Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware limited
`liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. _______
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Robocast, Inc. (“Robocast”) brings this action for patent infringement under the
`
`laws of the United States relating to patents, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., against Defendant Netflix, Inc.
`
`(“Netflix”), hereby alleging as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Robocast is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Netflix is a limited liability company organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 100
`
`Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, California 95032. Upon information and belief, Netflix has
`
`appointed The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`as its registered agent for service of process.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2
`
`1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States.
`
`4.
`
`Netflix has elected, upon information and belief, to register under Delaware law
`
`and it has thereby acquiesced to personal jurisdiction in the courts of the State of Delaware.
`
`Upon further information and belief, Netflix has also submitted to the personal jurisdiction of
`
`this Court by committing the acts described below that establish its legal presence within the
`
`State of Delaware, including by purposefully providing access to its Netflix website, apps, and
`
`services, and directing the supply of information and services to Internet-browsing Delaware
`
`residents, and/or contracting to do the same, wherein the provision of such access and the
`
`directing of such information and services has involved and necessitated Netflix’s unauthorized
`
`and infringing practicing of the claimed inventions of the Patents-in-Suit. Said information and
`
`services include infringing automated video playlists, their corresponding digital Internet
`
`content, and associated digital advertising content. By virtue of its above-described actions,
`
`while engaging in the unauthorized and infringing practicing of the claimed inventions of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, Netflix has transacted business, performed services, contracted to supply
`
`services, caused tortious injury, regularly done or solicited business, and/or engaged in a
`
`persistent course of conduct within the State of Delaware, and Netflix has additionally derived
`
`substantial revenues from or as the result of the implicated information and services and/or
`
`associated advertising used, consumed, and/or presented in Delaware. In light of Netflix’s
`
`aforementioned contacts with the State of Delaware and its purposeful availment of the rights
`
`and benefits of Delaware law, maintenance of this suit would not offend traditional notions of
`
`fair play and substantial justice.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c),
`
`and (d) and 1400(b) because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3
`
`to the claims occurred in this judicial district, Netflix is subject to personal jurisdiction in and
`
`therefore resides in this judicial district, and Netflix has committed acts of patent infringement
`
`and has a regular presence in this judicial district.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`6.
`
`On December 26, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,155,451 (the “’451 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Automated Browsing System For Publishers And Users On Networks Serving Internet
`
`And Remote Devices,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office to inventor Damon C. Torres. Robocast is the sole owner by assignment of the entire
`
`rights, title, and interest in and to the ’451 Patent, including the rights to sue on and recover
`
`damages for any past infringements thereof. A true and correct copy of the ’451 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`7.
`
`On December 10, 2013, United States Patent No. 8,606,819 (the “’819 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Automated Content Scheduler And Displayer,” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventor Damon C. Torres. Robocast is the sole
`
`owner by assignment of the entire rights, title, and interest in and to the ’819 Patent, including
`
`the rights to sue on and recover damages for any past infringements thereof. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’819 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`8.
`
`On February 24, 2015, United States Patent No. 8,965,932 (the “’932 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Automated Content Scheduler And Displayer,” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office to inventor Damon C. Torres. Robocast is the sole
`
`owner by assignment of the entire rights, title, and interest in and to the ’932 Patent, including
`
`the rights to sue on and recover damages for any past infringements thereof. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’932 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`9.
`
`The ‘451 Patent, the ‘819 Patent, and the ‘932 Patent shall hereinafter be referred
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4
`
`to together, collectively, as the “Patents-in-Suit.” These three Patents-in-Suit all share a
`
`common specification, given that the ‘819 and ‘932 Patents are each continuations of the
`
`application that matured into the ‘451 Patent. Moreover, all three Patents-in-Suit share a
`
`common priority date of not later than September 3, 1996 based upon underlying provisional
`
`patent application No. 60/025,360.
`
`10.
`
`By way of background, through its founder Damon C. Torres, Robocast invented
`
`several new paradigms for improving the web browsing experience for Internet users in the
`
`mid-1990s at a time when the World Wide Web was still in its relative infancy. As disclosed
`
`and claimed in the seminal Patents-in-Suit, these paradigms included innovative and improved
`
`methods by which websites can deliver and present web content on a user’s computer that is
`
`retrieved from a plurality of different Internet-accessible data resources, notably including
`
`multimedia resources comprising streamable video and/or streamable audio content. A press
`
`release issued by Microsoft confirmed that by December of 2001, the technologies that would
`
`ultimately become Robocast’s patented inventions had earned it the reputation of being a
`
`“pioneering Web company offering viewing automation tools for a variety of display devices.”
`
`11.
`
`The Robocast inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit are directed to providing
`
`a specific and unconventional technological solution, necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology, to a known technological problem that existed with respect to Internet web
`
`browsing as it was then being practiced by computer users in the early 1990s-time frame. As
`
`expressly taught in the intrinsic record of the Patents-in-Suit and as then understood by
`
`ordinarily skilled artisans, the nature of this problem was that computer users browsing the
`
`Internet had no easy and efficient means available for accessing, retrieving and consuming
`
`content from a multitude of different Internet-accessible resources. See, e.g., (‘451 Patent at
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5
`
`Abstract, FIG. 7, 5:51-6:4; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to June 18,
`
`2001 Office Action at p. 13; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Brief on Appeal
`
`dated March 7, 2003 at pp. 5-6; Provisional Appl. No. 60/025,360 at pp. 1-2). Rather, each
`
`resource needed to be accessed one at a time, with the user’s web browser requiring substantial
`
`decisional input from the user, i.e., laboriously clicking through a series of links and/or web
`
`pages in order to individually navigate to each such resource and obtain its corresponding
`
`content. (Id.). The Patents-in-Suit explain that this prior art approach was problematic because
`
`it undesirably “require[d] a significant amount of user effort and decision-making to drive the
`
`web surfing experience,” and thereby resulted in a “very cumbersome and time consuming”
`
`web browsing experience for computer users browsing the Internet. (Id.).
`
`12.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit provide a specific and unconventional technology-based
`
`solution to this prior art problem by disclosing and claiming innovative methods through which
`
`providers offering Internet-based content through, for example, an Internet website, can
`
`automatically deliver and present web content on the computer of a user who is surfing the
`
`Internet. In particular, at the heart of Robocast’s inventive solution is a key active step recited
`
`and captured in every method claim of the Patents-in-Suit wherein a provider creates an
`
`organized arrangement of Internet-based content corresponding to a plurality of different
`
`Internet-accessible resources in the form of a “show structure of nodes.” See, e.g., (‘451 Patent
`
`at Abstract, FIGS. 2B-2F, 1:16-18, 2:51-3:6, 3:22-31, 4:12-14, 5:28-34, 6:65-7:62, 8:31-33).
`
`Each of these “nodes” is an identifier of a distinct Internet-accessible resource that includes its
`
`address, and the “show structure” specifies one or more paths through the plurality of nodes
`
`that can serve to sequence and schedule how content obtained from these resources is provided
`
`to the user’s computer. (Id.). In accordance with certain claimed “show structure of nodes”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6
`
`embodiments, items of content corresponding to each different resource are automatically
`
`accessed from the Internet and presented on the user’s computer in continuous sequential
`
`fashion one after another, all without requiring any input from the user beyond (at most) a single
`
`initial click that serves to commence the show structure. (Id.). As stated in the intrinsic record,
`
`the innovative methods of the Patents-in-Suit thus solve the problem identified in the prior art
`
`by greatly reducing the number of clicks and decisions required of a computer user when
`
`browsing the Internet to retrieve content from a multitude of different Internet accessible
`
`resources, thereby providing for the first time a significantly easier and more efficient way for
`
`computer users to be able to “play” the Internet automatically by exerting the minimal effort of
`
`making just a single click. See, e.g., (‘451 Patent at Abstract, FIG. 7, 2:53-55, 5:51-6:4;
`
`Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to June 18, 2001 Office Action at p.
`
`13; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Brief on Appeal dated March 7, 2003 at pp.
`
`5-6; Provisional Appl. No. 60/025,360 at pp. 1-2).
`
`13.
`
`In the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed inventions, Robocast’s
`
`inventive technology-based solution to the above-described web browsing problem which
`
`websites can provide by creating the types of “show structures of nodes” recited and captured
`
`in the method claims of the Patents-in-Suit was unknown and undisclosed. Likewise unknown
`
`and undisclosed in the relevant prior art were each of the various recited activities performed in
`
`accordance with the “show structure of nodes” that comprise the other specific claimed method
`
`steps, whether standing alone or whether combined in the particular ordered combinations of
`
`limitations that are claimed. Accordingly, the inventive claim elements directed to the “show
`
`structure of nodes” and their claimed combinations were neither well-understood, routine, nor
`
`conventional to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field at the time of the Patents-in-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7
`
`Suit.
`
`14.
`
`The innovative method claims of the Patents-in-Suit also recite and are directed
`
`to several particular features relating to the claimed “show structures of nodes” that constitute
`
`specific and concrete technological improvements for advancing the computer functionality and
`
`computer capabilities of the prior art websites that were engaged in interacting with web surfing
`
`users’ computers (hereinafter, “technological improvements”). Alone and in combination, an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would understand these unconventional claimed technological
`
`improvements as serving to improve and beneficially modify the functioning and capabilities
`
`of such websites as a whole, allowing them to newly provide a qualitatively improved web
`
`browsing experience for computer users who were seeking to retrieve and consume content
`
`from a multitude of different Internet-accessible resources.
`
`15.
`
`As one example of unconventional claimed technological improvements over
`
`the prior art, independent Claim 22 of the ‘451 Patent, independent Claim 16 of the ‘819 Patent,
`
`and independent Claim 22 of the ‘932 Patent each recite and capture a method step of creating
`
`a claimed “show structure of nodes” based on the search results returned from an on-line search.
`
`Cf. (‘451 Patent at Abstract, FIG. 7, 1:16-34, 3:36-42, 8:27-33, 10:59-11:3, 11:61-12:8, 16:56-
`
`17:5). The intrinsic record of the Patents-in-Suit contains express statements that “[t]here is no
`
`teaching in [the] prior art to create an automated show structure in response to a search,” and
`
`likewise that “[s]uch an arrangement has not been taught in the prior art.” See, e.g., (Prosecution
`
`history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to June 18, 2001 Office Action at p. 13; Prosecution
`
`history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Brief on Appeal dated March 7, 2003 at pp. 5-6, 24-26).
`
`Moreover, the intrinsic record directly explains, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`
`understand, how and why this inventive arrangement constitutes a technological improvement
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8
`
`over the prior art. To wit, the prior art on-line search process that then existed of “obtaining a
`
`plurality of URLs and thereafter retrieving the contents of each URL, one at a time is very
`
`cumbersome and time consuming” for the web surfing computer user. (Id.). By contrast,
`
`Robocast’s inventive process of “assembling the list of retrieved URLs into a show structure
`
`that retrieves and displays each of the contents corresponding to a URL automatically and
`
`without user input” significantly improves the quality of the web browsing experience for a
`
`computer user engaged in on-line searching for web content. (Id.).
`
`16.
`
`In the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed inventions, Robocast’s
`
`inventive technological improvements applicable to websites that provided them with the
`
`above-described new functionality and capabilities for creating “show structures of nodes”
`
`based on the results returned from on-line searches as recited and captured in Claim 22 of the
`
`‘451 Patent, Claim 16 of the ‘819 Patent, and Claim 22 of the ‘932 Patent were unknown and
`
`undisclosed. Likewise unknown and undisclosed in the relevant prior art were each of the
`
`various recited activities performed in connection with creating “show structures of nodes”
`
`based on the result of on-line searches that comprise the other specific claimed method steps,
`
`whether standing alone or whether combined in the particular ordered combinations of
`
`limitations that are claimed. Accordingly, the inventive claim elements directed to these specific
`
`technological improvements and their claimed combinations were neither well-understood,
`
`routine, nor conventional to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field at the time of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`17.
`
`As another example of unconventional claimed technological improvements
`
`over the prior art, independent Claim 37 of the ‘451 Patent, and each of the independent claims
`
`of the ‘819 and ‘932 Patents, recite and capture creating various embodiments of “show
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 9
`
`structures of nodes” having multidimensional features for causing web content corresponding
`
`to multiple different resources identified in the show structures to be acted upon concurrently
`
`with one another. Cf. (‘451 Patent at FIGS. 2B-2E, 2:65-3:6, 6:65-7:50; Prosecution history for
`
`Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to December 23, 1999 Office Action at p. 9; Prosecution
`
`history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to October 24, 2000 Office Action at pp. 12-13;
`
`Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to June 18, 2001 Office Action at pp.
`
`14-15; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Brief on Appeal dated March 7, 2003 at
`
`pp. 6-7, 26-28). For example, these multidimensional features can cause multiple different items
`
`of web content corresponding to a plurality of different resources to be: (i) accessed over the
`
`Internet concurrently; (ii) presented on a web browsing user’s computer concurrently; and/or
`
`(iii) accessed and presented concurrently. (Id.). The intrinsic record of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`contains express statements from the applicant indicating that there is an absence of any
`
`reference in the prior art that discloses or suggests a “show structure of nodes” having such
`
`claimed “multidimensional” attributes. (Id.). At the time of the inventions, an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have understood these claimed multidimensional features as constituting
`
`technological improvements over the prior art by inventively providing web surfing computer
`
`users with the opportunity to simultaneously consume web content from a plurality of different
`
`Internet-accessible resources in accordance with a “show structure of nodes,” as opposed to
`
`being limited to consuming one item of web content at a time. (Id.). Moreover, by concurrently
`
`accessing one item of web content while other items are being accessed and/or presented, such
`
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would likewise have understood the claimed multidimensional
`
`features as representing further inventive technological improvements over the prior art by
`
`ensuring for the first time that the show provided by the “show structure of nodes” can
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 10
`
`seamlessly proceed along its course without undesirable interruption or delay when
`
`transitioning from presenting the resources of one node to the next. (Id.).
`
`18.
`
`In the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed inventions, Robocast’s
`
`inventive technological improvements applicable to websites that provided them with the above
`
`described new functionality and capabilities for creating “show structures of nodes” having
`
`multidimensional features as recited and captured in Claim 37 of the ‘451 Patent, and each of
`
`the independent claims of the ‘819 and ‘932 Patents, were unknown and undisclosed. Likewise
`
`unknown and undisclosed in the relevant prior art were each of the various recited activities
`
`performed in connection with the multidimensional features of the “show structures of nodes”
`
`that comprise the specific claimed method steps, whether standing alone or whether combined
`
`in the particular ordered combinations of limitations that are claimed. Accordingly, the
`
`inventive claim elements directed to these specific technological improvements and their
`
`claimed combinations were neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional to an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan in the relevant field at the time of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`19.
`
`As a further example of unconventional claimed technological improvements
`
`over the prior art, independent Claim 1 and certain dependent claims of the ‘451 Patent,
`
`independent Claims 1, 23, and 26 of the ‘819 Patent, and independent Claim 1 and certain
`
`dependent claims of the ‘932 Patent, recite and capture embodiments that provide “interactively
`
`variable duration information” as part of the step of creating the claimed “show structures of
`
`nodes.” Cf. (‘451 Patent at FIG. 7, 3:26-31, 5:30-33; 9:31-36; 11:10-12, 16:44-55, 17:7-13;
`
`Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to December 23, 1999 Office Action
`
`at pp. 7-8; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to October 24, 2000 Office
`
`Action at pp. 6-7; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Response to June 18, 2001
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 11
`
`Office Action at p. 14; Prosecution history for Appl. No. 09/144,906, Brief on Appeal dated
`
`March 7, 2003 at p. 6, 19, 33). As expressly claimed, this “interactively variable duration
`
`information” represents the duration for which content corresponding to an Internet-accessible
`
`resource from the show structure will be presented by default to the web browsing computer
`
`user, and it enables the user to change that duration such that the rate of transition from one
`
`node to another in the show structure can be interactively varied and controlled by the user.
`
`(Id.). The intrinsic record of the Patents-in-Suit contains an express statement from the applicant
`
`that there is an absence of any reference in the prior art that discloses or suggests providing
`
`such “interactively variable duration information” as part of creating a “show structure of
`
`nodes.” (Id.). Moreover, the intrinsic record indicates, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`
`understand, why these inventive “interactively variable duration information” features
`
`constitute technological improvements over the prior art in that they empower web surfing
`
`computer users with an innovative new capability for controlling the speed of the show structure
`
`by increasing or decreasing the amount of time for which resource content will be presented.
`
`(Id.).
`
`20.
`
`In the relevant prior art at the time of the claimed inventions, Robocast’s
`
`inventive technological improvements applicable to websites that afforded them the above-
`
`described new functionality and capabilities for providing “interactively variable duration
`
`information” as part of creating “show structures of nodes” as recited and captured in Claim 1
`
`and certain dependent claims of the ‘451 Patent, Claims 1, 23, and 26 of the ‘819 Patent, and
`
`Claim 1 and certain dependent claims of the ‘932 Patent, were unknown and undisclosed.
`
`Likewise unknown and undisclosed in the relevant prior art were each of the various recited
`
`activities performed in connection with the “interactively variable duration information”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12
`
`features of the “show structures of nodes” that comprise the other specific claimed method
`
`steps, whether standing alone or whether combined in the particular ordered combinations of
`
`limitations that are claimed. Accordingly, the inventive claim elements directed to these specific
`
`technological improvements and their claimed combinations were neither well-understood,
`
`routine, nor conventional to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the relevant field at the time of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`21.
`
`The specific and concrete technological solution and improvements recited and
`
`captured by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit as exemplified above prevent those claims from
`
`preempting or otherwise disproportionately tying up the use of all methods by which content
`
`derived from a plurality of different Internet-accessible data resources can be delivered and
`
`presented on a user’s computer. Indeed, all the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are narrowly drawn
`
`and circumscribed so as to be directed to only one unconventional discrete way of providing
`
`such content that requires creating the recited “show structures of nodes.” Moreover, certain
`
`claims recite and capture additional limitations of distinctive significance that even further
`
`preclude undue preemption such as “show structures” that need to be based on the results
`
`returned
`
`from on-line searches, and/or “show structures”
`
`that provide particular
`
`multidimensional features or “interactively variable duration information.” By contrast, the
`
`specification of the Patents-in-Suit also discloses many unclaimed alternative ways of procuring
`
`multifarious web content (such as the laborious point-and-click method) that were already
`
`known in the prior art, and all of which undesirably “require a significant amount of user effort
`
`and decision-making to drive the web surfing experience.” See, e.g., (‘451 Patent at 5:51-6:4).
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Netflix has had actual and/or constructive
`
`knowledge of the existence of the Patents-in-Suit beginning on an initial date as yet unknown
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 13
`
`that predates the expiration of the Patents-in-Suit. As one example, Netflix board member Brad
`
`Smith, whose areas of expertise include intellectual property law, served as Microsoft’s general
`
`counsel starting in 2002,1 and held this position during the period Robocast was in litigation
`
`against Microsoft regarding the ’451 Patent, which concluded in April 2014, resulting in
`
`Microsoft licensing each of the Patents-in-Suit.2 See Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`
`No. 10-1055-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 06, 2010). Upon information and belief, Smith had knowledge
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit when he joined Netflix’s board in 2015 as a result. As such, Netflix, by
`
`and through its relationship with Smith, knew, should have known, or was willfully blind as to
`
`the existence of the Patents-in-Suit at the time of Netflix’s infringing acts. As another example,
`
`Netflix founder, chairman, and CEO Reed Hastings served on the Microsoft board from 2007-
`
`2012, during which time the Microsoft case was pending.3 See id. Upon information and belief,
`
`Hastings had knowledge of at least the ‘451 Patent as a result. As such, Netflix, by and through
`
`its relationship with Hastings, knew, should have known, or was willfully blind as to the
`
`existence of at least the ‘451 Patent at the time of Netflix’s infringing acts. As yet another
`
`example, in 2016, Netflix became a licensee of both Tivo’s and Intellectual Ventures’ patent
`
`portfolios, and the ’451 Patent is cited 21 times against patents or applications in the Tivo
`
`portfolio and twice against patents or applications in the Intellectual Ventures portfolio.4 Upon
`
`information and belief, Netflix had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit as a result. As such,
`
`Netflix, knew, should have known, or was willfully blind as to the existence of the Patents-in-
`
`
`1 https://ir.netflix.net/governance/Leadership-and-directors/person-
`details/default.aspx?ItemId=e39e155a-d58c-441e-b632-4f85ffe7e633
`2 The ’451, ’819, and ’932 Patents share a common specification and all claim priority to
`provisional patent application No. 60/025,360, filed September 3, 1996.
`3
`https://news.microsoft.com/2012/10/09/microsoft-announces-reed-hastings-will-not-seek-re-
`election/
`4 http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7155451
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 14
`
`Suit at the time of Netflix’s infringing acts.
`
`NETFLIX’S INFRINGING OPERATION OF ITS NETFLIX INTERNET PLATFORM
`
`23.
`
`Netflix has operated its video hosting Internet platform found, for example, at
`
`www.netflix.com -- including the underlying computer server platform/systems responsible for
`
`publishing that website and supplying platform functionality -- in an infringing manner that
`
`practiced method claims of the Patents-in-Suit without Robocast’s authorization (hereinafter,
`
`the “Netflix Internet platform”). In particular, Netflix infringed the Patents-in-Suit by virtue of
`
`generating, supporting, and providing automated video playlists to the web browsers, and/or to
`
`the Netflix apps, of computer users who accessed the Internet on computing devices such as
`
`desktop or laptop PCs, smartphone or tablet mobile devices, and/or smart TVs. Among the types
`
`of Netflix automated video playlists implicated in such infringement are its Autoplay playlists,
`
`its Flixtape playlists, and all other static or dynamic automated video playlists provided by
`
`Netflix which resulted in sets or collections of different videos being automatically played in a
`
`sequential order one after the other without the need for ongoing directive input from the on-
`
`line computer user.
`
`24.
`
`Each of Netflix’s infringing automated video playlists was embodied by a
`
`claimed “show structure of nodes” within the meaning of the Patents-in-Suit that was created
`
`by Netflix and provided to a user’s computing device to provide an organized arrangement of
`
`Internet content. Each of the nodes in these “show structures” identified a different Internet-
`
`accessible resource comprised of content that included a streamable video and its associated
`
`thumbnail image(s), and each node contained a corresponding resource address (e.g., a URL
`
`address). These Netflix “show structures” specified one or more pathways through their
`
`respective pluralities of nodes that sequenced and scheduled the videos and associated
`
`thumbnail images for presentation on the user’s computing device. In turn, in accordance with
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 15
`
`the Netflix “show structures” that embodied its infringing automated video playlists, videos and
`
`associated thumbnail images were automatically accessed over the Internet and presented on
`
`the user’s computing device in continuous sequential fashion one after the other, all without
`
`requiring input from the computer user beyond (at most) just a single initial click that served to
`
`commence a playlist.
`
`25.
`
`Netflix’s
`
`infringing automated video playlists comprised
`
`the claimed
`
`multidimensional attributes of the Patents-in-Suit whereby various combinations of the
`
`streamable video or thumbnail image content corresponding to different nodes in their
`
`embodying “show structures” were concurrently accessed over the Internet, concurrently
`
`presented on a user’s computer, and/or concurrently accessed and presented. The embodying
`
`“show structures” of Netflix’s infringing automated video playlists also provided the claimed
`
`“interactively variable duration information” consisting of the default duration for which the
`
`streamable video and/or thumbnail image content corresponding to a node was to be presented
`
`on a user’s computing device, subject to being interactively varied by the user via, for example,
`
`a scrubber bar interface further provided by the Netflix Internet platform. Moreover, certain
`
`of Netflix’s infringing automated video playlists were embodied by “show structures” that were
`
`created based on the search results returned from on-line searches, including the types of
`
`keyword searches for videos that a computer user can undertake on the Netflix Internet
`
`platform.
`
`26.
`
`The Netflix Internet platform also caused advertising content to be presented to
`
`users in connection with the automatic presentation of video content, including promotional
`
`content.
`
`27.
`
`The Netflix Internet platform also provided functionality, instructions, and other
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 16
`
`assistance that enabled its registered account holders to generate, edit, operate, use, and save
`
`infringing automated video playlists similar in nature to those described above.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, Netflix designed, intended, and instructed users to
`
`use the Netflix Internet platform in infringing ways. For example, Netflix encouraged the binge-
`
`watching of content organized in Netflix’s infringing automated video playlists by, for example,
`
`incentivizing users to binge-watch content and using the “binge-watching” term and concept in
`
`marketing campaigns and at public-facing events. As one example, in 2018 Netflix introduced
`
`the “Patches” feature that rewarded viewers of Ne