content delivery techniques that had previously served the
`
`market reasonably well at the time were no longer capable of meeting current needs.
`
`47.
`
`Indeed, these techniques were rooted in the nature of the old technologies, in which
`
`content was prepared and packaged once, for distribution over a traditional broadcast medium and in
`
`a singular, conventional broadcast format. From a content supplier’s perspective, an impediment to
`
`the efficient distribution of digital content was the fact that different connected devices often required
`
`different content packaging formats and provisioning protocols. In order for the content supplier to
`
`make a given item of digital content available to multiple connected devices supporting different
`
`provisioning models, a digital content supplier would normally have to deploy that item of content
`
`multiple times, packaging it differently for each of the provisioning models. Needing to package and
`
`provision digital content in a manner that is suitable for all of the connected devices in the marketplace
`
`is very burdensome. Moreover, it was a challenge for content suppliers to keep up with the constant
`