Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC

204 F.Supp.3d 1190

FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., & Premiere Radio Networks, Inc., Defendants.

Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., d/b/a 'The Glen Beck Program, Inc.', & GBTV, LLC, Defendants.

Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.NBA Media Ventures, Turner Sports Interactive, Inc. & Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc., Defendants.

Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., and Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc., Defendants.

No. CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY

No. CIV 12–1309 JB/SCY

No. CIV 13–1153 JB/SCY

No. CIV 13–0636 JB/SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed August 30, 2016

Bryan J. Davis, William G. Gilchrist, Davis, Gilchrist & Lee, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Michael W. Shore, Alfonso G. Chan, Christopher L. Evans, Patrick J. Conroy, Ari Rafilson, Dustin Lo, Jennifer Rynell, Rajkumar Vinnakota, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC

John R. Cooney, Emil Kiehne, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Alan E. Littmann, Douglas J. Winnard, Brian P. O'Donoghue, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Cynthia J. Rigsby, Kevin J. Malaney, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Jason J. Keener, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew B. Lowrie, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendants Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and MLB Advanced Media, L.P.

David B. Weaver, Baker Botts LLP, Austin, Texas,Andrew J. Allen, Hilary L. Preston, Temilola Sobowale, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, New York, Jeffrey Han, Stephen M. Hash, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant NBA Media Ventures, Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., and Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc.

Emil Kiehne, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Eleanor M. Lackman, Joshua S. Wolkoff, Cowan DeBaets Abrams & Sheppard LLP, New York, New York, Donna K. Schneider, San Antonio, Texas, Attorneys for Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, and Premiere Radio Networks Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), filed October 21, 2015 (Doc. 229)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on January 5, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) what evidentiary standard applies to patent eligibility disputes under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ; (ii) whether the Court must wait until a later stage to examine the subject-matter eligibility of Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC's patents; (iii) whether the Court may select representative claims, and what those claims should be; (iv) whether Front Row's patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas; and (v) if Front Row's patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, whether the claims' elements, as a whole, contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. First, the Court concludes that the clear-and-convincing evidence standard does not apply to patent eligibility disputes under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Second, the Court concludes that it may proceed to examine the patents' subject-matter eligibility before claim construction. Third, the Court concludes that it may select representative claims and adopts a modified set of the Defendants' proposed representative claims. Fourth, the Court concludes that all of Front Row's patents are directed to abstract ideas, because their claims describe these ideas in vague and broad terms. Finally, the Court determines that Front Row's claims do not contain an inventive concept or meaningful limitation in scope. The Court thus grants the Defendants' Motion in its entirety and dismisses this case with prejudice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed April 23, 2013 (Doc. 149) ("Fourth Amended Complaint").¹

Front Row² is a New Mexico limited liability company that holds patents related to streaming video on mobile devices. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1–20, at 1–5. Front Row owns "all rights, title, and interest in and under" ten such patents:

1. United States Patent No. 8,090,321 ("321 patent"), titled "Transmitting Sports and Entertainment Data to Wireless Hand Held Devices over a Telecommunications Network," which duly and legally issued on January 3, 2012;

2. United States Patent No. 8,086,184 ("184 patent"), titled "Transmitting Sports and Entertainment Data to Wireless Hand Held Devices over a Telecommunications Network," which duly and legally issued on December 27, 2011;

3. United States Patent No. 8,270,895 ("895 patent"), titled "Transmitting Sports and Entertainment Data to Wireless Hand Held Devices over a Telecommunications Network," which duly and legally issued on September 18, 2012;

4. United States Patent No. 7,812,856 ("856 patent"), titled "Providing Multiple Perspectives of a Venue Activity to Electronic Wireless Hand Held Devices," which duly and legally issued on October 12, 2010;

5. United States Patent No. 7,796,162 ("162 patent"), titled "Providing Multiple Synchronized Camera Views for Broadcast from a Live Venue Activity to Remote Viewers," which duly and legally issued on September 14, 2010;

6. United States Patent No. 7,884,855 ("855 patent"), titled "Displaying Broadcasts of Multiple Camera Perspective Recordings from Live Activities at Entertainment Venues on Remote Video Monitors," which duly and legally issued on February 8, 2011;

7. United States Patent No. 7,782,363 ("363 patent"), titled "Providing Multiple Video Perspectives of Activities through a Data Network to a Remote Multimedia Server for Selective Display by Remote Viewing Audiences," which duly and legally issued on August 24, 2010;

8. United States Patent No. 8,184,169 ("169 patent"), titled "Providing Multiple Video Perspectives of Activities through a Data Network to a Remote Multimedia Server for Selective Display by Remote Viewing Audiences," which duly and legally issued on May 22, 2012;

9. United States Patent No. 8,401,460 ("460 patent"), titled "Transmitting Sports and Entertainment Data to Wireless Hand Held Devices over a Telecommunications Network," which duly and legally issued on March 19, 2013; and10. United States Patent No. 7,376,388 ("388 patent"), titled "Broadcasting Venue Data to a Wireless Hand Held Device," which duly and legally issued on May 20, 2008.

Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 11–20, at 3–5. Front Row alleges that all of these patents are valid and enforceable. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21–31, at 5–6.

Defendant and Counterclaimant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. ("MLB Media") is in the business of broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless means, and selling software to support that broadcasting. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 2, at 1–2. Its primary product relevant to this litigation is "At Bat 13," Major League Baseball's official smartphone application. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 33, at 6.

Defendants and Counterclaimants Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. and GBTV, LLC create and distribute multimedia content over the internet. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 3–4, at 2. They are both associated with talk show host and radio personality Glenn Beck. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4–5, at 2.

Defendant and Counterclaimant Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. is a "national radio network that produces radio programming and services for radio stations, and distributes its own and various third-party radio programs to radio station affiliates throughout the world." Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2.

Defendant and Counterclaimant NBA Media Ventures, LLC ("NBA Media"), like MLB Advanced Media, L.P., is in the business of broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless means, and of selling software to support that broadcasting. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 6, 37, at 2, 8. Its primary products relevant to this litigation are "NBA League Pass Mobile" and "NBA League Pass Broadband," which provide video of National Basketball Association games to consumers over the internet. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 37, at 8.

Front Row filed its Fourth Amended Complaint on April 23, 2013. See Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed April 23, 2013 (Doc. 149)("Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants infringed its patents by: (i) selling applications that capture live video of entertainment events and transmit it over a cellular communications network to hand held mobile devices; and (ii) knowingly inducing their customers to infringe on the patent by providing applications that those customers would use to access live video of entertainment events. See Complaint ¶¶ 33–37, at 6–8. They target in particular Major League Baseball's MLB.TV, At Bat 13, Postseason.TV, MiLB.TV, and MiLB applications; the National Basketball Association's NBA League Pass Mobile and NBA League Pass Broadband applications; and Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, and Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.'s TheBlaze TV and TheBlaze TV Plus applications. See Complaint ¶¶ 33, 35, 37, at 6–8.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The current case consists of four consolidated cases. Front Row filed its first lawsuit in the District of New Mexico on May 5, 2010. See Plaintiff's Original Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed May 5, 2010 (Doc. 1). Front Row filed its second lawsuit on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Complaint, filed May 25, 2012 (Doc. 1 in Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. , No. 3:12–cv–01639–K (N.D.Tex.)(Kinkeade, J.)(the "Second Action")).

On December...