`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`I. Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)
`(nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)
`601 Marshall St.
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 752-3100
`Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`Darryl M. Woo (SBN 100513)
`(dwoo@goodwinlaw.com)
`Three Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 733-6000
`Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
`ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON
`SIGNATURE PAGE
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`JBF Interlude 2009 Ltd. - Israel
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`JBF INTERLUDE 2009 LTD –
`ISRAEL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`QUIBI HOLDINGS LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-2299
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff JBF Interlude Ltd – Israel (“Plaintiff” or “Eko”), parent of U.S.
`subsidiary Interlude U.S., Inc. d/b/a Eko, brings this Complaint against Defendant
`Quibi Holdings LLC (“Defendant” or “Quibi”) for patent infringement and
`misappropriation of trade secrets.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is a case to stop the theft of Eko’s technology by Quibi, alleging a
`1.
`civil action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35
`U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade
`Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.
`Clifton Smith (“Smith”) and Joseph Burfitt (“Burfitt”), two employees
`2.
`of Quibi, are where Quibi’s theft began. Both Burfitt and Smith previously worked
`for Snapchat, Inc. (which later changed its name to Snap, Inc.; collectively,
`“Snapchat”) and were provided access to Eko’s confidential and proprietary
`technology in the course of their employment at Snapchat. Before receiving Eko’s
`information, Snapchat executed a non-disclosure agreement with Eko, which
`required Snapchat and its employees, including Burfitt and Smith, to maintain
`Eko’s disclosed information as confidential, with the understanding that Eko’s
`technology was proprietary and valuable. As Snapchat employees involved in
`product and content development, Burfitt and Smith were both copied on email
`communications disclosing Eko’s confidential and trade secret information, and
`both were required to maintain the confidentiality of that information and not use it
`for any purpose other than as expressly permitted by Eko.
`Upon information and belief, Burfitt and Smith left their employment
`3.
`with Snapchat in October 2018 to join Quibi. Prior to their doing so, on or around
`March 23, 2017, Yoni Bloch, CEO and co-founder of Eko, had met in Los Angeles,
`California, with Jeffrey Katzenberg, co-founder of investment and holding
`company WnderCo Holdings LLC (“WndrCo”). During this meeting, Mr. Bloch
`- 1 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`presented Eko’s technology to Mr. Katzenberg, including details regarding
`technology that Quibi now uses in its touted Turnstyle feature. Mr. Katzenberg
`expressed interest in investing and owning a majority stake in Eko, and Mr. Bloch
`sent materials to Mr. Katzenberg, including a “sizzle” and APIs/SDKs that
`embodied the functionality Quibi now calls “Turnstyle,” as alleged below.
`Later that year, on or about October 18, 2017, Mr. Katzenberg founded
`4.
`WCI One, LLC, which he later renamed Quibi Holdings, LLC. As of February
`2019, Quibi informed Eko that it had not yet built any applications related to Eko’s
`technology solution, and Eko informed Quibi that it had pending patent applications
`on Eko’s technology. One of Eko’s applications, which had been filed August 26,
`2015, resulted in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765 (the “Eko ’765
`Patent”).
`After initial discussions, Quibi went silent. Upon information and
`5.
`belief, Burfitt and Smith left their employment with Snapchat in or around October
`2018 to join Quibi. Quibi then secretly filed an application that led to the issuance
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,554,926 (“the Quibi ’926 Patent”). The Quibi ’926 Patent
`was directed to the same technology Eko had previously disclosed to Snapchat, and
`to both Burfitt and Smith, who by now worked for Quibi and were listed as
`inventors on Quibi’s ’926 Patent. Despite the stunning similarity between the
`Quibi ’926 Patent and Eko’s earlier-filed ’765 Patent, Quibi did not refer anywhere
`to Eko’s patented technologies.
`Then, without any notice to or consent from Eko, Quibi introduced a
`6.
`new platform claimed to be its own at the January 2020 CES (Consumer
`Electronics Show), a major annual industry trade show. For the centerpiece of its
`keynote, Quibi touted a technology it called “Turnstyle”—the exact same
`technology Eko had earlier presented to Snapchat and Quibi.
`On January 28, 2020, within weeks of Quibi’s introduction of
`7.
`- 2 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:4
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Turnstyle at CES, Eko wrote to Quibi demanding that Quibi cease and desist from
`any unauthorized use of Eko’s proprietary technology. Exhibit A (January 28
`Letter from Eko). However, before Quibi responded, Quibi obtained issuance of its
`’926 Patent on February 4, 2020. When Eko examined the claims and disclosures
`of the Quibi ’926 patent, which claimed priority to a provisional application Quibi
`filed only as early as March 2019, Eko was shocked to discover that they
`corresponded almost exactly with Eko’s ’765 patent disclosures, filed years earlier
`in August 2015.
`Quibi dismissively responded on February 10, 2020 to Eko’s letter,
`8.
`denying any infringement by Quibi. Exhibit B (February 10 Letter from Quibi).
`Quibi claimed that Smith was a non-technical person and disputed Quibi’s
`infringement allegations.
`Quibi’s statements were false. Mr. Smith was a listed inventor on
`9.
`Quibi’s ’926 patent. And the very noninfringement argument put forward by Quibi
`was inconsistent with Quibi’s own statements to the press and in the ’926 patent
`with respect to how Quibi’s TurnStyle technology worked. In fact, the press
`statements and Quibi’s ’926 patent only confirmed that Quibi Turnstyle was
`infringing.
`10. As a result, Eko replied to Quibi’s February 10 letter on March 6,
`2020, reiterating its concerns and providing Quibi’s counsel with additional facts
`that Eko had uncovered. Exhibit C (March 6, 2020 Letter to Quibi). Eko requested
`that Quibi respond to Eko’s concerns. Instead of replying, Quibi responded by
`suing the incorrect entity.
`11. Because Quibi refuses to cooperate with Eko or voluntarily rectify its
`blatant and egregious violation of Eko’s intellectual property rights, Eko now seeks
`relief from this Court to enjoin Defendant from using Eko’s confidential and trade
`secret information, from infringing Eko’s ’765 patent, and to require Quibi to
`- 3 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`assign Quibi’s ’926 patent to Eko because any innovation underlying Quibi’s ’926
`patent is Eko’s, not Quibi’s. Eko further seeks an award of damages and attorneys’
`fees for the injury it has incurred as a result of Defendant’s trade secret
`misappropriation and willful infringement of the Eko ’765 patent.
` THE PARTIES
`Eko is an Israeli corporation with its principal and usual place of
`12.
`business located in Tel Aviv, Israel. Eko is the parent corporation of Interlude U.S.,
`Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal and usual place of business located at
`235 Park Avenue South, New York, New York. Eko is a media and technology
`company that specializes in the distribution of interactive multimedia videos.
`13. Upon information and belief, Quibi is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business located at 6555 Barton Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
`Quibi, which was formerly known as WCI One, LLC, is also a media and
`technology company that focuses on distributing short-form mobile videos.
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This is a civil action, for patent infringement under the patent laws of
`14.
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and for misappropriation of trade secrets
`under the DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.
`15.
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Eko’s claims
`for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 271 et seq.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Eko’s federal trade
`16.
`secret claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because
`Plaintiff has asserted a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend
`Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
`17.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Quibi because its
`headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, and it therefore resides in this District.
`- 4 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:6
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`18. Venue is proper in this judicial district for Eko’s claims for patent
`infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). Quibi’s headquarters
`are in Los Angeles, California, and it therefore resides in this judicial district
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`19. Venue is proper in this judicial district for Eko’s federal trade secret
`misappropriation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of
`the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the State of California and in this
`judicial district.
`
` FACTS
`Eko’s Groundbreaking Innovation
`20. Eko is an innovative media and technology company that, since 2010,
`has been developing and obtaining intellectual property protection for its inventions
`in streaming and interactive media, seamless video streaming, video player
`technology, user experience and video authoring. Eko provides, for example, an
`interactive video platform in which consumers can optimize video viewing on a
`mobile device, such as a mobile phone.
`21. Eko has invested substantially in research and development of the
`technologies of its platform, including spending tens of millions of dollars and
`thousands of man-hours to develop groundbreaking technology related to its
`seamless horizontal to vertical switching technology for mobile devices. The
`sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information and trade secrets developed
`through this investment enable Eko to succeed in its business.
`22. At all times, Eko has taken reasonable measures to protect the
`confidentiality of its proprietary trade secret information, including storing its
`source code on password-protected servers and disclosing it only on a need-to-
`know or protected NDA basis. Eko requires, for example, that all employees and
`third parties with access to Eko’s proprietary information execute confidentiality
`- 5 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:7
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`and non-disclosure agreements before being granted access.
`23. Eko also seeks patent protection for particular innovations. To date,
`Eko has over 18 pending patent applications and 15 issued patents, including the
`Eko ’765 patent at issue in this lawsuit.
`The Patent In Suit
`24. Plaintiff Eko is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest,
`including the right to sue for damages, in and to United States Patent No.
`10,460,765 (“the Eko ’765 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods for Adaptive
`and Responsive Video,” which was duly and legally issued on October 29, 2019.
`The ’765 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 14/835,857, filed on
`August 26, 2015. The ’857 application published as U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2017/0062012 on March 2, 2017. A copy of the ’765 Patent is attached to the
`Complaint as Exhibit D.
`25. The Eko ’765 Patent is valid and enforceable under United States
`patent laws.
`26. The claims of the Eko ’765 patent are directed to systems and methods
`that improve the technology involved in playing back video presentations. It is
`particularly useful for mobile devices, such as handheld phones and tablets which
`are easily and often rotated between vertical “portrait” and horizontal “landscape”
`views. Rather than crop or letterbox a presentation as did the prior art, Eko’s
`invention advances video display technology by providing seamless transition from
`a first state of a video presentation to a second state of video presentation. In
`particular, the ’765 patent describes simultaneously receiving two video
`presentations, playing the first video based on properties of a playback device,
`providing a mapping of media player height and width ranges, determining that a
`playback window has changed dimensions (e.g., from vertical to horizontal), and,
`using the mapping, seamlessly transitioning from the first video to the second
`- 6 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:8
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`video. The properties can include, for example, physical orientation, physical
`screen size, screen resolution, and/or window size of the device; the second video
`may include, for example, different video or audio content, different dimensional
`ratios, and/or different video quality; and the transition from the first video to the
`second may include changing the position, the shape, and/or the size of a viewing
`region.
`27. Claim 1 of the ’765 Patent, for example, recites as follows:
`A computer-implemented method comprising:
`identifying one or more properties associated with a user device;
`receiving video from a first video presentation;
`receiving, simultaneously with the video from the first video presentation,
`video from a second, different video presentation;
`configuring a first state of the video from the first video presentation based
`on at least one of the properties associated with the user device;
`presenting the video from the first video presentation according to the first
`state;
`providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window height
`ranges and media player window width ranges; and
`during playback of the video from the first video presentation:
`determining that a media player window in which the video is playing
`has been resized to change from first dimensions comprising a first
`height and a first width to second, different dimensions comprising a
`second height and a second width;
`determining that the second height is included in a particular one of the
`media player window height ranges;
`determining that the second width is included in a particular one of the
`media player window width ranges;
`- 7 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:9
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation
`is mapped to both the particular media player window height range and
`the particular media player window width range; and
`in response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video
`from the first video presentation to the video from the second video
`presentation based on the change.
`
`
`Eko’s Confidential Disclosures To Snapchat Employees
`In July 2015, Eko began negotiations with Snapchat regarding
`28.
`integrating Eko technology with Snapchat’s platform, where Eko would work with
`Snapchat to distribute interactive shows. Snapchat personnel involved in these
`discussions included Marcus Wiley and Smith.
`In August 2015, Eko filed an application for a patent that eventually
`29.
`issued as the Eko ’765 Patent, disclosing and describing responsive videos that
`change seamlessly based on device orientation, as depicted in Figure 2 of the Eko
`’765 patent (reproduced below):
`
`
`
`
`In order to facilitate further discussions, Eko and Snapchat entered into
`30.
`a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Snapchat NDA”) on December 9, 2015.
`The Snapchat NDA specified that either party receiving confidential information
`- 8 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:10
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`from the disclosing party would not disclose, publish, distribute, or otherwise
`disseminate confidential information to anyone other than its employees and those
`bound by the confidentiality obligations as restrictive as the Snapchat NDA itself.
`This approach was consistent with Eko’s approach to protection of its technology,
`which includes storage of code on password protected servers, requiring non-
`disclosure agreements with third parties, and training of employees not to use or
`disclose confidential, commercially valuable information.
`31. As alleged above, Eko’s CEO and co-founder had met with Mr.
`Katzenberg on or around March 23, 2017, and disclosed to Mr. Katzenberg Eko’s
`technology, including details regarding the technology that Quibi now uses in its
`touted Turnstyle feature.
`32. During this same visit to Los Angeles, Mr. Bloch also met with Smith,
`who was then employed with Snapchat, and shared information with him under
`NDA regarding Eko’s proprietary technology.
`33. On separate occasions in June and July 2017, Snapchat personnel
`expressed continued interest in Eko, including statements to the effect that “Eko
`does interactivity best.”
`34. During March through May 2018, still pursuant to NDA, Eko and
`Snapchat moved forward to integrate Eko content onto the Snapchat platform. In
`particular, Defendants Burfitt and Smith were copied on email communications
`between Snapchat and Eko discussing the integration of Eko’s proprietary
`technology to Snapchat’s staging application, utilizing technology that Quibi now
`uses for its Turnstyle feature.
`Background and Formation of Quibi
`35. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Katzenberg on or about
`October 18, 2017, founded Quibi initially as WCI One, LLC a Delaware limited
`liability company. WCI One, LLC filed a Certificate of Amendment to the
`- 9 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:11
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Delaware Secretary of State to change its name to Quibi Holdings, LLC on May 16,
`2019.
`36. Upon information and belief, on around October 2018, numerous
`Snapchat employees left Snapchat to join Quibi’s team, including Clifton Smith and
`Joseph Burfitt.
`In or around February 2019, Quibi informed Eko that it had not yet
`37.
`started building any applications. But a mere one month later, Quibi demonstrated
`a feature to Eko in which video could transition seamlessly from horizontal to
`vertical orientations. Eko informed Quibi that Eko had applied for a patent on this
`exact technology, but Quibi never followed up regarding licensing of Eko’s patent,
`which issued as the Eko ’765 patent on October 29, 2019.
`38. Then, in January 2020, Quibi introduced its new platform at the
`January 2020 CES, featuring technology Quibi called “Turnstyle.” As alleged
`above, the Quibi ’926 Patent was issued on February 4, 2020. Both Quibi’s
`Turnstyle and Quibi’s ’926 patent feature the technology claimed by Eko’s ’765
`patent.
`
`Defendant’s Improper Use of Eko’s Proprietary Technology
`39. Quibi has publicly disclosed that Turnstyle features the exact same
`technology claimed by Eko’s ’765 patent. For example, Quibi asserted during its
`2020 CES keynote that it had “invented a new experience and technology that we
`call Turnstyle” that allows users to “move at will between full screen portrait and
`full screen landscape” that “required engineering breakthroughs in technology and
`user experience.”1
`40. Quibi also publicly stated, numerous times, that Turnstyle is a
`technology that allows users to seamlessly switch between portrait and landscape
`viewing modes and experience the same scenes in different perspectives in those
`
`1 See CES 2020 keynote, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXOG9yNRjxk
`- 10 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:12
`
`
`two modes. For example:
`• “Quibi on Wednesday revealed a new mobile video technique called
`Turnstyle that allows mobile video consumers to seamlessly switch
`between watching the same video on their smartphones either vertically
`or horizontally. . . . The technology, which was demoed to reporters on
`Tuesday at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, is a huge
`part of what Quibi thinks will help differentiate its product from other
`mobile video experiences, like Snapchat or Instagram. . . . The new
`format allows Quibi's users to experience the same scenes from slightly
`different perspectives. . . . ‘Vertical feels quite intimate,’ said Catherine
`Hardwicke, a veteran Hollywood director and executive producer of the
`new Quibi show ‘Don't Look Deeper.’ ‘You're quite closer [to the
`camera] and you don't have all the cinema-scope around you. In a
`landscape format, you feel more the environment — what the character is
`interacting with. It's interesting — you could watch the whole show
`twice."2 (emphasis added)
`• “Today at the company's CES keynote, we finally learned about its killer
`feature: Turnstyle, a patent-pending technology that lets you easily switch
`between portrait and landscape viewing modes, all the while keeping
`what matters in frame. . . . As I watched Tom Conrad, Quibi's chief
`product officer (and the founder of Pandora), effortlessly jump between
`portrait and landscape modes, I thought to myself, ‘Why hasn't anyone
`done this before?’”3 (emphasis added)
`
`
`2 https://www.axios.com/quibi-unveils-turnstyle-its-flagship-mobile-video-format-03a19028-0a7e-4d1a-8173-
`211cd979ee71.html
`
` 3
`
`
`
` https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/08/quibi-mobile-video-turnstyle/
`
`- 11 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:13
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`• “Quibi is ready to talk about the app’s signature technology, Turnstyle,
`however, which lets users switch between portrait and landscape video
`instantly when they rotate their phones.”4 (emphasis added)
`• “Specifically, Quibi is using a new engineering technology it’s calling
`‘Turnstyle,’ which allows the viewer to move between portrait mode
`viewing and landscape viewing, seamlessly — and without any black
`bars to fill the rest of the screen when switching to landscape video. This
`technology, when demoed, worked very well. The shift from portrait to
`landscape and back again was smooth and fast — an almost
`imperceptible transition.”5 (emphasis added)
`41. To show how the Turnstyle functionality applies the invention of the
`’765 patent, below are screen captures from a recent demonstration of the Turnstyle
`feature, paired with a tweet which appears to be from Quibi’s Twitter account.
`
`
`
`42. These features, however, are also disclosed and claimed by the Eko
`
`4 https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/20/quibis-streaming-service-app-launches-in-app-stores-for-pre-
`order/2020/02/20/quibis-streaming-service-app-launches-in-app-stores-for-pre-order/
`5 https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/08/quibi-ces/
`
`- 12 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:14
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`’765 patent. For example, Claim 1 of the Eko ’765 patent describes the following
`features: (i) “providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window
`height ranges and media player window width ranges,” (ii) “during playback of a
`video from the first video presentation: determining that a media player window in
`which the video is playing has been resized to change from first dimensions . . . to
`second, different dimensions,” (iii) “evaluating the mapping to determine that the
`second video presentation is mapped to both the particular media player window
`height range and the particular media player window width range,” and (iv) “in
`response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video from the first
`video presentation to the video from the second video presentation based on the
`change.”
`43. Referencing Figures 5A and 5B, for example, the Eko ’765 patent’s
`specification describes how these “mapping,” “determining,” and “evaluating”
`steps are performed so that users can seamlessly switch between portrait and
`landscape modes and get different perspectives of the same scene when they rotate
`their phones. It describes in relevant part:
`FIGS. 5A and 5B depict a change in device property which results
`in the viewport 510a to a lecture video 500 changing both size
`and location. In the first instance, in FIG. 5A, the viewport 510a
`allows the user to view the full height (300 units) and width (450
`units) of the video 500, thereby displaying the full dimensions of
`the lecture video 500, including the speaker, presentation screen,
`and audience. The viewport 510a is a rectangular shape (although
`other shapes are contemplated), and the upper left-hand corner of
`the viewport 510a is positioned at coordinates (0, 0). Referring
`now to FIG. 5B, upon detecting a change in a property of the
`device (e.g., the device is rotated from landscape to portrait
`- 13 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:15
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`mode), the viewport 510b is modified in size and repositioned to
`better accommodate the modified state of the device. Specifically,
`the viewport 510b is modified to a size that better fills the screen
`of the user device (height=300 units, width=200 units) and is
`positioned with the upper left-hand corner at coordinates (200, 0),
`to better focus on the speaker. The video and viewport may be
`zoomed out or in so that the viewport fills the height and/or width
`of the device display.
`’765 patent, 6:60-7:13 (emphasis added).
`
`
`44. Quibi not only copied Eko’s technology, but applied for a patent on the
`exact same technology. A provisional application for Quibi’s ’926 patent was filed
`on March 11, 2019, and a nonprovisional application was filed two months later, on
`May 17, 2019. The Quibi ’926 patent issued on February 4, 2020.
`
`- 14 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 16 of 23 Page ID #:16
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`45. A cursory examination of Quibi’s ’926 patent and Eko’s ’765 patent
`reveals a striking resemblance. For example, there is a clear similarity in the aspect
`ratio solution between Figure 2 of the Eko ’765 patent and Figures 3A and 3B of
`the Quibi ’926 patent.
`
`
`Eko’s ’765 patent
`
`Quibi’s ’926 patent
`
`46. Moreover, like Eko, Quibi describes the use of “cropping” and
`“letterboxing” as conventional solutions to fix the problem relating to aspect ratio
`and the disadvantages of using “cropping” and “letterboxing.” The Eko ’765 patent
`describes “seamlessly transitioning from a first to a second video” depending on
`many different “properties” including “aspect ratio.” Eko ’765 patent, 1:35-2:11;
`4:46-49. It explains in relevant part:
`“Digital videos have fixed resolutions, fixed proportions, and fixed content.
`Dynamic changes to digital video are limited to adaptations in video size and
`quality to accommodate, for example, different device screen sizes or
`available communications bandwidth. However, such changes have their
`own disadvantages. For example, videos scaled to fit a screen size having a
`different aspect ratio are typically cropped, which results in a loss of content,
`or are letterboxed, with mattes abutting the video. . . . In general, the present
`disclosure describes a ‘smart video response’ technique, in which video
`- 15 -
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02299-CJC-MAA Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 17 of 23 Page ID #:17
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`content (streaming or otherwise) can adapt in real-time, with targeted,
`customized, or other responsive content, to changes in properties associated
`with a user device, all without scaling, letterboxing, or other noted
`disadvantages of the prior art.”)
`Eko ’765 patent, 1:25-33 (emphasis added). The Eko ’765 patent expressly
`mentions “aspect ratio” as one of the properties that triggers a change in how video
`is displayed on a mobile device. Eko ’765 patent, 4:46-49 (“Other properties of
`user devices, such as smartphone 200, can include screen resolution, aspect ratio,
`display proportions, and physical screen size.”) (emphasis added).
`47. The Quibi ’926 patent, similarly, explains in relevant part:
`“Such mobile devices place new demands on video content. One such
`demand relates to the aspect ratio (e.g., the ratio of a display width to a
`display height) of the video content. Under desired viewing conditions, a
`native aspect ratio of a video asset ( e.g., a source file containing video
`content) matches the aspect ratio of the display on which the video asset is
`presented. For example, when viewing a video asset on a display having a
`16:9 aspect ratio, it is desirable that the video asset itself have a 16:9 aspect
`ratio. If the video asset has an aspect ratio that differs from the aspect ratio of
`the display, one of two conventional solutions can be used to format the
`video asset for the display: either the video asset can be cropped to fit the
`display (e.g., via “pan and scan” techniques); or the video asset can be
`“letterboxed” by adding dummy content (e.g., black bars) to fill the regions
`of the display unoccupied by the video asset. Neither solution is desirable:
`cropping the video asset results in the cropped content being unviewable on
`the display (which can affect the viewer's understanding or appreciation of
`the video asset); and letterboxing the video asset results in regions of the
`display being effectively unused (which can impair visibility, especially on
`- 16 -
`COMPLAI