Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 1 of 52 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`BLUE SPIKE LLC;
`BLUE SPIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD.;
`WISTARIA TRADING LTD.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION and MEDIACOM
`BROADBAND LLC
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06600
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Blue Spike LLC (“Blue Spike LLC”), Plaintiff Blue Spike International Ltd.
`
`(“Blue Spike Int.”), and Plaintiff Wistaria Trading Ltd. (“Wistaria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or
`
`“Blue Spike”), for its Complaint against Defendants, Mediacom Communications Corporation
`
`and Mediacom Broadband LLC (referred to herein as “Mediacom” or “Defendants”), allege the
`
`following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Blue Spike LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
`
`of the State of Texas.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 2 of 52 PageID #:2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Blue Spike Int. is a limited liability company established in Ireland with
`
`a place of business at Unit 6, Bond House, Bridge Street, Dublin 8. Blue Spike Int. was recently
`
`acquired by Blue Spike Inc., a Florida corporation.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Wistaria Trading Ltd. is a Bermuda corporation with a place of business
`
`at Clarendon House, 2 Church St., Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda.
`
`5.
`
`Collectively, all substantive rights to the patents in suit reside with the Plaintiffs,
`
`including the rights to grant sublicenses, to exclude others from practicing the inventions taught
`
`therein, and to sue and obtain damages and other relief for past and future acts of infringement.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Mediacom Communications Corp. is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 100 Crystal
`
`Run Road, Middletown, New York 10941.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Mediacom Broadband LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 100 Crystal Run Road,
`
`Middletown, New York 10941.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have a place of business at 808 E. North
`
`St. Elburn, IL, 60119.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Mediacom sells, offers to sell, and/or uses products
`
`and services throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, and introduces
`
`infringing products and services into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold
`
`and/or used in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Mediacom designs, develops, manufactures, sells,
`
`offers to sell, and/or imports products, devices, systems, and/or components of systems through
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 3 of 52 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`certain accused instrumentalities (as discussed further below) that either infringe or support the
`
`infringement of the patents asserted in this action.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and prejudgment interest for Mediacom’s past
`
`and ongoing direct and indirect infringement of the Patents in suit.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mediacom under the laws of the State of
`
`Illinois and this judicial District, due at least to its substantial business in Illinois and this judicial
`
`District, directly or through intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements
`
`alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses
`
`of conduct and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals
`
`in the State of Illinois. Venue is also proper in this district because Mediacom has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District. For instance, Mediacom has offices and customer
`
`care representatives in this judicial District. For example, Mediacom has offices in this District
`
`located at 808 E. North St. Elburn, IL, 60119, employs persons within the State of Illinois and
`
`this District (See, e.g.,
`
`https://phe.tbe.taleo.net/phe01/ats/careers/v2/viewRequisition?org=MEDIACOMCC&cws=46&r
`
`id=14733 (Mediacom seeking a “Business Account Executive” in Elburn, IL) (last visited Nov.
`
`2, 2020)), and advertises and conducts business within the State of Illinois and this District (See,
`
`e.g., https://www.mediacombundledeals.com/Elburn-Illinois.html (last visited Nov. 2, 2020)).
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 4 of 52 PageID #:4
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Defendants are additionally subject to this Court’s general and specific personal
`
`jurisdiction because Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Illinois and
`
`this district, pursuant to due process and/or the Illinois Long Arm Statute, 735 ILCS § 5/2-209.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants transact business in the State of Illinois and this district;
`
`Defendants committed the tort of patent infringement in the State of Illinois and this district;
`
`Defendants own, use, and/or possess real estate in the State of Illinois and this district, including
`
`at least at 808 E. North St. Elburn, IL, 60119; Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise directly from
`
`Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Illinois and this district; and
`
`Defendants distribute, make available, import, sell and offer to sell products and services
`
`throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, and introduced infringing
`
`products and services into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be used and sold in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`17.
`
`Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over Mediacom in this action comports with
`
`due process. Mediacom has conducted and regularly conducts business within the United States
`
`and this District. Mediacom has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting
`
`business in the United States, and more specifically in the State of Illinois and this District.
`
`Mediacom has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Illinois by making
`
`available products and services through accused instrumentalities that infringe the Patents in suit
`
`with the awareness and/or intent that they will be used (or visited) by consumers in this District.
`
`Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within this District,
`
`Mediacom should reasonably and fairly anticipate being brought into court here.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Invention
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 5 of 52 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent Reissue No. 44,222 (“the ’222
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’222 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`19.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent Reissue No. RE 44,307 (“the
`
`’307 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’307 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`20.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,473,746 (“the ’746
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’746 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`21.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,224,705 (“the ’705
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’705 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`22.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,287,275 B2 (“the ’275
`
`patent”) (collectively, with the ’222 patent, the ’307 patent, the ’746 patent, and the ’705 patent
`
`(the “Packet Transfer patents”). A true and correct copy of the ’275 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`E.
`
`23.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Marc Cooperman are the inventors of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,021,602 (“the ‘602 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘602 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`F.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`On March 24, 2018, the ’602 patent expired.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 9,104,842 (“the ‘842
`
`patent”) (collectively, with the ’602 patent, the “Watermarking patents”). A true and correct copy
`
`of the ‘842 patent is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`26.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Michael Berry are the inventors of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,739,295 (“the ‘295 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘295 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`H.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`On August 4, 2020, the ’295 patent expired.
`
`Page 5 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 6 of 52 PageID #:6
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Michael Berry are the inventors of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,475,246 (“the ‘246 patent”) (collectively, with the ’295 patent, the “Secure Server patents”). A
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘246 patent is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`29.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,159,116 (“the ’116
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’116 patent is attached as Exhibit J.
`
`30.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,538,011 (“the ’011
`
`patent”) (collectively, with the ’116 patent, the “Trusted Transaction patents”). A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’011 patent is attached as Exhibit K.
`
`31.
`
`The ’222 patent, the ’307 patent, ’746 patent, the ’705 patent, the ’275 patent, the
`
`‘’602 patent, the ’842 patent, the ’295 patent, the ’246 patent, the ’116 patent, and the ’011
`
`patent (collectively, “the patents in suit”) all cover pioneering technologies for rights
`
`management and content security.
`
`32.
`
`The Packet Transfer patents resulted from the pioneering efforts of Mr.
`
`Moscowitz (hereinafter “the Inventor”) in the area of rights management and content security in
`
`the early to mid-2000’s. At the time of Mr. Moskowitz’s innovations in this area, the most
`
`widely implemented technology used to optimize and provision the allocation of bandwidth. In
`
`that type of system, the most widely implanted technology used to optimize and provision the
`
`allocation of bandwidth. The Inventor conceived of the inventions claimed in the Packet
`
`Transfer patents as a way to focus on the priority of transmission paths for data in an attempt to
`
`alleviate bottlenecks of information within a given network.
`
`33.
`
`For example, the Inventor developed inventions claimed in the Packet Transfer as
`
`a way to transmit a stream of data by receiving a stream, organizing the stream into a plurality of
`
`packets, generating a watermark with each of the plurality of packets to form watermarked
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 7 of 52 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`packets, and transmitting at least one of the watermarked packets across a network. See Exhibit
`
`A (the ’222 patent at 5:11-6:9); Exhibit B (the ’307 patent at 4:47-5:11); Exhibit C (the ’746
`
`patent at 3:51-4:66); Exhibit D (the ’705 patent at 4:34-65); and Exhibit E (the ’275 patent at
`
`5:35-67).
`
`34.
`
`The Watermarking patents resulted from the pioneering efforts of the Inventors
`
`Scott Moskowitz and Marc Cooperman (“Cooperman”) in the area of protection of digital
`
`information. These efforts resulted in the development of systems, methods, and devices for data
`
`protection memorialized in the mid-2000s. At the time of these pioneering efforts, the most
`
`widely implemented technology used to address the difficulty of protecting intellectual property
`
`was copy protection. However, in that type of system the cost of developing such protection was
`
`not justified considering the level of piracy that occurred despite the copy protection. The
`
`Inventor and Cooperman conceived of the inventions claimed in the Watermarking patents as a
`
`way to combine transfer functions with predetermined key creation.
`
`35.
`
`For example, the Inventor and Cooperman developed systems and methods that
`
`protect digital information by identifying and encoding a portion of the format information.
`
`Encoded digital information, including the digital sample and the encoded format information, is
`
`generated to protect the original digital information.
`
`36.
`
`The Secure Server patents all resulted from the pioneering efforts of the named
`
`inventors in the area of secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security
`
`These efforts resulted in the secure personal content server memorialized in mid-2000. At the
`
`time of these pioneering efforts, the most widely implemented technology used to address
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 8 of 52 PageID #:8
`
`
`
`unauthorized copying and distribution of digital content was focused solely on cryptography.
`
`Content could be encrypted, but there was no association between the encryption and the actual
`
`content. This meant that there could be no efficient and openly accessible market for tradable
`
`information. The Inventors conceived of the inventions claimed in the Secure Server patents as a
`
`way to separate transactions from authentication in the sale of digitized data.
`
`37.
`
`For example, the Inventors developed methods and systems which enable secure,
`
`paid exchange of value-added information, while separating transaction protocols. The methods
`
`and systems improve on existing means for distribution control by relying on authentication,
`
`verification and authorization that may be flexibly determined by both buyers and sellers. These
`
`determinations may not need to be predetermined, although pricing matrix and variable access to
`
`the information opens additional advantages over the prior art. The present inventions offers
`
`methods and protocols for ensuring value-added information distribution can be used to facilitate
`
`trust in a large or relatively anonymous marketplace (such as the Internet's World Wide Web).
`
`38.
`
`The Trusted Transaction patents resulted from the pioneering efforts of the
`
`Inventor in the area of transferring information between parties. These efforts resulted in the
`
`development of systems, methods, and devices for trusted transactions memorialized in the mid-
`
`2000s. At the time of these pioneering efforts, reciprocal and non-reciprocal systems could use
`
`non-secret algorithms to provide encryption and decryption. The Inventor conceived of the
`
`inventions claimed in the Trusted Transaction patents as a way to enhance trust on the part of
`
`participants in the transaction.
`
`39.
`
`For example, the Inventor developed methods and systems which enhance trust in
`
`transactions in connection with sophisticated security, scrambling, and encryption technology by,
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 9 of 52 PageID #:9
`
`
`
`for example, steganographic encryption, authentication, and security means. See Exhibit J (’116
`
`patent at 3:36-4:11) and Exhibit K (’011 patent at 3:40-4:12).
`
`Advantage Over the Prior Art
`
`40.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Packet Transfer patents provides many
`
`advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of systems, methods, and
`
`devices for transmitting a stream of data across a network. See ’222 patent at 4:45-55; the ’307
`
`patent at 4:47-5:11; the ’746 patent at 3:51-4:66; the ’275 patent at Abstract; and the ’705 patent
`
`at 4:34-65. One advantage of the patented inventions is that by associating the identity and
`
`authentication information of the packets, the patented inventions can more efficiently apportion
`
`bandwidth. See ’222 patent at 7:40-50; the ’307 patent at 7:42-48; the ’746 patent at 7:42-48; the
`
`’275 patent at 10:62-11:6; and the ’705 patent at 3:32-37.
`
`41.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions in the Packet Transfer patents is that
`
`a network may check and verify efficient bandwidth delivery on a packet lever and storing
`
`information concerning better paths between senders and receivers of these packets, thereby
`
`permitting optimized “flows” of information. See ’222 patent at 7:65-8:5; the ’307 patent at
`
`8:23-27; the ’746 patent at 8:19-24; the ’275 patent at 7:60-65; and the ’705 patent at 8:9-14.
`
`42.
`
`Yet another advantage of the patented inventions in the Packet Transfer patents is
`
`adding another novel layer of identity of the packet and subsequent provisioning by means of
`
`authenticating packets by means of authenticating packets along a particular path “flow”. See
`
`’222 patent at 8:53-58; the ’307 patent at 8:23-27; the ’746 patent at 8:19-24; the ’275 patent at
`
`8:45-50; and the ’705 patent at 8:9-14.
`
`43.
`
`Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of
`
`the patented inventions, the Packet Transfer patents present significant commercial value for
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 10 of 52 PageID #:10
`
`
`
`companies like Defendants. Indeed, higher economic value can be attributed to a given
`
`television, internet, or phone service provider because of the increased optimization and
`
`provision of the allocation of bandwidth, which increases the security and speed of the
`
`transmission of the packeted data/information.
`
`44.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents provide many
`
`advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of digital content
`
`generation and/or display devices. E.g., Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–40; Exhibit G, ‘842
`
`patent at 7:20–38. One advantage of the patented inventions is the provision of a level of
`
`security for executable code on similar grounds as that which can be provided for digitized
`
`samples. E.g., Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–29; Exhibit G, ‘842 patent at 7:20–27.
`
`45.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions is that they do not attempt to stop
`
`copying, but rather determine responsibility for a copy by ensuring that licensing information
`
`must be preserved in descendant copies from an original. Without the correct license
`
`information, the copy cannot function. E.g., Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–29; Exhibit G, ‘842
`
`patent at 7:20–27.
`
`46.
`
`Because of the significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of the
`
`patented invention, Plaintiffs believe the Watermarking patents present significant commercial
`
`value for companies like Defendants. Indeed, the technology described and claimed in the
`
`Watermarking patents reads on the core security functionality of Defendants’ digital security in
`
`its digital TV devices and products.
`
`47.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Secure Server patents provide many
`
`advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of secure personal
`
`content servers. E.g., Exhibit H, ‘295 patent at 2:39–65; Exhibit I, ‘246 patent at 2:24–64. One
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 11 of 52 PageID #:11
`
`
`
`advantage of the patented inventions is the handling of authentication, verification, and
`
`authorization with a combination of cryptographic and steganographic protocols to achieve
`
`efficient, trusted, secure exchange of digital information. E.g., Exhibit H, ‘295 patent at 1:27–
`
`30; Exhibit I, ‘246 patent at 1:53–56.
`
`48.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions is leveraging the benefits of digital
`
`information (such as media content) to consumers and publishers, while ensuring the
`
`development and persistence of trust between all parties. E.g., Exhibit H, ‘295 patent at 3:32–47;
`
`Exhibit I, ‘246 patent at 3:16–30.
`
`49.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions is the separation and independent
`
`quantification of interests and requirements of different parties to a transaction by market
`
`participants in shorter periods of time. E.g., Exhibit H, ‘295 patent at 3:47–67; Exhibit I, ‘246
`
`patent at 3:32–51.
`
`50.
`
`Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of
`
`the patented invention, Plaintiffs believe the Secure Server patents present significant
`
`commercial value for companies like Mediacom. Indeed, the technology described and claimed
`
`in the Secure Server patents read on the core functionality of Mediacom’s product and services.
`
`51.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Trusted Transaction patents, provide
`
`many advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of transaction
`
`devices. See Exhibit J, ’116 patent at 3:38-7:67; Exhibit K, ’011 patent at 3:42-7:60. One
`
`advantage of the patented inventions is the handling of authentication, verification, and
`
`authorization with a combination of cryptographic and steganographic protocols to achieve
`
`efficient, trusted, secure exchange of digital information. See Exhibit J, ’116 patent at 3:46-51;
`
`Exhibit K, ’011 patent at 3:50-57.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 12 of 52 PageID #:12
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions in the Trusted Transaction patents is
`
`leveraging the benefits of digital information (such as media content) to consumers and
`
`publishers, while ensuring the development and persistence of trust between all parties. See
`
`Exhibit J, ’116 patent at 3:16-30.
`
`53.
`
`Another advantage of the patented inventions is the integration of system
`
`components, optimally requiring fewer processing resources so as to maximize usefulness and
`
`minimize cost. See Exhibit J, ’116 patent at 3:52-55; Exhibit K, ’011 patent at 3:53-57.
`
`54.
`
`Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of
`
`the patented inventions, the Trusted Transaction patents present significant commercial value for
`
`companies like Defendants. Indeed, higher economic value can be attributed to a given
`
`television, internet, or phone service provider because of the security in transferring information
`
`between parties by steganographic, encryption, authentication, and security means, which
`
`increases the security of the transmission of the data/information.
`
`Technological Innovation
`
`55.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Packet Transfer patents resolve technical
`
`problems related to optimizing and provisioning the allocation of bandwidth, particularly related
`
`to the better handling of the competitive needs between networks and the concept of the Quality
`
`of Service (“QoS”). One of the limitations of the prior art regarding the protection of digital
`
`information was that users seek data objects which by their very structure of format may occupy
`
`large amounts of bandwidth, thereby creating bandwidth demand that has little to no relationship
`
`with how the data is valued by third parties, including owners of rights related to the objects. See
`
`’222 patent at 2:60-67; ’307 patent at 2:61-3:5; ’746 patent at 2:56-67; and ’705 patent at 2:48-
`
`59.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 13 of 52 PageID #:13
`
`
`
`56.
`
`The claims of the Packet Transfer patents do not merely recite the performance of
`
`some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
`
`perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Packet Transfer patents recite inventive
`
`concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome problems specifically
`
`arising out of how to optimize and provision the allocation of bandwidth in a way that makes
`
`streaming economically viable.
`
`57.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Packet Transfer patents recite inventive concepts
`
`that improve the functioning of devices for packet watermarking and efficient provisioning of
`
`bandwidth.
`
`58. Moreover, the claims of the Packet Transfer patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Instead, the patented
`
`inventions disclosed in the Packet Transfer patents provide a new and novel solution to specific
`
`problems related to improving the optimizing and provisioning the allocation of bandwidth.
`
`59.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Packet Transfer patents do not preempt
`
`all the ways that bandwidth may be allocated and/or optimized, nor do the Packet Transfer
`
`patents preempt any other well-known or prior art technology.
`
`60.
`
`Accordingly, the claims in the Packet Transfer patents recite a combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`61.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents resolve technical
`
`problems related to protection of digital information particularly problems related to a method
`
`and device for data protection. As the Watermarking patents explain, one of the limitations of
`
`the prior art as regards the protection of digital information was that existing methods of copy
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 14 of 52 PageID #:14
`
`
`
`protection were too expensive and/or required outside determination and verification of the
`
`license. (See Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 2:47–4:48; Exhibit G, ‘842 patent at 1:29–60.)
`
`62.
`
`The claims of the Watermarking patents do not merely recite the performance of
`
`some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
`
`perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive
`
`concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome problems specifically
`
`arising out of protecting digital information in a highly distributed computing environment.
`
`63.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`improve the functioning of devices for protecting digital information, particularly by combining
`
`transfer functions with predetermined key creation.
`
`64. Moreover, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Instead, the patented
`
`inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents provide a new and novel solution to specific
`
`problems related to protecting digital information.
`
`65.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents do not preempt all
`
`the ways that protecting digital information may be used to improve devices for data protection,
`
`nor do the Watermarking patents preempt any other well-known or prior art technology.
`
`66.
`
`Accordingly, the claims in the Watermarking patents recite a combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`67.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Secure Server patents resolve technical
`
`problems related to the secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 15 of 52 PageID #:15
`
`
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`As the Secure Server patents explain, one of the limitations of the prior art as regards the secure
`
`distribution of digitized value-add information or media content was that content could be
`
`encrypted, but there was no association between the encryption and the actual content. This
`
`meant that there could be no efficient and openly accessible market for tradable information that
`
`was securely distributable. (See Exhibit H, ‘295 patent at 1:22–26; Exhibit I, ‘246 patent at 1:48–
`
`56.)
`
`68.
`
`The claims of the Secure Server patents do not merely recite the performance of
`
`some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
`
`perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive
`
`concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome problems specifically
`
`arising out of how to secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media content,
`
`while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the same
`
`value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`69.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`improve the functioning of secure personal content servers, particularly varying quality levels in
`
`a manner designed to improve security.
`
`70. Moreover, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Instead, the patented
`
`inventions disclosed in the Secure Server patents provide a new and novel solution to specific
`
`problems related to improving secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 16 of 52 PageID #:16
`
`
`
`71.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Secure Server patents do not preempt all
`
`the ways that secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media content, while
`
`preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the same value-
`
`added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security may be used
`
`to improve the personal content servers, nor do the Secure Server patents preempt any other
`
`well-known or prior art technology.
`
`72.
`
`Accordingly, the claims in the Secure Server patents recite a combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`73.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Trusted Transaction patents resolve
`
`technical problems related to transferring information between parties—particularly problems
`
`related to the utilization of sophisticated security, scrambling, and encryption technology by, for
`
`example, steganographic encryption, authentication, and security means. As the Trusted
`
`Transaction patents explain, one of the limitations of the prior art as regards the technical
`
`problems related to transferring information between parties was the difficulty of providing to a
`
`prospective acquirer of good or services full, accurate, and verifiable information regarding the
`
`nature, value, authenticity, and other suitability-related characteristics of the product in question.
`
`In that type of system, reciprocal and non-reciprocal systems could use non-secret algorithms to
`
`provide encryption and decryption. (See Exhibit J, ‘116 patent at 2:53–3:35; Exhibit K, ‘011
`
`patent at 2:57–3:38.)
`
`74.
`
`The claims of the Trusted Transaction patents do not merely recite the
`
`performance of some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the
`
`requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Trusted Transaction patents
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 52
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-06600 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/20 Page 17 of 52 PageID #:17
`
`
`
`recite inventive concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome
`
`problems specifically arising out of how to enhance trust on the part of participants in the
`
`transaction.
`
`75.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Trusted Transaction patents recite inventive
`
`concepts that improve the functioning of deices for conducting trusted transactions, particularly
`
`by creating a bridge between mathematically determinable security and analog or human
`
`measure of trust.
`
`76. Moreover, the claims of the Trusted Transaction patents recite inventive concepts
`
`that are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Inst