On December 17, plaintiff Broadband iTV, Inc. filed a complaint against defendant AT&T (Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Communications, LLC 6:19-cv-00712-ADA) for patent infringement. The complaint was filed in the Western District of Texas. Broadband iTV is represented by Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli, McDonough Consulting, and Ward, Smith & Hill.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,028,026 (the “’026 Patent”) 10,349,101 (the “’101 Patent”), 9,998,791 (the “’791 Patent”), and 9,648,388 (the “’388 Patent”). Broadband iTV (BBiTV) has alleged that AT&T directly and indirectly infringed on its patents, as well as inducing and contributing to the continued infringement through its users, customers, agents and third parties. BBiTV has sought damages and other relief.
The complaint alleged that AT&T has infringed on the ’026 Patent on at least claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. For example, regarding claim 3, “the plurality of different display templates used by the EPG are used to locate the particular one of the titles in a drill-down manner from a first level of a hierarchical structure of the electronic program guide.” The first display template is used for the electronic program guide, clicking it provides more information and the second level of the electronic program guide. The complaint states that this directly infringed upon claim three.
The complaint claimed that AT&T infringed on at least claims 1,3,6 and 12 of the’101 Patent. For example, the accused products “perform a method for receiving, via the Internet, video content to be viewed on an Internet-connected digital device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet, or computer) associated with a subscriber of a video-on-demand system using a hierarchically arranged interactive electronic program guide.” Further, the products “transmit, from the Internet-connected digital device to a television service platform, a request by the subscriber to log in to the video-on-demand system.” The allegedly infringing products “allow subscribers to login to access the VOD system. Part of this process includes transmitting a request from the device to the television service platform via the Internet.” As a result, the complaint alleged that AT&T’s products infringed on the patent.
The complaint stated that AT&T has infringed on at least claims 1, 12, and 18 of the ’791 Patent. For example, regarding claim 12, the allegedly infringing products “use at least one of the plurality of different video display templates to generate a templatized video-on-demand display that comprises a background and a template layer having one or more areas for display of metadata provided by the video content provider.” The image in the complaint shows the television image as the template layer with an area for display of metadata, the show name as the metadata in display and the background as the background.
Lastly, the complaint alleged that AT&T’s products infringed on at least claims 1, 3, 6, 13, and 19 of the ’388 Patent. The allegedly infringing products infringe on claim 3 because they are “programmed to allow the navigation through titles in a drill-down menu manner by navigation from a first level of the hierarchical structure of the video-on-demand content menu to a second level of the hierarchical structure to locate the particular titles.” For example, the first level displays the channels on demand, the second level displays the series on that channel, and the third level displays a particular show and its episodes. The complaint states that this infringes on the patent.
BBiTV has sought relief from damages and any royalties.
