Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Discussions about the latest IPTV industry news.
Post Reply
rusty
TVRO Guru
TVRO Guru
Articles: 0
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 6:52 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by rusty » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:16 pm

Oooops! Charlie, who likes to sue everyone else for allegedly stealing, got caught stealing himself. :rotflmao:

Oct. 10, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA INC.,
AND SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND ARRIS
GROUP, INC.,
Defendants
.

C.A. No. 1:17-cv-02097-CBS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United
States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. in which Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming
LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Realtime”) makes the following allegations against Defendants Sling
TV L.L.C., Sling Media Inc., Sling Media, L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C., DISH
Network L.L.C., and Arris Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”):
PARTIES

1. Realtime is a Texas limited liability company. Realtime has a place of
business at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701. Realtime has researched and
developed specific solutions for data compression, including, for example, those that
increase the speeds at which data can be stored and accessed. As recognition of its
innovations rooted in this technological field, Realtime holds multiple United States
patents and pending patent applications.

2. On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV L.L.C. (“Sling TV”) is a
Colorado limited liability company with its principal office at 9601 S. Meridian Blvd.,
Englewood, CO 80112. On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV has a regular and
established place of business in this District and conducts business throughout the United
States, including in this District. On information and belief, Sling TV can be served
through its registered agent, R. Dodge Stanton, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO
80112.

3. On information and belief, Defendants Sling Media Inc. and Sling Media
L.L.C. (collectively, “Sling Media”) are, respectively, a Delaware corporation and a
Delaware limited liability company with their principal office at 1051 E. Hillsdale Blvd,
Suite 500, Foster City, CA 94404. On information and belief, Sling Media has a regular
and established place of business in this District and conducts business throughout the
United States, including in this District, for example, at 100 Inverness Terrace E.,
Englewood, CO 80112 and P.O. Box 6655, Englewood, CO 80155. On information and
belief, Sling Media can be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust
Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801.

4. On information and belief, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. is a Texas
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 11717 Exploration Lane,
Germantown, MD 20876. Upon information and belief, EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C.
has a regular and established place of business in this District. On information and belief,
EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. can be served through its registered agent, Corporation
Service Company D/B/A CSC-Lawyers Inc., 211 E. 7th Street Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.
EchoStar Technologies LLC is an indirect subsidiary of DISH Networks LLC. EchoStar
Technologies LLC designs the set-top boxes used to deliver the DISH TV service.

5. On information and belief, Defendant DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) is a
Colorado limited liability company with its principal office at 9601 S. Meridian Blvd.,
Englewood, CO 80112. Upon information and belief, DISH Network L.L.C. has a regular
and established place of business in this District. On information and belief, Defendant
DISH Network L.L.C. conducts business throughout the United States, including in this
District. On information and belief, DISH can be served through its registered agent, R.
Dodge Stanton, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO 80112. EchoStar Technologies,
L.L.C. and DISH Network L.L.C. are hereinafter referred to collectively as “DISH” or
“Dish”.

6. On information and belief, Defendant Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris”) is a
Delaware Corporation with its principal office at 3871 Lakefield Drive, Suwanee, GA,
30024. On information and belief, Arris maintains a regular and established place of
business in this District. On information and belief, Defendant Arris conducts business
throughout the United States, including in this District. On information and belief, Arris
can be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 40 Technology
Pkwy South, #300, Norcross, GA 30092.

7. On information and belief, DISH, EchoStar, Sling TV, and Sling Media
promotes and offers for sale DISH and Sling-branded products and services which infringe
certain asserted patents. Accordingly, each of the Defendants is properly joined in this
action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299.

8. On information and belief, Arris sells and offers for sale products and
services incorporating technology from Sling Media which infringes certain asserted
patents. Accordingly, Arris is properly joined in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sling TV L.L.C. in this action
because Sling TV L.L.C. has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action
and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
over Sling TV L.L.C. would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice. Sling TV L.L.C. directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the
named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
On information and belief, Defendant Sling TV has a regular and established place of
business in this District.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sling Media in this action because
Sling Media has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and has
established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over
Sling Media would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Sling
Media directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the named CoDefendants)
or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has committed
and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things,
offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents. On
information and belief, Sling Media has a regular and established place of business in this
District, including, e.g., at 100 Inverness Terrace E., Englewood, CO 80112 and P.O. Box
6655, Englewood, CO 80155.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. in
this action because EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. has committed acts within this District
giving rise to this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that
the exercise of jurisdiction over EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. would not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice. EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. directly and
through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
Upon information and belief, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. has a regular and established
place of business in this District.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DISH Network L.L.C. in this
action because DISH Network L.L.C. has committed acts within this District giving rise to
this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
jurisdiction over DISH Network L.L.C. would not offend traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice. DISH Network L.L.C. directly and/or through subsidiaries
(including one or more of the named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including
distributors, retailers, and others), has committed and continues to commit acts of
infringement in this District by, among other things, offering to sell and selling products
and/or services that infringe the asserted patents. Upon information and belief, DISH
Network L.L.C. has a regular and established place of business in this District.

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Arris Group, Inc. in this action
because Arris Group, Inc. has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action
and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction
over Arris Group, Inc. would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice. Arris Group, Inc. directly and/or through subsidiaries (including one or more of the
named Co-Defendants) or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the asserted patents.
On information and belief, Arris maintains a regular and established place of business in
this District.

15. Defendants have conducted and do conduct business within the State of
Colorado. Defendants ship, distribute, sell, offer for sale and advertise their respective
products or services in the United States, the State of Colorado and the District of Colorado.
Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed their products and services into the
stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the
United States, the State of Colorado and the District of Colorado.

16. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and/or
1400(b). Defendant Sling TV and DISH are organized under the laws of Colorado. Sling
Media’s officers are located in Colorado. Upon information and belief, all Defendants
have transacted business in this District and have committed acts of direct and indirect
infringement in this District, and have regular and established place of business in this
District.

ASSERTED PATENTS

17. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,867,610 (“the ‘610 Patent”) and
8,934,535 (“the ‘535 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).

18. The Asserted Patents have been cited as prior art during the prosecution of
at least 400 patent applications of Realtime and other companies. Those other companies
include well-known technology companies such as: Quantum, Fujitsu, IBM, Seagate,
STMicroelectronics, Cisco, LSI, Skyfire Labs, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Thomson
Reuters, OSR Open Systems Resources, Exegy, RIM, Renesas, Red Hat, Xerox, and
Microsoft.

COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,867,610


19. Plaintiff Realtime realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

20. Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
8,867,610 (“the ‘610 Patent”) entitled “System and methods for video and audio data
distribution.” The ‘610 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on October 21, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ‘610 Patent is
included as Exhibit A.

21. On information and belief, Sling TV has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States Sling TV products and services that infringe the
‘610 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
products include, without limitation, Sling TV’s streaming video products and services
compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
the Sling Orange and Sling Blue TV services, and all versions and variations thereof since
the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
https://www.Sling.com/ (“Sling TV offers two domestic streaming services: The singlestream
Sling Orange service and the multi-stream Sling Blue service.”);

_in/ (“OTA broadcasts use MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than the H.264 used by
Sling, which needs far less data than MPEG-2 to deliver similar quality.”).

22. On information and belief, Sling Media has made, used, offered for sale,
sold and/or imported into the United States Sling Media products and services that infringe
the ‘610 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
products include, without limitation, Sling Media’s streaming video products and services
compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
Slingbox set-top boxes (including, but not limited to, Slingbox 500, Slingbox M2, Slingbox
M1, Slingbox 350, and Sling Adapter), and all versions and variations thereof since the
issuance of the ‘610 patent (“Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
http://www.tivocommunity.com/community/ ... ngbox-350-
500-video.504853/ (“For the newer Slingboxes the video is H.264.”);
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“I have the SlingBox Solo and by all accounts
it streams h.264.”).

23. On information and belief, DISH has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States DISH products and services that infringe the ‘610
patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
include, without limitation, DISH’s streaming video products and services compliant with
various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., the DISH TV
service, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“DISH
Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
https://forum.DISH.com/viewtopic.php?t=9864&p=58341 (“atellite services (e.g.,
DirecTV, XstreamHD and DISH Network) utilize the 1080p/24-30 format with MPEG-4
AVC/H.264 encoding for pay-per-view movies that are downloaded in advance via satellite
or on-demand via broadband.”); http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“For HD video DN exclusively
uses H.264 compression (sometimes ambiguously referred to here as MPEG-4, as there is
more than one MPEG-4 video compression format). H.264 is about 2X more efficient than
MPEG-2 for the same video quality.”).

24. On information and belief, Arris has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States Arris products and services that infringe the ‘610
patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
include, without limitation, Arris’s streaming video products and services compliant with
various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., Arris MS4000,
and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘610 patent (“Accused
Instrumentalities”). See, e.g., http://www.Arris.com/products/media-streamer-ms4000/
(“Transcode to H.264 with adaptive bitrate up to 4 Live/DVR streams”).

25. On information and belief, each of Defendants has directly infringed and
continues to infringe the ‘610 patent, for example, through its own use and testing of the
Accused Instrumentalities, which when used, practice the method claimed by Claim 1 of
the ‘610 patent, namely, a method, comprising: determining, a parameter or an attribute of
at least a portion of a data block having video or audio data; selecting one or more
compression algorithms from among a plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the
at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined parameter or attribute and
a throughput of a communication channel, at least one of the plurality of compression
algorithms being asymmetric; and compressing the at least the portion of the data block
with the selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or more compression
algorithms.

26. The DISH Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
portion of a video data block. Different parameters correspond with, for example, different
moment to moment requirements, e.g., the degree of motion of a video data block at any
given time. See, e.g., http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of
the DN HD channels clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates
are averages only. DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their
compressors can dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based
on moment to moment requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far
less than a high action scene on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change
drastically and the average rate does appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality.
Furthermore DN reduces the resolution of a number of their HD channels from
1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to a softer picture more amenable to higher
compression.”).

27. The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
portion of a video data block, e.g. based on different types of content.
https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/ ... al-details (“First off, I
found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).

28. The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at
least a portion of a video data block. Different parameters are determined, for example,
based on statistics observed by the Slingplayer client. See, e.g.,
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+ while connected to the Slingbox.”).

29. The DISH Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of the DN HD channels
clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates are averages only.
DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their compressors can
dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based on moment to moment
requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far less than a high action scene
on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change drastically and the average rate does
appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality. Furthermore DN reduces the
resolution of a number of their HD channels from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to
a softer picture more amenable to higher compression.”).

30. The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/ ... al-details (“First off, I
found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).

31. The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+ while connected to the Slingbox.”).

32. Based on a throughput of the communications channel—reflected by the
max video bitrate—and resolution parameter identified, any H.264-compliant system such
as the Accused Instrumentalities would determine which profile (e.g., “baseline,”
“extended,” “main”, or “high”) and/or which “level” within a profile (which corresponds,
e.g., to a maximum picture resolution, frame rate, and bit rate) corresponds with that
parameter, then select between at least two asymmetric compressors. If, for example,
baseline or extended is the corresponding profile, then the system will select a ContextAdaptive
Variable Length Coding (“CAVLC”) entropy encoder. If, for example, main or
high is the corresponding profile, then the system will select a Context-Adaptive Binary
Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”) entropy encoder. Both encoders are asymmetric
compressors because it takes a longer period of time for them to compress data than to
decompress data. See https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/2 ... s-part-ii/


Image



See http://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/fall03/c ... torial.pdf
at 7:


Image


Moreover, the H.264 Standard requires a bit-flag descriptor, which is set to
determine the correct decoder for the corresponding encoder. As shown below, if the flag
= 0, then CAVLC must have been selected as the encoder; if the flag = 1, then CABAC
must have been selected as the encoder. See
https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp ... type=items
(Rec. ITU-T H.264 (04/2013)) at 80:


Image


33. The Accused Instrumentalities compress the at least the portion of the data
block with the selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or more, compression
algorithms. After its selection, the asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or CABAC) will
compress the video data, in accordance with the specifications of the profile and level
selected, to provide various compressed data blocks. See
https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/2 ... s-part-ii/:


Image


See
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
at 13:


Image



34. On information and belief, Defendants also directly infringe and continue
to infringe other claims of the ‘610 patent, for similar reasons as explained above with
respect to Claim 1 of the ‘610 patent.

35. On information and belief, use of the Accused Instrumentalities in their
ordinary and customary fashion results in infringement of the methods claimed by the ‘610
patent.

36. On information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘610
patent since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter, and on information
and belief, Defendants knew of the ‘610 patent and knew of their infringement, including
by way of this lawsuit.

37. Upon information and belief, the affirmative acts of each of Defendants of
making, using, and selling the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing implementation
services and technical support to users of the Accused Instrumentalities, have induced since
the filing of this Amended Complaint and continue to induce users of the Accused
Instrumentalities to use them in their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘610 patent
by practicing a method, comprising: determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a
portion of a data block having video or audio data; selecting one or more compression
algorithms from among a plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the at least the
portion of the data block based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput
of a communication channel, at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms being
asymmetric; and compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected
compression algorithm after selecting the one or more, compression algorithms. For
example, Sling Media instructs customers that “Sling Media believes their programming
methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
choses the parameters” https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940. For example, DISH
instructs customers (e.g., of the Hopper with Sling) that they can, “Watch Live TV: Live
sporting events, weather, news, and more – with a broadband-connected, Sling-enabled
DVR and DISH Anywhere, you can watch all of your favorite channels anywhere you go!
Watch Recorded TV: Access recorded shows from your broadband-connected, Slingenabled
DVR anywhere. You can even start watching on your TV and resume watching
later on your computer or mobile device!”. See, e.g., https://www.myDISH.com/DISHanywhere.
For example, Arris instructs its customers that the MS4000 can “[t]ranscode to
H.264 with adaptive bitrate up to 4 Live/DVR streams”. See, e.g.,
https://www.Arris.com/globalassets/reso ... ms4000.pdf.
For similar reasons, each of Defendants also induces its customers to use the Accused
Instrumentalities to infringe other claims of the ‘610 patent. Each of Defendants
specifically intended and was aware that these normal and customary activities would
infringe the ‘610 patent. Each of Defendants performed the acts that constitute induced
infringement, since the filing of the Complaint, and would induce actual infringement, with
the knowledge of the ‘610 patent and with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the
probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement. On information and belief,
each of Defendants engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Accused
Instrumentalities. Accordingly, each of Defendants has induced, since the filing of the
Complaint, and continue to induce users of the Accused Instrumentalities to use the
Accused Instrumentalities in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘610 patent,
knowing that such use constitutes infringement of the ‘610 patent.

38. By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United
States the Accused Instrumentalities, and touting the benefits of using the Accused
Instrumentalities’ compression features, each of Defendants has injured Realtime and is
liable to Realtime for infringement of the ‘610 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

39. As a result of the infringement of the ‘610 patent by Defendants, Plaintiff
Realtime is entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate Defendants’
infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT II
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,934,535


40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs
above, as if fully set forth herein.

41. Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
8,934,535 (“the ‘535 patent”) entitled “Systems and methods for video and audio data
storage and distribution.” The ‘535 patent was duly and legally issued by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office on January 13, 2015. A true and correct copy of the
‘535 patent is included as Exhibit B.

42. On information and belief, Sling TV has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States Sling TV products and services that infringe the
‘535 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing
products include, without limitation, Sling TV’s streaming video products and services
compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g.,
the Sling Orange and Sling Blue TV services, and all versions and variations thereof
since the issuance of the ‘535 patent (“Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
https://www.Sling.com/ (“Sling TV offers two domestic streaming services: The singlestream
Sling Orange service and the multi-stream Sling Blue service.”);

_in/ (“OTA broadcasts use MPEG-2, which is far less efficient than the H.264 used by
Sling, which needs far less data than MPEG-2 to deliver similar quality.”).

43. On information and belief, Sling Media has made, used, offered for sale,
sold and/or imported into the United States Sling Media products and services that
infringe the ‘535 patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these
infringing products include, without limitation, Sling Media’s streaming video products
and services compliant with various versions of the H.264 video compression standard,
such as, e.g., Slingbox set-top boxes (including, but not limited to, Slingbox 500,
Slingbox M2, Slingbox M1, Slingbox 350, and Sling Adapter), and all versions and
variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘535 patent (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
See, e.g., http://www.tivocommunity.com/community/ ... eo.504853/
(“For the newer Slingboxes the video is H.264.”);
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“I have the SlingBox Solo and by all accounts
it streams h.264.”).

44. On information and belief, DISH has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States DISH products and services that infringe the ‘535
patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
include, without limitation, DISH’s streaming video products and services compliant with
various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., the DISH TV
service, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘535 patent (“DISH
Accused Instrumentalities”). See, e.g.,
https://forum.DISH.com/viewtopic.php?t=9864&p=58341 (“atellite services (e.g.,
DirecTV, XstreamHD and DISH Network) utilize the 1080p/24-30 format with MPEG-4
AVC/H.264 encoding for pay-per-view movies that are downloaded in advance via satellite
or on-demand via broadband.”); http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“For HD video DN exclusively
uses H.264 compression (sometimes ambiguously referred to here as MPEG-4, as there is
more than one MPEG-4 video compression format). H.264 is about 2X more efficient than
MPEG-2 for the same video quality.”).

45. On information and belief, Arris has made, used, offered for sale, sold
and/or imported into the United States Arris products and services that infringe the ‘535
patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
include, without limitation, Arris’s streaming video products and services compliant with
various versions of the H.264 video compression standard, such as, e.g., Arris MS4000,
and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ‘535 patent (“Accused
Instrumentalities”). See, e.g., http://www.Arris.com/products/media-streamer-ms4000/
(“Transcode to H.264 with adaptive bitrate up to 4 Live/DVR streams”).

46. On information and belief, each of Defendants has directly infringed and
continues to infringe the ‘535 patent, for example, through its own use and testing of the
Accused Instrumentalities, which when used, practices the methods claimed by at least
Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent, including a method, comprising: determining a parameter of
at least a portion of a data block; selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from
among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute;
compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected one or more
asymmetric compressors to provide one or more compressed data blocks; and storing at
least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks. Upon information and belief,
each of Defendants uses the Accused Instrumentalities to practice infringing methods for
their own internal non-testing business purposes, while testing the Accused
Instrumentalities, and while providing technical support and repair services for the
Accused Instrumentalities to each of Defendants’ customers.

47. The DISH Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
portion of a video data block. Different parameters correspond with, for example, different
moment to moment requirements, e.g., the degree of motion of a video data block at any
given time. See, e.g., http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of
the DN HD channels clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates
are averages only. DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their
compressors can dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based
on moment to moment requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far
less than a high action scene on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change
drastically and the average rate does appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality.
Furthermore DN reduces the resolution of a number of their HD channels from
1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to a softer picture more amenable to higher
compression.”).

48. The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at least a
portion of a video data block, e.g. based on different types of content.
https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/ ... al-details (“First off, I
found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).

49. The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities determine a parameter of at
least a portion of a video data block. Different parameters are determined, for example,
based on statistics observed by the Slingplayer client. See, e.g.,
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+ while connected to the Slingbox.”).
50. As, for example, explained above, the Accused Instrumentalities
determine a parameter of at least a portion of a video data block. As shown below,
examples of such parameters include bitrate (or max video bitrate) and resolution
parameters. Different parameters correspond with different end applications. H.264
provides for multiple different ranges of such parameters, each included in the “profiles”
and “levels” defined by the H.264 standard. See


Image



http://www.axis.com/files/whitepaper/wp ... 803_lo.pdf at 5:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC:


Image



51. The DISH Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads ... ct.256211/
(“Subtracting out the audio data rates, most of the DN HD channels
clock in less than 4 Mbit/s for the video stream. However these rates are averages only.
DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their compressors can
dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based on moment to moment
requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far less than a high action scene
on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change drastically and the average rate does
appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality. Furthermore DN reduces the
resolution of a number of their HD channels from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to
a softer picture more amenable to higher compression.”).

52. The Sling TV Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
https://www.cuttingcords.com/home/2015/ ... al-details (“First off, I
found out that the streams were of differing quality depending on what channel you were
watching. Sling has apparently tailored different encoding profiles to different types of
content which is nice. … Below I have listed the encoding profile that each channel is
using. As you are probably aware, they are adaptive quality and jump between various
qualities depending on how much bandwidth is available at any given time.”).

53. The Sling Media Accused Instrumentalities select one or more compression
algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined
parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communications channel, at least one of the
plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric. See, e.g.,
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940 (“Sling Media believes their programming
methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on the statistics observed by the
Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the algorithim which dynamically
choses the parameters by pressing [Alt]+[Shift]+ while connected to the Slingbox.”).

54. Based on a throughput of the communications channel—reflected by the
max video bitrate—and resolution parameter identified, any H.264-compliant system
such as the Accused Instrumentalities would determine which profile (e.g., “baseline,”
“extended,” “main”, or “high”) corresponds with that parameter, then select between at
least two asymmetric compressors. If baseline or extended is the corresponding profile,
then the system will select a Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (“CAVLC”)
entropy encoder. If main or high is the corresponding profile, then the system will select
a Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”) entropy encoder. Both
encoders are asymmetric compressors because it takes a longer period of time for them to
compress data than to decompress data. See


Image



https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/2 ... s-part-ii/
See

http://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/fall03/c ... torial.pdf at 7:


Image


Moreover, the H.264 Standard requires a bit-flag descriptor, which is set to
determine the correct decoder for the corresponding encoder. As shown below, if the flag
= 0, then CAVLC must have been selected as the encoder; if the flag = 1, then CABAC
must have been selected as the encoder. See
https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp ... type=items
(Rec. ITU-T H.264 (04/2013)) at 80:


Image



55. The Accused Instrumentalities compress the at least the portion of the data
block with the selected one or more asymmetric compressors to provide one or more
compressed data blocks. After its selection, the asymmetric compressor (CAVLC or
CABAC) will compress the video data to provide various compressed data blocks. See
https://sonnati.wordpress.com/2007/10/2 ... s-part-ii/:


Image



See
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
at 13:


Image


See http://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol3_issue4/BM34399403.pdf at 2:


Image


56. On information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities store at least a
portion of the one or more compressed data blocks in buffers, hard disk, or other forms of
memory/storage.

57. On information and belief, Defendants also directly infringe and continue
to infringe other claims of the ‘535 patent, for similar reasons as explained above with
respect to Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent.

58. On information and belief, use of the Accused Instrumentalities in their
ordinary and customary fashion results in infringement of the methods claimed by the
‘535 patent.

59. On information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the ‘535
patent since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter, and on information
and belief, Defendants knew of the ‘535 patent and knew of their infringement, including
by way of this lawsuit.

60. Upon information and belief, the affirmative acts of each of Defendants of
making, using, and selling the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing implementation
services and technical support to users of the Accused Instrumentalities, have induced since
the filing of this Amended Complaint and continue to induce users of the Accused
Instrumentalities to use them in their normal and customary way to infringe the ‘535 patent
by practicing a method, comprising: determining a parameter of at least a portion of a data
block; selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of
compressors based upon the determined parameter or attribute; compressing the at least the
portion of the data block with the selected one or more asymmetric compressors to provide
one or more compressed data blocks; and storing at least a portion of the one or more
compressed data blocks. For example, Sling Media instructs customers that “Sling Media
believes their programming methodology choses the best encoding parameteres based on
the statistics observed by the Slingplayer. You can see the statistics that it uses for the
algorithim which dynamically choses the parameters”
https://answers.Slingbox.com/thread/3940. For example, DISH instructs customers (e.g.,
of the Hopper with Sling) that they can, “Watch Live TV: Live sporting events, weather,
news, and more – with a broadband-connected, Sling-enabled DVR and DISH Anywhere,
you can watch all of your favorite channels anywhere you go! Watch Recorded TV: Access
recorded shows from your broadband-connected, Sling-enabled DVR anywhere. You can
even start watching on your TV and resume watching later on your computer or mobile
device!”. See, e.g., https://www.myDISH.com/DISH-anywhere. For example, Arris
instructs its customers that the MS4000 can “[t]ranscode to H.264 with adaptive bitrate up
to 4 Live/DVR streams”. See, e.g., https://www.Arris.com/globalassets/reso ... ms4000.pdf.

For similar reasons, each of Defendants also induces
its customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities to infringe other claims of the ‘535
patent. Each Defendants specifically intended and was aware that these normal and
customary activities would infringe the ‘535 patent. Each of Defendants performed the
acts that constitute induced infringement, since the filing of the Complaint, and would
induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ‘535 patent and with the knowledge,
or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
On information and belief, each of Defendants engaged in such inducement to promote the
sales of the Accused Instrumentalities. Accordingly, each of Defendants has induced, since
the filing of the Complaint, and continue to induce users of the Accused Instrumentalities
to use the Accused Instrumentalities in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the
‘535 patent, knowing that such use constitutes infringement of the ‘535 patent.

61. By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United
States the Accused Instrumentalities, and touting the benefits of using the Accused
Instrumentalities’ compression features, each of Defendants has injured Realtime and is
liable to Realtime for infringement of the ‘535 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

62. As a result of the infringement of the ‘535 patent by Defendants, Plaintiff
Realtime is entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for
Defendants’ infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made
of the invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Realtime respectfully requests that this Court enter:
a. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendants have directly infringed,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘610 patent and the ‘535 patent;

b. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendants have indirectly infringed,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘610 patent and the ‘535 patent,
since the filing of the Complaint in this action;

b. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further acts of
infringement of the ‘610 patent and the ‘535 patent;

c. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff its damages,
costs, expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement
of the ‘610 patent and the ‘535 patent, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284; and

d. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and
to pay supplemental damages to Realtime, including without limitation, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest;

e. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees against
Defendants; and

f. Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under
the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by
jury of any issues so triable by right.

Dated: November 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marc A. Fenster
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
C. Jay Chung (CA SBN 252794)
Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 826-7474
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Eric B. Fenster (CO Atty Reg # 33264)
ERIC B. FENSTER, LLC
1522 Blake Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 921-3530
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the counsel of record are being served on November 6, 2017,
with a copy of this document via electronic service.

/s/ Marc A. Fens

:judge:

Source: Lawsuit
12' Cosmos Primestar (refurbished)36" SuperJack Actuator
Chaparral Corotor Feed (Norsat 8115, 4106A)
ZGemmaH7 UHD, OctagonSX88 HD, Edision UHD, DSR-6000, DSR-6050
Clarke Belt: 22W - 133W

User avatar
fatso
TVRO Guru
TVRO Guru
Articles: 0
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:46 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by fatso » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:28 pm

Interesting. :thinking

Charlie got caught :lol: and will pay a fine to settle like he did with Tivo years ago. Sling TV prices will have to go up now to pay for these patented compression codecs or they will be forced to use standard codecs and consume more bandwidth.
12ft Mesh Dish
C-Band Enthusiast since 1983

Foxcreek
TVRO Guru
TVRO Guru
Articles: 0
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:15 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by Foxcreek » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:21 pm

All,

As a student of Charlie Ergon for many years this latest lawsuit is par for the course.
Charlie's entire carreer since he left gambling for a living has been one fiasco after another !
What's totally amazing is he somehow manages to survive. I'm sure if it were you or me pulling
these shenanigans we'd be severely punished. You'll recall i've posted about this previously when
I referred to him as a "privileged character"

foxcreek :cool2

Arion
TVRO Guru
TVRO Guru
Articles: 0
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:05 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by Arion » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:39 am

Turn about is fair play. They even think that your 'stealing' their programming without a subscription and they jump on the poor sap with two boots of their lawyers around your neck. But they'll just turn around and dump the fine on their subscribers through various little charges here and there. And then they can't figure out why so many people are dumping them. If I could go a la carte I'd have a subscription to the two or three channels that I really want to watch. If I could do that for $20 a month with no extra or hidden fee's I'd probably do that.
10' Tek C-band dish, 1.2 meter KU band dish, ASC1 mover, Octagon/Zgemma/Edison dual band STB's. Running OpenPli on all.

User avatar
ftaer
TVRO Member
TVRO Member
Articles: 0
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by ftaer » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:49 pm

Foxcreek wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:21 pm
What's totally amazing is he somehow manages to survive.
Easy. Masonic networking and kangaroo courts staffed with stooge :3stooges: and spineless Judges who are told before hand how they must rule or risk being removed from the bench. One percenters like Crooked Charlie, can even beat RICO charges:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dish ... B920150721

The system is rigged folks! :reallyangry
Standing at your doorstep watching you. :finger

elko
TVRO Guru
TVRO Guru
Articles: 0
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:02 pm

Re: Did Sling TV 'steal' its streaming technology?

Post by elko » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:52 pm

DN multiplexes several HD channels per transponder, and their compressors can
dynamically allocate higher or lower rates for each channel based on moment to moment
requirements. A static scene on one channel would require far less than a high action scene
on another. Still the data rates do not appear to change drastically and the average rate does
appear to be a reasonable predictor of video quality. Furthermore DN reduces the
resolution of a number of their HD channels from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. This leads to
a softer picture more amenable to higher compression.”).

Interesting. I don't think dtv does the same, hence the better picture quality. Someone even suggested Shaw up in Canada puts out close to 19Mbits/s and has the best pq of them all.

https://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/thread ... t.256211/

Post Reply

Return to “IPTV News”