Skip Navigation LinksAbout Us::Patents::Patent News::Patent Info 01

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
GREEN BAY DIVISION

YANGAROO INC. (Plaintiff)

vs.

DESTINY MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES INC., DESTINY SOFTWARE PRODUCTIONS INC. and MPE DISTRIBUTION INC. (Defendants)

Case No. 09-C-0462

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Yangaroo’s patented method and Destiny’s accused process both produce encrypted digital music tracks suitable for immediate on-air broadcast, downloading or burning to CD. The method allows record labels to eliminate the cost and waste associated with sending CDs containing new music releases to radio stations via mail or other delivery service. Instead, using the patented and accused methods, new releases can be encrypted, compressed, and then sent via the internet. Indeed, both Yangaroo and Destiny tout the benefits of relying on their systems to produce secure, encrypted, music tracks that can then be sent to radio stations for broadcast at the appropriate time.

The encrypted music tracks, albums and/or videos created using the patented and accused methods are products as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. §271(g). Destiny’s mantra that all it sends is “information” ignores the reality of what its accused process produces. A genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether the encrypted music and videos produced using the accused method constitute products. Accordingly, the fact that Destiny’s servers are located in Canada such that 35 U.S.C. §271(a) cannot form the basis for liability does not warrant the entry of summary judgment dismissing Yangaroo’s claims.

FACTS

Yangaroo submits herewith its Proposed Material Facts. Most are discussed in the body of this brief. Yangaroo will therefore, limit this section to background facts. On May 5, 2009, United States Patent No. 7,529,712 (“the ‘712 patent”), entitled “Content Distribution System and Method,” was issued to inventors John Heaven, Wojtek Hoch and Cliff Hunt. Plaintiff’s Proposed Material Fact (“PPMF”) 9. Yangaroo owns the ‘712 patent by assignment from the inventors. PPMF 9. The ‘712 patent has one claim, which recites a method of distributing content. PPMF 10.

The claim of the ‘712 patent recites as follows:

A method of distributing content to a plurality of recipients over a distributed omputer network, each recipient having a recipient terminal connected to the network, comprising the steps of:

  1. storing, in [a] server, a user profile for each recipient, each user profile comprising login information and a unique identifier;
  2. receiving and storing, at the server, a content file, a release condition, a release state, and a distribution list associated with said content file, the receiving step being performed from a provider terminal connected to the network, wherein the distribution list contains unique identifiers of specific authorized recipients of the content files;
  3. receiving a request for access from one of the recipient terminals, the request containing login information;
  4. in response to the request for access:
    1. comparing the received login information to the stored login information to verify that the request came from one of the recipients,
    2. based on the comparing step, retrieving the stored unique identifier from the user profile,
    3. verifying that the distribution list includes said one of said recipients by comparing the retrieved unique identifier to the distribution list; and
  5. providing access to the content file at said one of the recipient terminals based on the release condition and the release state.

PPMF 11.

Destiny’s accused Play MPE system allows U.S. content providers, such as record labels, to upload audio and/or video along with additional material, such as album artwork, to Destiny’s server(s). The system then encrypts and distributes the audio and/or video tracks to authorized recipients, such as U.S. radio stations, once the approved radio station employee has verified his or her identity. PPMF 12.

The gist of the parties’ dispute is whether the digital content distributed by the Destiny Play MPE system constitutes a “product” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. §271(g). As discussed below, Destiny’s admissions, Destiny’s expert, and Yangaroo’s expert agree that the Play MPE system sends into the United States digital music, videos, and catalogs which are, indeed, products. It follows that this Court should deny Destiny’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

ARGUMENT

  1. YANGAROO DOES NOT CONTEND THAT DESTINY IS LIABLE FOR INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c) OR (f).

    Destiny spends much of its brief arguing issues that Yangaroo does not dispute, while glossing over the primary issue, i.e., whether Destiny infringes the ‘712 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) because it imports a product made by a patented method. As discussed below, Yangaroo agrees that §§271(a), (b), (c), and (f) do not apply in this case. Nevertheless, dismissal of this case is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding infringement under §271(g).

    1. The Evidence Shows that Destiny’s Servers are All Located Outside the United States.

      As set forth above, Yangaroo’s patented method requires that two of the steps be performed by a “server.” It is now undisputed that Destiny’s servers are located outside the United States in Vancouver, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Vestergaard Decl. (Dkt. 34) ¶6. Indeed, Yangaroo admitted that the Destiny servers are not in the United States in light of the testimony to that effect by Destiny’s 30(b)(6) witness, Steve Vestergaard. Sabety Decl. Ex. 1 (Dkt. 33-1). Yangaroo made this admission so that the parties would not have to expend resources on discovery related to that issue.

      It follows from that evidence, and Yangaroo concedes, that Destiny cannot be found to infringe the ‘712 patent under 35 U.S.C. §271(a). NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

    2. Yangaroo is not Pursuing Claims of Inducement of Infringement or Contributory Infringement.

      Yangaroo informed the Court and Destiny in its brief on Destiny’s motion to dismiss that Yangaroo was not pursuing claims of inducement to infringe or contributory infringement. Yangaroo’s claim is for direct infringement by Destiny. Dkt. 13. Accordingly, Yangaroo will not address the arguments made in Section II of Destiny’s brief because they are moot.

    3. Destiny Correctly Notes that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Claims.

      In Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. §271(f) does not apply to process, or method, patents. That decision (issued after Yangaroo filed its Complaint) governs this case, and Yangaroo does not contend that Destiny is liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

  2. THE COURT NEED NOT ENGAGE IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE.

    Claim construction is wholly unnecessary to decide Destiny’s Fast Track Summary Judgment motion. Indeed, had Destiny wanted an early claim construction, it should have included such a request when it requested use of this Court’s Fast Track Summary Judgment Procedures (“FTSJP”). The parties have engaged in no discovery on claim construction or even exchanged proposed definitions to determine whether claim construction disputes exist. Nevertheless, Destiny unexpectedly springs a claim construction on Yangaroo and the Court.

    This Court need not engage in any claim construction to decide this motion. Indeed, the Court should assume, for purposes of Destiny’s motion, that Destiny has the server claimed in the patent. It follows that the sole issue is the location of the server, which everyone agrees (based on the testimony of Steven Vestergaard) is outside the United States. Destiny suggested using the Court's FTSJP to determine its extraterritoriality defense. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis should assume that the Destiny Play MPE system produces the encrypted music using the process of the patented method. To the extent Destiny wishes to dispute that issue, the analysis falls outside the limited scope of the briefing or discovery allowed by the Court’s FTSJP.

    Accordingly, Destiny’s claim construction analysis is not relevant to the matter presented for the Court to decide.

  3. DESTINY IS LIABLE FOR INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) BECAUSE THE PROCESS PERFORMED BY THE PLAY MPE SYSTEM PRODUCES A PRODUCT THAT IS IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 271(g) of Title 35 sets forth a basis for infringement in situations where a patented process is used abroad, but the product made by the patented process is imported, sold or used within the United States. The statute provides:

    • Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent. . . . .

    35 U.S.C. §271(g).

    Destiny takes great pains to describe its Play MPE system as a “service” that merely distributes “information.” This attempt to circumvent §271(g) fails because the encrypted music tracks, albums, and videos sent to end users in the United States using the Play MPE system are products as that term is used in §271(g). Destiny’s position, taken to its logical extreme, is that no digital creation can qualify as a “product” under §271(g). This notion ignores both the reality of today’s digital marketplace and the modern legal trend, which recognizes that tangible products are increasingly replaced with digital counterparts and that both the physical and digital iterations are products.

    1. Digital Creations Like Music Tracks, Albums, and Videos are Products Under §271(g).

      Recent decisions acknowledge that digital creations qualify as products under section 271(g). Accordingly, Destiny’s heavy reliance on Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005), is misplaced. The Bayer court determined that “research data” produced using a method of identifying substances could not be a product under section 271(g) because the research data were “information in the abstract.” 340 F.3d at 1376-77. NTP, in turn – relying on Bayer – held that emails were “information” and, therefore, not products. 418 F.3d 1282.

      As recognized by two recent cases, neither Bayer nor NTP precludes digital creations and content from constituting “products” under section 271(g). In CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007), the court found a defendant liable for importing over the internet an electronic catalog created in Pakistan using the patented process. The defendant argued that an electronic catalog was not a “product” under § 271(g) but instead was more like the “production of information” or “transmission of information” held in other cases not to be “products” under the statute. Id. at 994. The defendant also argued that it merely offered a service allowing access to and transmission of catalogue information. In rejecting these arguments, the court held:

      • the electronic catalogue in this case, far from being abstract information or knowledge [as in Bayer], is a physical article no different from a product catalog manufactured and assembled on paper bound with stitching, glue or staples.

      Id. at 995. Moreover, the CNET court distinguished the case from NTP:

      • While email messages are not products that are bought and sold, a catalog – whether its physical form is etchings on a CD-ROM, magnetic fields in a server, or ink on paper – is a product that is bought and sold.

      Id. Similarly, music catalogs, music tracks, albums, and videos are products that are bought and sold no matter whether the form is paper, vinyl, CD, DVD, or fields in a server.

      Relying on CNET, the court in Ormco v. Align, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009) held that a digital 3D model of teeth is a product for purposes of section 271(g), notwithstanding its digital-only form. Notably, the court recognized that Bayer does not hold “that anything contained in electronic format will not be a ‘product made’ by patented methods.” Id. at 1076. Rejecting the defendant’s argument that a digital model is “information” under Bayer, the court held: “the 3D digital image is not a mere package of information, but a ‘creation’ produced by ‘practicing each step’ of a patented process.” Id. at 1076.

      CNET and Ormco apply with equal force to this case. The Destiny Play MPE system creates an encrypted music track, album, catalog, or video that is a direct cognate of a CD or DVD. The tracks, albums, and videos are neither “information in the abstract” as in Bayer nor a “package of information” as in NTP. Rather, they are creations produced by practicing each step of Yangaroo’s patented method.

    2. Destiny Imports, Sells, and Offers for Sale in the United States a Product Made by Practicing the Steps of Yangaroo’s Patented Method.

      Destiny’s motion studiously ignores the true nature of what the Play MPE system delivers to end users in the United States. The encrypted music tracks, albums, videos, and catalogs fall squarely into the analytical framework of CNET and Ormco. The fact that the works are digital, rather than etched onto a CD or stamped onto vinyl, is not material to the issue of whether they are products under section §271(g).

      Both Destiny and Yangaroo promote the encrypted digital music created and sent by their systems as a replacement for CDs and DVDs. PPMF 23, 28. As an example, one Destiny ad reads, in part:


      PPMF 24. Destiny’s website, www.dsny.com, also notes that “The main competition for Play MPE® is the traditional manufacture and mailing of CD's.” PPMF 25. The encrypted digital music content created and sent using Yangaroo’s patented method is as much a product as the CDs and DVDs the digital content is intended to replace.

      Destiny also offers on its website a series of promotional video clips modeled closely after the famous Apple vs. PC ads. PPMF 27. Each clip features two actors, one in black casual clothing, and one wearing a khaki-colored blazer. The opening line for each is “I’m a Play MPE single [spoken by the actor in black]. And, I’m a CD single [spoken by the actor in the khaki blazer].” PPMF 27. The clips promote different benefits of using Play MPE instead of a CD to send music releases to radio stations. The clips’ titles identify each benefit Destiny touts: (1) No Shipping Hassles; (2) CDs Scratch; (3) No Theft; (4) Go Green, Go Play; and (5) No Ripping Delays. These promotional materials make crystal clear that the encrypted music created using the Play MPE system is a product. PPMF 27.

      Similarly, Yangaroo advertises digital music as a replacement for traditional CDs. For example, it uses the following graphic to illustrate “the evolution of music delivery”:


      PPMF 28. First came vinyl records, then tapes, then CDs, and now digital music. Each example constitutes a product.

      Moreover, Destiny boasts about several benefits of the Play MPE system, including the ability to download, stream, burn, and export “broadcast quality singles/albums/videos.” PPMF 22. Destiny has also advertised that “The Beatles Remastered Catalogue [is] now available on Play MPE.” PPMF 26. Given the holding in CNET, one cannot reasonably contend that such content is not a product.

      Consistent with Destiny’s own advertising, Dr. Vijay Madisetti, Yangaroo’s expert, opined that the encrypted digital music tracks and albums are directly analogous to their predecessors like CDs and DVDs. PPMF 34.

      Destiny’s expert, Bruce McNair, also confirms that digital content can be a product. As an expert in a previous patent suit, Dr. McNair agreed that a streaming digital video was a “video product” as recited in the patent at issue in the case. PPMF 31. That video product, according to Dr. McNair, “was the digital representation of video information that was distributed.” PPMF 32. Likewise, Dr. McNair testified, the Destiny system transmits “a [digital] representation of musical information” – in other words, a musical product. PPMF 32. Destiny’s contention that the encrypted music is not a product is simply disingenuous in light of this testimony.

      Common knowledge in our digital era – confirmed by Dr. McNair – tells us that books, x-rays, pictures, video, and music can take on a digital, rather than tangible, form. PPMF 33. Software programs, such as TurboTax®, are available in CD format or as a file downloadable directly from the internet. Destiny’s position would, untenably, identify the CD format as a product, but the identical program in digital format mere “information.” That runs directly contrary to common sense, as well as Destiny’s admission on its website that its Play MPE software, available only via download from the internet, is a “product” despite the absence of a tangible item:

      • MPE® enables the secure download of content to a local computer. It is similar to buying a CD or DVD where the recipient “possesses” the content. Play MPE® is the largest product in this line and is revolutionizing the way the record industry distributes its promotional music.

      Schill Decl., Ex. H, p. 1. Notably, Destiny also admits in this excerpt that the encrypted content is possessed by the end user and is similar to a CD or DVD.

      Destiny’s contention that the encrypted music is not a product because it does not have a tangible form ignores Destiny’s own advertising and admissions, and the testimony of both parties’ experts. Indeed, the notion that content readily accepted as “products” in paper or CD form are no longer products in digital form simply strains credulity.

CONCLUSION

The creations that result from Yangaroo’s patented method are encrypted music tracks, music albums, music videos, music catalogs, and the like. Destiny’s Play MPE system results in the same creations. Encrypted music tracks, albums, catalogs, and videos – as well as other encrypted digital content – constitute products under §271(g). Accordingly, summary judgment of non-infringement is not proper.

Dated this 15th day of March, 2010.

MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

By: /s/ Katherine W. Schill

Jonathan H. Margolies, SBN 1000452

Katherine W. Schill, SBN 1025887

100 East Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 3300
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108

Attorneys for Plaintiff

YANGAROO INC.