Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 591 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AND
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Nokia Technologies Oy (“Nokia,”) files this Original Complaint against
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Amazon” or “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about Amazon’s infringement of Nokia’s Asserted Patents (defined
`
`below) through Amazon’s video streaming products and services, including Prime Video,
`
`Amazon.com videos, and Twitch.tv.
`
`2.
`
`Nokia is a leading innovator in video coding and streaming technology with one of
`
`the strongest video coding and streaming patent portfolios in the world. Nokia’s patented
`
`inventions allow video to be transmitted and received over communications networks, such as
`
`Wi-Fi or cellular networks, with high quality and dramatically lower bandwidth requirements,
`
`and minimize the amount of data it takes to receive and store these videos on mobile devices,
`
`such as laptop computers and tablet computers. Nokia’s patented inventions also allow streaming
`
`video content to be searched, filtered, and combined in ways that provide the most compelling
`
`and relevant content to users, including in a mobile environment.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 591 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Nokia’s Asserted Patents (defined below) include claims that are widely practiced
`
`by products and services that encode, decode, and stream video, such as those used in over-the-
`
`top (OTT) video streaming services and digital advertising, including, for example, video that is
`
`encoded into formats compliant with the H.264 Advanced Video Coding Standard (“H.264”) and
`
`the H.265 High Efficiency Video Coding Standard (“H.265”) promulgated by the International
`
`Telecommunications Union (“ITU”). Amazon’s unlicensed streaming products and services,
`
`including without limitation Amazon streaming videos, movies, shows, trailers, and advertising,
`
`such as those on Amazon Prime Video (including Freevee), Amazon.com, and Twitch.tv,
`
`(“Accused Products”), infringe Nokia’s Asserted Patents.
`
`4.
`
`Amazon currently benefits from and has benefitted greatly from Nokia’s
`
`innovations, which enable the Amazon Accused Products to stream, store, and transmit high
`
`quality video more efficiently and effectively.
`
`5.
`
`Dozens of companies have taken a license to Nokia’s video encoding and decoding
`
`patent claims. Yet, despite Nokia’s good faith efforts, Amazon has not accepted any of Nokia’s
`
`offers to take a license to Nokia’s encoding and decoding patent claims. Amazon’s failure to
`
`negotiate in good faith and refusal to license Nokia’s video patents has forced Nokia to file this
`
`lawsuit.
`
`6.
`
`This Complaint includes causes of action for patent infringement arising under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., for the willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,532,808 (“the ’808
`
`Patent”), 8,050,321 (“the ’321 Patent”), 7,724,818 (“the ’818 Patent”), 6,950,469 (“the ’469
`
`Patent”), 7,280,599 (“the ’599 Patent”), 8,036,273 (“the ’273 Patent”), 6,856,701 (“the ’701
`
`Patent”), 9,800,891 (“the ’891 Patent”), 6,968,005 (“the ’005 Patent”), 8,144,764 (“the ’764
`
`Patent”), 8,175,148 (“the ’148 Patent”), 8,077,991 (“the ’991 Patent”), 9,571,833 (“the ’833
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 591 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Patent”), 11,805,267 (“the ’267 Patent”), and 9,390,137 (“the ’137 Patent”) (together, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Nokia Technologies Oy (“Nokia”) is a Finnish corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at Karaportti 3, FIN-02610, Espoo, Finland.
`
`8.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. On information and belief, Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. operates the e-commerce website “Amazon.com,” which is one of the providers of the
`
`Accused Products.
`
`9.
`
`Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a
`
`principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. It is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. and on information and belief, operates Amazon Prime
`
`Video, which is one of the providers of the Accused Products.
`
`10.
`
`Twitch Interactive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
`
`at 350 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. and on information and belief, operates Twitch.tv, which is one of the providers of the
`
`Accused Products.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims
`
`asserted in this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Amazon because each Defendant
`
`is incorporated in the State of Delaware. Amazon has appointed a registered agent for service of
`
`process, Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 591 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`13.
`
`The Court also has specific personal jurisdiction over Amazon because Amazon
`
`has committed acts of infringement in this District.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b). Venue
`
`is proper as to Amazon in this District because Amazon is incorporated in this District.
`
`15.
`
`In addition, Amazon maintains a regular and established place of business within
`
`this District. For example, and without limitation, Amazon has maintained a regular and
`
`established place of business with offices and/or other facilities located at 1025 Boxwood Rd.,
`
`Wilmington, DE 19804. At 3.8 million square feet, it is the largest Amazon fulfilment center in
`
`the
`
`United
`
`States.
`
`Exhibit
`
`1,
`
`https://www.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2021/09/21/amazon-opens-mega-
`
`warehouse-delaware/8347000002/. Amazon additionally maintains offices in this District
`
`including at 560 Merrimac Ave 1437, Middletown, Delaware 19709 and 820 Federal School
`
`Lane, New Castle, Delaware 19720.
`
`THE ITU COMMON PATENT POLICY AND NOKIA’S RELEVANT DECLARATIONS
`A.
`The International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) and the H.264 and
`H.265 Standardization Process
`
`16.
`
`Certain claims of the Asserted Patents relate to the H.264 and H.265 Standards
`
`(defined below) developed by the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”).
`
`17.
`
`The ITU and the International Standards Organization (“ISO”) jointly published a
`
`standard referred to as “H.264,” “MPEG-4 part 10,” or “Advanced Video Coding” (the “H.264
`
`Standard”). The H.264 Standard development process was initiated by VCEG and finalized by
`
`the Joint Video Team (“JVT”), which was a collaborative effort between VCEG and the Moving
`
`Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 591 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Following publication of the H.264 Standard, the JVT began work on the H.265
`
`Standard. The H.265 Standard, which is also known as “MPEG-H Part 2” or “High Efficiency
`
`Video Coding,” represents the next step for video quality and coding efficiency after the widely
`
`successful H.264 Standard.
`
`19.
`
`The ITU was formed in 1865 at the International Telegraph Convention and, in
`
`1947, it became a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for issues that concern
`
`information and communication technologies. The ITU handles a variety of matters and thus is
`
`organized into various sectors. One of the sectors is Telecommunication Standardization or “ITU-
`
`T.” The mission of ITU-T is to ensure efficient and timely production of standards related to the
`
`field of telecommunications. The standards developed by ITU-T are referred to as
`
`“Recommendations.”
`
`20.
`
`The Guidelines define the term “Patent” to be “those claims contained in and
`
`identified by patents, utility models and other similar statutory rights based on inventions
`
`(including applications for any of these) solely to the extent that any such claims are essential to
`
`the implementation of a Recommendation | Deliverable. Essential patents are patents that would
`
`be required to implement a specific Recommendation | Deliverable.” See “Common Patent Policy
`
`for ITU-TIITU-RIISOIIEC,” ITU (2022), https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/policy.aspx.
`
`The definition of “Patent” provided by the Guidelines is mirrored in the Patent Statement and
`
`Licensing Declaration Form that is completed by patent holders who may have patent claims
`
`essential to the H.264 or H.265 standards. The Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form
`
`states that identifying specific patents on the form is optional but not required. The ITU thus
`
`deems “essential” only patent claims that are essential or necessary for implementation of a
`
`specific Recommendation.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 6 of 591 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The H.264 Recommendation specifies the implementation of decoders and
`
`specifically defines the “decoding process” as “[t]he process specified in this Recommendation |
`
`International Standard that reads a bitstream and derives decoded pictures from it.” Exhibit 2 at 6
`
`[Recommendation ITU-T H.264]. It does not, however, specify the implementation of encoders.
`
`The H.264 Recommendation defines “encoding process” as “[a] process, not specified in this
`
`Recommendation | International Standard, that produces a bitstream conforming to this
`
`Recommendation | International Standard.” Id.
`
`22.
`
`Similarly, the H.265 Recommendation only specifies the implementation of
`
`decoders. See Exhibit 3 at 5 [Recommendation ITU-T H.265] (defining (i) “decoding process” as
`
`“[t]he process specified in this Specification that reads a bitstream and derives decoded pictures
`
`from it” and (ii) “encoding process” as “[a] process not specified in this Specification that
`
`produces a bitstream conforming to this Specification.”).
`
`B.
`Nokia’s Compliance with the ITU Common Patent Policy and Nokia’s
`Relevant Declarations
`
`23.
`
`Consistent with the ITU Common Patent Policy, Nokia timely notified standard
`
`setting participants that it may obtain patents on its contributions, including by submitting Patent
`
`Statement and Licensing Declarations to the ITU declaring in good faith that Nokia is prepared
`
`to grant licenses to the essential claims of the relevant patents on RAND terms and conditions.
`
`24.
`
`As explained above, the H.264 and H.265 Standards do not specify an encoding
`
`process. Therefore, any patent claims related to an encoder or encoding process are not essential
`
`to the H.264 and H.265 Standards and are not encumbered by any commitment to grant licenses
`
`to any such claims on RAND terms and conditions.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 7 of 591 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`25.
`
`To the extent that Amazon alleges and proves that claims asserted in this case are
`
`actually essential to the ITU H.264 or H.265 Recommendations, the damages being sought on
`
`such claims will take into account RAND principles.
`
`C.
`
`26.
`
`Nokia’s Negotiations with Amazon
`
`Nokia has negotiated with Amazon in good faith for a portfolio license to its patents
`
`related to H.264 and H.265. Nokia has made offers to Amazon for its end user devices and
`
`streaming services. The Asserted Patents would have been covered by these offers. Specifically,
`
`on October 25, 2023, Nokia sent Amazon an offer for a license to Nokia’s patents for Amazon’s
`
`streaming services, including Amazon Prime Video, Freevee, and Twitch. Nokia’s offer is
`
`supported by, for example, Nokia’s executed running royalty agreements covering Nokia’s video
`
`patents.
`
`27.
`
`Despite the fact that Nokia has made offers to Amazon for a license consistent with
`
`Nokia’s obligations under the ITU Common Patent Policy and Nokia’s declarations, Amazon has
`
`not accepted Nokia’s offers.
`
`28.
`
`Nokia has complied with all aspects of the relevant IPR policies of the relevant
`
`standard setting bodies and is entitled to seek the relief requested in this case. This Complaint is
`
`necessary to put an end to Amazon’s infringing conduct.
`
`NOKIA’S INVESTMENT IN VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES
`
`29.
`
`The Asserted Patents arise from Nokia’s long term work in the fields of wireless
`
`communication, video standards, and related technologies that enable many features that are
`
`commonplace and expected of today’s consumer electronics.
`
`30.
`
`By the mid-1990s, Nokia Corp. was developing its own proprietary video
`
`technologies, referred to as the MobiVideo Codec. In early 1998, the Video Coding Experts
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 8 of 591 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`Group (“VCEG”) of the International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication (ITU-T)
`
`issued a call for proposals on a project called H.26L, the “L” standing for “long term.”
`
`31.
`
`The development of H.26L eventually led to ITU-T Recommendation H.264
`
`Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services (“the H.264 Standard”). Thereafter,
`
`work began on the successor to the H.264 Standard, which published as ITU-T Recommendation
`
`H.265 High Efficiency Video Coding (“the H.265 Standard”). Nokia, a video coding innovator,
`
`contributed numerous innovations to the development of both the H.264 and H.265 Standards. In
`
`addition, Nokia has developed many other video coding technologies.
`
`32.
`
`Over the last few decades, internet traffic has evolved from simple, text-based
`
`interfaces to a plethora of media, including video. As technology has evolved, the importance and
`
`use of video has skyrocketed. Video coding technologies, including the H.264 and H.265
`
`Standards, are crucial to the development and evolution of modern communication particularly
`
`as video traffic has become an increasingly outsized share of total consumer Internet traffic.
`
`33.
`
`The H.264 and H.265 Standards enable efficient and reliable video decoding in
`
`millions of devices, including smartphones, computers, and tablets. The H.264 and H.265
`
`Standards reduce the amount of data needed to decode digital video and are the two most
`
`prominent video decoding standards in the world. These advances in video coding technology
`
`were made possible by the work of Nokia and other video coding innovators.
`
`34.
`
`The H.264 Standard, first released in 2003, was designed to decode high quality
`
`video using lower bit rates than previous standards. The H.264 Standard is flexible enough to
`
`implement across a variety of applications, networks, and systems and offers vastly improved
`
`performance over previous standards, such as MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 2.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 9 of 591 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The H.265 Standard, first released in 2013, built on the H.264 Standard in several
`
`key respects. The H.265 Standard enables consumers to decode video with even less bandwidth
`
`than before and to decode higher quality video in higher resolutions.
`
`36.
`
`The rise of these new video coding technologies has enabled people to consume
`
`news, sports, movies, shows, and other streaming entertainment on demand. Video was estimated
`
`to be 82% of global consumer internet traffic in 2022.
`
`37.
`
`Amazon benefits greatly from Nokia’s video coding inventions. For example,
`
`Nokia’s video encoding inventions enable Amazon’s Accused Products—such as Prime Video,
`
`Amazon.com video, and Twitch.tv—to offer reliable, high quality video to subscribers with far
`
`less bandwidth than would otherwise be required.
`
`THE NOKIA PATENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (“the ’808 Patent”)
`
` On May 12, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`A.
`
`38.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (“the ’808 Patent”), entitled “Method for Coding Motion in a Video
`
`Sequence,” to inventor Jani Lainema. Nokia owns all rights to the ’808 Patent necessary to bring
`
`this action. The ’808 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/390,549, filed on March
`
`14, 2003, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/365,072, filed on March 15,
`
`2002. A true and correct copy of the ’808 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`39.
`
`The ’808 Patent is not directed to merely an abstract idea or any patent-ineligible
`
`concept. Instead, the ’808 Patent is directed to novel and unconventional improvements to
`
`motion-compensated prediction in the field of digital video coding. The ’808 Patent provides
`
`improvements over prior motion compensated prediction and video compression techniques that
`
`result in substantial benefits to motion prediction, video compression, video quality, and video
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 10 of 591 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`playback. These substantial benefits are enjoyed by users of the Accused Products when, for
`
`example, watching video over the Internet.
`
`40.
`
`A digital video sequence is a sequence of still images with “the illusion of motion
`
`being created by displaying the images one after the other at a relatively fast rate.” ’808 Patent at
`
`1:15-19. These still images are referred to as frames. “Each frame of an uncompressed digital
`
`video sequence comprises an array of image pixels.” Id. at 1:32-33. Frames in commonly used
`
`video formats may have millions of pixels.
`
`41.
`
`The ’808 Patent describes that video frames in a given digital video sequence may
`
`contain various forms of redundancy. Id. at 2:36-46. “Temporal redundancy” refers to the fact
`
`that “objects appearing in one frame of a sequence are likely to appear in subsequent frames.” Id.
`
`42.
`
` As the ’808 Patent explains, “motion-compensated prediction” can take advantage
`
`of temporal redundancy to “predict” the image content of some frames from “one or more other
`
`frames in the sequence, known as ‘reference frames.’” Id. at 3:15-18. Predictions can be achieved
`
`by tracking the motion of objects or regions of an image between a given frame and one or more
`
`reference frames. Id. at 3:18-23.
`
`43.
`
`Prior to the ’808 Patent, some motion-compensated prediction techniques involved
`
`assigning “coding modes” to “macroblocks” (a region of 16x16 image pixels in the original
`
`image). See id. at 1:64-2:6. One such coding mode was referred to as “SKIP” mode. SKIP mode
`
`was assigned to macroblocks that could be copied directly from a reference frame without using
`
`or having to take into account motion-compensated prediction. ’808 Patent at 10:64-67. SKIP
`
`mode prior to the ’808 Patent provided benefits in certain scenarios with macroblocks without
`
`motion from frame to frame.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 11 of 591 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`44.
`
`As explained in the ’808 Patent, “it is necessary for a corresponding video decoder
`
`to be aware of that coding mode in order for it to correctly decode the received information
`
`relating to the macroblock in question.” ’808 Patent at 11:20-24. “Therefore, an indication of
`
`the coding mode assigned to each macroblock is provided in the video bit-stream transmitted from
`
`the video encoder to the video decoder.” ’808 Patent at 11:24-27. The indication is transmitted
`
`using a variable length codeword, where “the shortest codeword is used to represent the coding
`
`mode that is statistically most likely to occur.” ’808 Patent at 11:27-32. Prior systems assume
`
`that SKIP mode is statistically the most likely coding mode for a macroblock. ’808 Patent at
`
`12:18-19.
`
`45.
`
`However, SKIP mode could not effectively address problems with certain types of
`
`redundancy within video sequences—for example, global and regional motion, such as might
`
`occur when phenomena like panning or zooming are present in a video sequence. Id. at 12:41-47.
`
`For example, redundancies may occur in a video sequence when footage is captured by a video
`
`camera moving horizontally from a fixed position or when translational motion occurs, such as
`
`when a volleyball moves overhead across a court. Conventional SKIP mode is never actually used
`
`in these situations, and the assumption that SKIP mode is always the most probable ceases to be
`
`valid. Id. at 12:41-44. Therefore, prior motion-compensated prediction techniques could not
`
`efficiently or effectively handle these scenarios. For example, in the prior H.263+ video coding
`
`standard, this global motion scenario was addressed by using a highly complex global motion
`
`compensation technique that required additional information to be sent to the decoder. Id. at
`
`12:48-13:30. This prior solution was computationally intensive and less efficient. Id.
`
`46.
`
`The ’808 Patent overcame these technical challenges in the prior systems by
`
`inventing a novel and improved skip coding mode. The ’808 Patent’s improved skip coding mode
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 12 of 591 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`can address certain scenarios with motion (and/or without motion) without the need for additional
`
`motion data. For example, the ’808 Patent teaches that the skip coding mode is associated with
`
`either a zero (non-active) motion vector or a non-zero (active motion vector), where the decision
`
`is made by analyzing the motion of other macroblocks or sub-blocks in a region surrounding the
`
`macroblock to be coded. ’808 Patent at 14:23-32. Therefore, for example, “SKIP mode
`
`macroblocks can adapt to the motion in the region surrounding them, enabling global or regional
`
`motion to [be] taken account of in an efficient manner.” Id. at 14:48-51.
`
`47.
`
`The assigned motion vector can then be used by the decoder, for example, to form
`
`a prediction for the given macroblock with respect to a reference frame. These unconventional
`
`solutions allow a decoder to, for example, reliably and efficiently decode video sequences with a
`
`drastically reduced amount of information. Because the ’808 Patent invention uses the
`
`surrounding macroblocks or sub-blocks to determine the assignment of the motion vector for the
`
`skip coding mode for an image segment, there is no need for the video encoder to transmit any
`
`additional information to the video decoder in order to model global or regional motion. Id. at
`
`14:52-64.
`
`48.
`
`The ’808 Patent therefore provides a specific technological improvement to the
`
`functionality and capabilities of video coding technology that “not only provides an improvement
`
`in coding efficiency in the presence of global motion . . . but also enables regional motion to be
`
`represented in an efficient manner.” Id. at 14:14-22.
`
`49.
`
`Conventional technology prior to the ’808 Patent was not capable of using SKIP
`
`mode with motion-compensated prediction, including global and regional motion. Conventional
`
`technology prior to the ’808 Patent was also not capable of using the surrounding macroblocks or
`
`sub-blocks to determine the SKIP mode assignment.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 13 of 591 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The ’808 Patent recognizes and solves these specific technological problems with
`
`the conventional technology at the time. The ’808 Patent’s ability to assign either a zero motion
`
`vector or a predicted non-zero motion vector for the SKIP coding mode for the first segment based
`
`at least in part on the motion information of a second segment neighboring the first segment and
`
`ability to provide in an encoded bitstream an indication of the SKIP coding mode, wherein no
`
`further motion vector information for the first segment is coded in the encoded bitstream, was a
`
`significant advancement over existing technology.
`
`51.
`
`The novel solutions of the ’808 Patent, including redefining skip coding mode to
`
`adapt to the motion of surrounding regions, was not well-understood, routine, or conventional,
`
`nor was it simply comprised of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
`
`known to the industry. Furthermore, the ordered combination of elements, including assigning
`
`either a zero motion vector or a predicted non-zero motion vector for the SKIP coding mode for
`
`the first segment based at least in part on the motion information of a second segment neighboring
`
`the first segment and providing in an encoded bitstream an indication of the SKIP coding mode,
`
`wherein no further motion vector information for the first segment is coded in the encoded
`
`bitstream, was not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
`
`B.
`
`52.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 (“the ’321 Patent”)
`
`On November 1, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 (“the ’321 Patent”), entitled “Grouping of Image Frames In
`
`Video Coding,” to inventor Miska Hannuksela. Nokia owns all rights to the ’321 Patent necessary
`
`to bring this action. The ’321 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/338,934, filed
`
`on January 25, 2006, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/306,942, filed on
`
`November 29, 2002, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,894,521, and claims priority to Finnish
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 14 of 591 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`Application No. 20020127, filed on January 23, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ’321 Patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`53.
`
`The ’321 Patent is not directed to merely an abstract idea or any patent-ineligible
`
`concept. Instead, the ‘321 Patent is directed to novel and unconventional improvements to the
`
`process of video coding. The ’321 Patent provides improvements over prior video coding
`
`techniques that result in substantial benefits to video compression, video quality, and video
`
`playback. These substantial benefits are enjoyed by users of the Accused Products when, for
`
`example, watching video over the Internet.
`
`54.
`
`Video sequences are comprised of still image frames, which are displayed rapidly
`
`in succession to create an impression of a moving image. ’321 Patent at 1:55-58. The image
`
`frames typically comprise a number of stationary background objects and few moving objects,
`
`such that the information in consecutively displayed image frames is typically largely similar. Id.
`
`at 1:58-65. Many video coding methods make use of this so-called “temporal redundancy” by
`
`using “motion-compensated temporal prediction,” in which the contents of an image frame are
`
`predicted from other frames. Id. at 2:16-23. Frames that use motion-compensated temporal
`
`prediction are also called INTER-frames. Id. at 2:27-29. Frames that do not use motion-
`
`compensated temporal prediction are also called INTRA-frames or I-frames. Id. at 2:23-26.
`
`INTRA-frames or I-frames therefore do not depend on any frames that come before them.
`
`55.
`
`Both INTER-frames and INTRA-frames may be used in the motion-compensated
`
`prediction of another frame. However, if a frame that is used in the motion-compensated
`
`prediction of another frame is lost or corrupted, the frames dependent on it can no longer be
`
`correctly decoded. Id. at 2:32-33.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 15 of 591 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Prior to the ’321 Patent, one significant problem occurred when a user wanted to
`
`stream or browse a video from somewhere other than the beginning of the video (e.g., the user
`
`wishes to start from a certain position such as the middle or where the user left off from a previous
`
`viewing). Id. at 3:62-4:4. Prior systems did not include a numbering scheme that allowed the
`
`decoder to recognize the first I-frame in a sequence of pictures. Id. at 11:11-21. Therefore, when
`
`streaming or browsing a video file from a point other than the beginning, the decoder would
`
`interpret this as an unintentional loss of image frames and unnecessarily try to reconstruct the
`
`image frames suspected as lost. Id. at 11:20-25.
`
`57.
`
`The ’321 Patent overcame these technical challenges in the prior systems by
`
`inventing a novel independent sequence of image frames that includes an indication of a first
`
`picture in an independently decodable group of pictures. Id. at 4:16-35. The ’321 Patent employs
`
`the unconventional solution of indicating the first picture in an independently decodable group of
`
`pictures so that it is possible for the decoder to start decoding from that first picture and continue
`
`the decoding process without needing prediction from any image frame prior to that first picture.
`
`Id. at 4:16-38.
`
`58.
`
`The ’321 Patent therefore provides a specific technological improvement to the
`
`functionality and capabilities of video coding technology that results in increased efficiency and
`
`improved video playback. For example, the encoder can now enable the decoder to begin
`
`decoding from a random point in a video stream without any prediction from any prior picture
`
`and without storing any pictures decoded prior to the first picture of the independent sequence in
`
`its memory. Id. at 4:48-58. For another example, the indication by an encoder of a first picture in
`
`an independently decodable group of pictures enables the decoder to identify a loss of that type
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 16 of 591 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`of picture, which is unlikely to allow satisfactory image quality without retransmission or picture
`
`refresh. Id. at 4:64-5:5.
`
`59.
`
`Conventional technology prior to the ’321 Patent was not capable of identifying the
`
`first picture of an independently decodable group of pictures, encoding identifier values for the
`
`image frames according to a numbering scheme, and resetting the identifier value for the indicated
`
`first image frame of the independent sequence.
`
`60.
`
`The ’321 Patent recognizes and solves these specific technological problems with
`
`the conventional technology at the time. The ’321 Patent’s ability to encode into the video
`
`sequence an indication of at least one image frame, which is the first image frame, in decoding
`
`order, of the independent sequence and to reset the identifier value for the indicated first image
`
`frame of the independent sequence was a significant advancement over existing technology.
`
`61.
`
`The novel solution of the ’321 Patent, including encoding into the video sequence
`
`an indication of at least one image frame, which is the first image frame, in decoding order, of the
`
`independent sequence and resetting the identifier value for the indicated first image frame of the
`
`independent sequence, was not well-understood, routine, or conventional, nor was it simply
`
`comprised of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
`
`industry. Furthermore, the ordered combination of elements, including encoding into the video
`
`sequence an indication of at least one image frame, which is the first image frame, in decoding
`
`order, of the independent sequence and resetting the identifier value for the indicated first image
`
`frame of the independent sequence, was not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
`
`C.
`
`62.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,724,818 (“the ’818 Patent”)
`
`On May 25, 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,724,818 (“the ’818 Patent”), entitled “Method for Coding Sequences of
`
`Pictures,” to inventors Miska Hannuksela and Ye-Kui Wang. Nokia owns all rights to the ’818
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 17 of 591 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`Patent necessary to bring this action. The ’818 Patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/426,928, filed on April 30, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’818 Patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`63.
`
`The ’818 Patent is not directed to merely an abstract idea or any patent-ineligible
`
`concept. Instead, the ’818 Patent provides improvements over conventional video coding
`
`techniques that result in substantial benefits to video compression, video quality, and video
`
`playback. These substantial benefits are enjoyed by users of the Accused Products when, for
`
`example, watching video over the Internet.
`
`64.
`
`A coded picture consist