Music Choice vs Stingray Digital — Case 2:16-cv-586-JRG-RSP

Music Choice vs Stingray Digital — Case 2:16-cv-586-JRG-RSP

vs.

We will discuss in the article, the judge’s order (Judge Roy Payne) and memorandum regarding all the claims terms and its construction. As expected, the judge went for:

“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.

As in many cases, this was also the case as well, here the order/memorandum available online:

Music_Choice_v_Stingray_Digital_Group_Inc__txedce-16–00586__0145.0

As shown, in all cases where Music Choice made a simple term definition, Judge Payne went for the simplest and more appropriate meaning to the words. Music Choice won pretty much all terms in their favor and in all “indefinite” arguments did not move an inch in favor of Stingray. Hence the judge also sided with Music Choice’s arguments and claim construction. For instance:

  • What was the goal on trying to interpret a Cable TV system as it if was not a digital system? I don’t really understand why Greenberg did not agree to this simple term? And the judge sided with Music Choice: “Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposed “not a digital network” and “signal” limitations and determines the transmission-system terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.” The claim recites a first transmission and a second transmission system,
  • The same thing with “multicast,” this is a well-known term in all Cable TV systems, where multicasting is used to transmit all Linear TV signals. “Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposed “not a digital network” and “signal” limitations and determines the transmission-system terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.”
  • A very similar analysis is found with the term “trigger message” where the judge sided with the same simple meaning as follows:” Accordingly, the Court construes “trigger message” as follows: “trigger message” means “message configured to initiate an action”
  • And you can find a very similar argument for most of the terms in dispute.

All the evidence is sealed and there is no way to see exactly how these terms match the device in dispute, however, Music Choice’s attorneys should be prepared and if those terms were favorable to them, now one can asume that their evidence to match these terms is solid.

We will keep track on this case and how this develops, on a different note, Music Choice also got hit by Stingray with several IPRs:

Music Choice then has to defend the following IPR cases filed by Stingray Digital regarding this particular case:

  • Trial Number — IPR2017–01450
     Filing Date — 5/18/2017
     Patent # — 9,414,121
     Title — SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AN ON-DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE
     Patent Owner — MUSIC CHOICE
     Petitioner — Stingray Digital Group Inc.
     Tech Center — 2400
  • Trial Number — IPR2017–01192
     Filing Date — 3/31/2017
     Patent # — 8,769,602
     Title — SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN INTERACTIVE, VISUAL COMPLEMENT TO AN AUDIO PROGRAM
     Patent Owner — MUSIC CHOICE
     Petitioner — Stingray Digital Group Inc.
     Tech Center — 2400
  • Trial Number — IPR2017–01191
     Filing Date — 3/30/2017
     Patent # — 9,351,045
     Title — SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A BROADCAST ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE AND AN ON-DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE
     Patent Owner — MUSIC CHOICE
     Petitioner — Stingray Digital Group Inc.
     Tech Center — 2400
  • And maybe others http://www.gbpatent.com/content/uploads/IPR.pdf

For example we found: http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2017/05/pto-litigation-report-may-19-2017/


Disclosure: EGLA, which I own, provided a platform for DMX for digital music distribution. Stingray acquired DMX Music but not our technology and kept its own music delivery system. However, EGLA owns a patented technology that is called “CLOUD to CABLE TV“ that enables delivery of linear music channels to Cable TV subscribers in a more clever, fault-tolerant, and efficient way than these patents disputed here. Source: http://edwinhernandez.com/2016/08/01/platform-nternet-tv-music/

and,