Coop. Entm't, Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc.

Coop. Entm't, Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc.

Opinion

 [*129]  Moore, Chief Judge.

Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. (Cooperative) appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of its amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which held all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We reverse the district court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Background

The '452 patent relates to systems and methods of structuring a peer-to-peer (P2P) dynamic network for distributing large files, namely videos and video games. '452 patent at 4:28-40. In prior art systems, video streaming was controlled by content distribution networks (CDNs), where content was "distributed directly from the CDN server originating the content." Id. at 3:35-36, 9:50-52. The '452 patent, in [**2]  contrast, claims methods and systems for a network in which content distribution occurs "outside controlled networks and/or [CDNs]," i.e., outside a "static network of controlled systems." Id. at 3:40-43 (emphasis added), 3:57-58, 5:38-42. It does this with dynamic P2P networks comprising "peer nodes," i.e., nodes consuming the same content contemporaneously, that transmit content directly to each other instead of receiving content from the CDN. Id. at 3:55-64, 4:52-60, 5:4-10, 6:40-43, 7:43-46.

To facilitate content distribution, the claimed P2P networks use "content segmentation" in which a video file, for example, is segmented into smaller clips and distributed piecemeal. As a result, viewers can obtain individual segments as needed, preferably from other viewers. Id. at 8:10-12, Figs. 2-9. Content is segmented using several techniques, including "CDN address resolution, trace route to CDN and the P2P server manager, dynamic feedback from peers reporting traffic rates between individual peer and its neighbors, round-robin, other server side scheduling/resource allocation techniques, and combinations thereof." Id. at 5:51-56 (emphasis added).

Claim 1 recites:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.