Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`No. 2:24-cv-00714
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`TECHNIUS LTD., d/b/a stripchat.com,
`Defendant.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`Plaintiff WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C., for its original complaint for patent infringement
`against Technius Ltd., d/b/a stripchat.com, alleges as follows.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff or “WAG”) is a New Jersey limited
`1.
`liability company with its principal place of business at 275 Route 10 East, Suite 220-313,
`Succasunna, New Jersey 07876.
`2.
`On information and belief, Defendant Technius Ltd., d/b/a stripchat.com
`(“Defendant” or “Stripchat”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Cyprus,
`with offices at 334 Agiou Andreou Ag., Andreou Business Center, 2nd Floor, Limassol, Cyprus.
`3.
`Defendant operates internet adult content interactive “webcam” sites, including
`without limitation the stripchat.com website and related “affiliate” and “white label” sites.
`Defendant’s servers, including in the U.S., receive live internet feeds of video from numerous
`webcam performers, and stream those performances to numerous users, including users in the
`U.S.
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et
`seq.
`
`5.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b)
`because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
`6.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under at least Rule 4(k)(2),
`Fed. R. Civ. P., in that Defendant is a foreign entity not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s
`courts of general jurisdiction but which has continuous and systematic business contacts with the
`United States, such that exercising jurisdiction over Defendant is consistent with the United
`States Constitution and laws. Defendant’s business contacts with the U.S. include a substantial
`audience of paying customers in the U.S., including in the State of Texas. Defendant’s U.S.
`activity is also reflected by its registration of a U.S. trademark for “STRIPCHAT” for an online
`web site in the field of adult entertainment, representing that Defendant had and has an intent to
`use the mark in commerce with the United States, which registration was applied for on February
`15, 2017 and granted on June 4, 2019. Defendant has widely engaged in such commerce, and as
`a portion of such activities, transacts business within this District and elsewhere in the State of
`Texas. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based on its commission of
`one or more acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit in this District and elsewhere in the State
`of Texas.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`7.
`WAG owns United States Patent Nos. 10,567,453 (the “’453 patent”), 8,364,839
`(the “’839 patent”), and 8,185,611 (the “’611 patent”), referred to collectively herein as the
`“Asserted Patents.”
`8.
`The Asserted Patents were respectively duly and legally issued, and later expired,
`on the dates set forth below.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,567,453
`
`8,364,839
`
`8,185,611
`
`Issued
`
`Feb. 18, 2020
`
`Jan. 29, 2013
`
`May 22, 2012
`
`Expired
`
`Sep. 4, 2022
`
`Mar. 28, 2021
`
`Mar. 28, 2021
`
`The entire content of each of the Asserted Patents is incorporated herein by reference.
`9.
`The subject matter claimed in the Asserted Patents was developed in the course of
`business of SURFERNETWORK.COM, INC. (“SurferNETWORK”), a legal predecessor entity
`of WAG, and all rights therein were assigned by Harold Price (the sole inventor) to said
`predecessor entity. Through a continuous chain of assignments from Mr. Price and through said
`predecessor entity, duly recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, WAG is the
`record owner of the entire interest in the Asserted Patents and all rights to recover for
`infringement thereof and holds and has held all substantial rights therein at all times material
`hereto. WAG has the sole and exclusive standing to enforce the Asserted Patents, bring these
`causes of action, and recover for past infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`10.
`The Asserted Patents, to the extent of the claims asserted herein, are valid,
`enforceable, and were duly issued pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code.
`11. WAG has complied with the applicable marking provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a)
`with respect to the Asserted Patents at all times relevant hereto.
`12.
`The Asserted Patents share a common disclosure, which concerns technological
`solutions to the severe problems that Plaintiff’s predecessor, SurferNETWORK, recognized in
`then-current efforts to provide streaming media over the internet. Prior to these inventions,
`internet streaming implementations suffered chronically from slow, stuttering startup and
`frequent interruptions. When a user first clicked to begin playback of streaming media, a
`significant period of “buffering” would begin, during which period the user would typically only
`see an hourglass. After clicking on a stream, the user would have to wait until the player
`accumulated sufficient content over its internet connection for the program to start, and the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`lengthy startup delay would often have to be repeated during playback, for rebuffering, if line
`conditions caused a later interruption. These effects resulted in user frustration, which kept
`internet streaming from being competitive with other forms of audio and/or video media, such as
`radio and TV. Numerous efforts were made by others to improve the situation by attempting to
`control (e.g., meter) the rate of delivery of media from the server to match to inferred needs and
`capabilities of the player, to keep the player in sync with the server so as to reduce the need for
`rebuffering, but these efforts continued to suffer from significant delays for the player to build up
`an initial playback buffer and proved unable to respond adequately to unexpected changes in
`internet connection quality.
`13.
`SurferNETWORK sought a solution that would jump start internet media
`playback to achieve the perception of “Instant On” and provide an internet user an experience
`akin to what ordinarily happened when turning on a transistor radio. The Asserted Patents reflect
`that solution, for the first time providing a user experience for streaming over the internet that
`was comparable to the immediacy and continuity that the user enjoyed with ordinary radio and
`television.
`14.
`Rather than to try to “meter” or “clock-out” data from the server in order to
`establish a delivery rate approximating playback for streaming, WAG’s solution rearranged the
`previously practiced order of operations in the streaming media server, to pre-buffer the media
`on the server side of the connection (which could be done on the server side without user-
`perceptible delay), and, when a predetermined level of prefill was present, to deliver the
`streaming media to the user computer by way of the server’s internet transport mechanism, as
`fast as the transport mechanism would allow. Streaming media data elements sent in this manner
`would be sent at the maximum speed available, thereby improving utilization of available
`bandwidth. The result was a more rapid streaming startup, which at the same time also quickly
`filled a playback buffer on the user computer, which served to protect the remainder of the
`transmitted stream from mid-stream delays and interruptions. WAG’s technique was highly
`effective and was rapidly adopted throughout the internet streaming business.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`15.
`Implementations disclosed in the Asserted Patents provide further advantages, for
`example where a live program is simultaneously streamed to many users. Under prior art
`implementations it would have been customary in such a case for the server software to have
`provisioned a separate server-side buffer for each user, or simply to serve the latest available data
`element as it arrived. The Asserted Patents disclose and claim streaming a live program to a
`plurality of users from a single, common server-side buffer, even though at any given time the
`various users may be at different points in the stream. This technique provides significant
`advantages, such as avoiding having to provision a separate server-side buffer for each user, thus
`conserving the server’s memory resources, among other benefits, and this multi-user
`implementation meshes with the pre-buffering approach described above, which is still practiced
`for each user in the plurality of users consuming the stream.
`16.
`Defendant’s internet delivery of streaming video from its media servers, including
`media servers in the United States, has deployed and used methods of operation, systems, and
`computer-recorded media that infringe each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`COUNT I: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’453 PATENT
`
`17.
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-16 above as if fully
`set forth at length herein.
`18.
`Defendant has directly infringed the ’453 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`by practicing the claims thereof, without authorization and in the United States, during the term
`thereof (as alleged herein), by conduct as hereinafter more particularly alleged.
`19.
`Plaintiff alleges infringement based in part on what can be directly observed while
`a user uses Defendant’s streaming services. One observable effect of the techniques claimed in
`the Asserted Patents, which is common to the operation of the patent claims pertinent herein, and
`highly characteristic of the practice of those claims, is that the stream received by the user
`computer will show an initial burst of data when streaming begins, followed by continued
`sustained transmission at about the playback rate. During the initial burst, the data sent during
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`the startup will have timestamps reflecting that the initial data covers a substantially longer
`period of playback than the startup period. Defendant’s services have been observed to operate in
`this manner.
`20.
`Defendant’s steaming during the term of the ’453 patent reflected a characteristic
`initial burst of data, as described in paragraph 19, when a user connects to a performer stream. In
`the following, reference is drawn to claim 1 of the ’453 patent by way of example.
`21.
`The following figure shows a time graph (in seconds) of the volume of received
`data from a representative packet capture from a streaming session with stripchat.com during the
`term of the ’453 patent, believed to be representative of stripchat.com’s operations for the times
`material hereto, for a viewer who has clicked on the provided thumbnail on the Defendant’s site
`home page, for a selected available performer:
`
`
`
`The above figure reflects an initial burst of data characteristic of practicing the asserted claims.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`22. With respect to claim 1 of the ’453 patent (as one example), the data shown in the
`above figure consists of mpeg-encoded media, which comprises bytes of “streaming media
`encoded as a plurality of sequential frames adapted for playback at a predetermined playback
`rate and comprising a plurality of sequential data elements.”
`23.
`On information and belief, Defendant maintained ongoing feeds to its bank of
`servers from a substantial plurality of live performers in real time, and buffered each of the
`incoming streams on its servers, corresponding to “filling a server buffer allocated in a memory
`of the server, from a media source, at a constant fill rate equal to the playback rate,” as recited in
`claim 1 of the ’453 patent.
`24.
`A user, clicking on one of Stripchat’s model thumbnails, will thereby request to
`join that performer’s stream, and Defendant’s server will receive the request (“receiving via data
`communications at a server a request from a user computer for the streaming media”). Due to the
`ongoing live nature of a performer’s feed for that stream, the server’s buffer for the stream will
`generally already be “filled to a predetermined level” at that time, and the server will “begin
`delivery of the streaming media to the user computer,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’453 patent.
`25.
`The media itself is encoded at a variable bit rate, which introduces some variation
`in bytes per second received during continued streaming, as seen in the right-side of the above
`figure. Once the display begins to render, the transmission rate corresponds to the playback rate.
`However, transmission at the beginning of the connection, for nearly two seconds in this
`example, is considerably faster, meaning that (in this example) about four seconds’ worth of data
`is accumulated in the client-side buffer before playback begins. Playback can also begin before
`the initial burst of data has been fully received at the user computer, providing a rapid streaming
`startup.
`26.
`Defendant’s servers also used a transport mechanism as claimed, at relevant times
`using protocols such TCP and WebRTC to transport streams to internet users. Defendant’s
`servers use the transport mechanism “to send sequential data elements of the streaming media
`from the server buffer to the user computer,” by which the server sends an initial buffer load of
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`data (corresponding to the initial burst) as fast as the connection to the user will allow, which
`would generally be faster than the playback rate (as reflected in the example shown). After the
`initial buffer load had been sent from the server, data that arrives at the server thereafter is passed
`through the server and transmitted by the transport mechanism as fast as possible (again,
`generally, faster than the playback rate), thus meeting the remainder of the claim language for
`the example of claim 1 of the ’453 patent (“whenever, after said beginning delivery of the
`streaming media to the user, there are unsent sequential data elements in the server buffer,
`sending, from the server to the user computer, as much of said unsent sequential data elements
`that are in the server buffer as said transport mechanism will accept, at a sending rate in excess
`of the playback rate”).
`27.
`All limitations of at least claim 1 of the ’453 patent were thus met by Defendant’s
`conduct as alleged herein, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`28.
`As another example, Defendant also transmits performer streams concurrently to
`multiple viewers in a manner that directly infringes at least claim 8 of the ’453 patent.
`Observation of Stripchat streams reflects that the live video feeds of at least Defendant’s top
`performers are generally each being viewed by a plurality of concurrent viewers, and there is no
`observable delay to build a server-side buffer in advance for each new viewer, reflecting that
`each user draws from an existing, common server-side buffer, such that Defendant is serving
`concurrent users out of a single buffer for the stream, tracking their positions in the stream,
`thereby “maintaining a record of the last streaming media data element that had been sent from
`the server buffer to the user system, and using the record to identify the next streaming media
`data element in the server buffer to be sent to the user system,” as recited in at least claim 8 of
`the ’453 patent.
`29.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is entitled to not less than a reasonable
`royalty for Defendant’s infringing use of the ’453 patent, in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`30.
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover all past damages so sustained by Plaintiff as a result
`of Defendant’s infringement alleged herein.
`
`COUNT II: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF AT LEAST CLAIM 7
`OF THE ’839 PATENT
`
`31.
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-30 above as if fully
`set forth at length herein.
`32.
`Defendant’s conduct as set forth in Count I also directly infringed at least claim 7
`of the ’839 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). With respect to claim 7 of the ’839 patent,
`said conduct, reflected in the initial received burst of data as alleged in paragraph 2522, likewise
`entails preloading a server buffer (“loading the server buffer with streaming media data
`elements”) and sending its contents at an initial sending rate more rapid than the playback rate
`sufficient for the user system to begin playing (“sending an initial amount of streaming media
`data elements to the user system at an initial sending rate more rapid than the playback rate …
`wherein the initial amount of streaming media data elements, and the initial sending rate, are
`sufficient for the user system to begin playing back the streaming media while the user buffer
`continues to fill”), followed by transmission at about the playback rate (“thereafter, sending
`further streaming media data elements to the user system at about the playback rate and filling
`the server buffer or moving a data window through the server buffer at about the playback rate
`… wherein the further streaming media data elements are received at about the playback rate by
`the user system if there are no interruptions in the transmission of streaming media data elements
`between the server and the user system”). The transport mechanisms that Defendant used, as
`alleged in paragraph 26, detect ACKs and/or NACKs from the client (“detecting if any
`interruptions in the transmission of streaming media data elements between the server and the
`user system have occurred such that streaming media data elements that have been sent by the
`server to the user system have been delayed or not received by the user system”), and, as alleged
`in paragraph 28, distributes a stream to a plurality of users using a record of the last streaming
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`media data element sent to the user system to identify the next streaming media data element to
`send (“maintaining a record of the last streaming media data element that had been sent to the
`user system, and using the record to identify the next streaming media data element to be sent to
`the user system”), meeting those and all other limitations of claim 7 of the ’839 patent, literally
`or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`33.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is entitled to not less than a reasonable
`royalty for Defendant’s infringing use of the ’839 patent, in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`34.
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover all past damages so sustained by Plaintiff as a result
`of Defendant’s infringement alleged herein.
`
`COUNT III: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’611 PATENT
`
`35.
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-34 above as if fully
`set forth at length herein.
`36.
`Defendant’s conduct as set forth in Count I also directly infringed at least claims
`1, 2, and 6 of the ’611 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Said conduct, as reflected in the
`initial burst of data shown in paragraph 25, likewise entails, as recited in claim 1 of the ’611
`patent, “sending initial streaming media elements to the user system at an initial sending rate
`more rapid than the playback rate, to fill the user buffer,” where “the amount of [the] initial
`elements, and [the] initial sending rate, are sufficient for the user system to begin playback while
`the user buffer continues to fill.” The same allegations also reflect that “[a]fter the user buffer
`has been filled” (as alleged in Count I), Defendant’s server “send[s] further streaming media data
`elements to the user system at about the playback rate.” As alleged in Count I (paragraph 23), the
`feeds from Defendant’s performers’ webcams fill server buffers on Defendant’s servers at a
`constant fill rate. Because of the operation of the server’s transport mechanism (see paragraph
`26), after the server’s buffer has been emptied as a result of sending the observed initial burst of
`data upon connection, data arrives at the server thereafter at the same rate it is being consumed
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`by the client, such that the data sent by the server from what it is receiving from the performers
`at the playback rate is received at the same rate by the user computer if there are no interruptions
`in the transmission of media data between the server and the user’s computer (“the media data
`elements is sent at a rate that matches the constant fill rate of a server buffer, and is received at
`the same rate by the user computer if there are no interruptions in the transmission of media data
`between the server and the user's computer”). Defendant’s conduct thereby met those and all
`other limitations of claim 1 of the ’611 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`37.
`Defendant likewise directly infringed claim 2 of the ’611 patent by reason of
`making an initial data transfer faster than the playback rate “sufficient for the user system to
`begin playing back the streaming media while the user buffer continues to fill,” as alleged in
`paragraph 26, and infringed 6 of the ’611 patent by using media encoded at a variable bitrate as
`alleged in paragraph 25.
`38.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is entitled to not less than a reasonable
`royalty for Defendant’s infringing use of the ’611 patent, in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`39.
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover all past damages so sustained by Plaintiff as a result
`of Defendant’s infringement alleged herein.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C. requests an entry of judgment in
`its favor and against Defendant as follows:
`a. Declaring that Defendant infringed United States Patent Nos. 10,567,453, 8,364,839, and
`8,185,611;
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/30/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`b. Awarding to Plaintiff damages arising out of Defendant’s infringement of United States
`Patent Nos. 10,567,453, 8,364,839, and 8,185,611;
`c. Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, or other damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or 285 or
`as otherwise permitted by law, against the Defendant;
`d. Awarding costs in this action to Plaintiff; and
`e. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Date: August 30, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Wasif H. Qureshi d
`Wasif H. Qureshi
`wqureshi@jw.com
`JACKSON WALKER LLP
`1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Telephone: (713) 752-4521
`
`David G. Liston (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`david.liston@listonabramson.com
`Ronald Abramson (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`ron.abramson@listonabramson.com
`Liston Abramson LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue, 46th Floor
`New York, NY 10174
`212-257-1630
`
`COUNSEL FOR WAG ACQUISITION,
`L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`