• Damages Reports with Loss Profits

    January 27, 2020 edwin Damages Expert, Damages Report, Daubert Challenge, Intellectual Property

    Damages Reports with Loss Profits : Non-Infringing Alternatives and  Reasonable Royalty

    wincho
    No comments yet
    FacebookTwitterLinkedInWhatsAppRedditDiggHacker NewsEvernoteLiveJournalSlashdotSaveEmailShare0

    Damages Reports with Loss Profits require a set of guidelines to meet, specially the absence of Non-Infringing Alternatives. Non-Infringing Alternatives are important when determining damages and what is called,  the Panduit Test. Damages experts usually have two choices when calculating damages in intellectual property cases:

    • •  Loss Profits,
    • •  Reasonable Royalty

    There are numerous cases where loss profits are computed, and how in some cases  even arriving to a reasonable royalty might be confusing and complicated.

    Patent Damages theories including some landmark cases like Apple Inc vs Motorola Inc, Fed. Cir 2014 or other specially citing “Extent of use” approach, where a proportion of a technology affects the value of certain technology.

    One of the theories used in many damages reports or when following a hypothetical negotiations, or what is called Georgia-Pacific factor for reasonable royalties. 

    Indeed, reaching a reasonable royalty is far more complicated than simply computing and writing damages reports with loss profits.  However Loss Profits require a test that needs to include (see https://www.fr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FINAL_Patent_Damages_12_01.pdf) :

    For lost profits, “not infringed” means the hypothetical world in which the infringer did not use the technology at all in competition with the patentee.  See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. cir. 1999) (quot- ing Aro, 377 u.S. at 507).

    I will use a sample case from the Federal Circuit to see how Loss Profits were used to compute damages.

    In Dkct #280 of Case 2:16-cv-00586-JRG-RSP , the magistrate judge analyzed motions and filed and order stating that:

    Stingray, which entered the United States in 2010, is Music Choice’s only significant competitor. Stingray has three products in the United States relevant to Music Choice’s claims: (1) the Music TV App, which consists of VOD music programming, which Music Choice accuses of infringing the ’025 and ’045 VOD Linking Patents; (2) the “OSE2” version of Stingray’s UbiquiCAST system, which provides images corresponding to the music playing, which Music Choice accuses of infringing the ’025 and ’045 VOD Linking Patents; and (3) the “OSE1” version of its UbiquiCAST system, which only provides generic images and which Music Choice does not accuse of infringement in this case. (Dkt. No. 214, at 2).

    What this mean is that the defendant, Stingray, attempted to convince the court that they have product that did not infringe on plaintiff’s patents and hence, loss profits analyst made by the expert, Dr. Ugone’s was wrong ( their products were Non-Infringing Alternatives)

    Lessson #1 – Panduit Test

    A panduit test is cited by the judge as follows:

    The four-factor Panduit test requires the patentee to show: (1) demand for the patented product; (2) an absence of acceptable, non-infringing alternatives or substitutes; (3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (4) the amount of profit that would have been made. Panduit, 575 F.2d at 1156

    This test then requires that basically, there is no an acceptable, non-infringing substitute to the patents in dispute.

    Upon analyzing, the pleadings filed by Greenberg and Decher Law, Stingray and Music Choice attorneys, the judge states that:

    Stingray questions Dr. Ugone’s application of Panduit factor 2, which is “the absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives or substitutes.” Panduit, 575 F.2d at 1156. Stingray states that Dr. Ugone’s conclusion that “OSE1 is not an acceptable non-infringing substitute because of the ‘importance of the features and benefits enabled by the Visual Complement Patent’” is flawed

    And concludes that, Dr. Ugone’s analysis is hence correct, and the alternatives presented by Stingray are just not appropriate.

    The Court concludes that Dr. Ugone’s analysis of lost profits under the Panduit test is sufficiently reliable with respect to Liberty. Stingray has not sufficiently shown that Dr. Ugone’s analysis here is so unreliable that exclusion is warranted. Instead, the arguments presented by Stingray are better suited for a jury.

    And obviously, the Daubert challenge made to Dr. Ugone’s report failed, and the court simply denied it.

    Lesson #2 : Non-Infringing Alternatives

    There are numerous cases where Non-Infringing Alternatives or NIA is determined by simply finding out if:

    By Non–infringing alternatives, we mean that the infringer, without infringing the subject patent, could have made the same product and achieved an equal number of sales using that alternative.

    Gain Processing is a decision that brought a lot of light when to use a reasonable royalty and when to use loss profits.

    Grain Processing has made it more difficult for patent holders to claim lost profits damages, it is less well understood how Grain Processing has affected the incentives of companies to risk litigation by using patented technology (without a license) rather than to avoid infringement by using an economically inferior non-infringing technology.

    This indeed brings the questions what would be a difference by example between both:

    In the same case, apparently in March 2011, Music Choice charge $0.12 per residential subscriber, however due to competition brough by Stingray, decried i to $0.0931 and its competitor, Stingray offered i at $0.03 per residential subscriber, which seems to be working at a loss. Loss Profits is a simple computation.

    What Dr. Ugone identified is hat $15.69 M in loss profits where associated o Liberty and AT&T.

    Although, this price erosion and loss profits from 2014-2018 could have been affecting other clients as well, it is unknown, as all the damages reports are confidential and cannot be seen.

    A simple computation indicates that, $60M could have been the loss of revenues, as the cost, could have been flat at $0.03 per subscriber.

    Then, if a NIA existed and it was not mere speculation (from https://www.stout.com/en/insights/article/presidio-atc-new-insights-regarding-noninfringing-alternatives/) :

    When an alleged alternative is not on the market during the accounting period, a trial court may reasonably infer that it was not available as a noninfringing substitute at that time. The accused infringer then has the burden to overcome this inference by showing that the substitute was available during the accounting period. Mere speculation or conclusory assertions will not suffice to overcome the inference. After all, the infringer chose to produce the infringing, rather than noninfringing, product. Thus, the trial court must proceed with caution in assessing proof of the availability of substitutes not actually sold during the period of infringement. Acceptable substitutes that the infringer proves were available during the accounting period can preclude or limit lost profits; substitutes only theoretically possible will not.[3]

    Assuming then that, a non-infringing alternative exists, which is this case would have been my patents, or Cloud to Cable, as :

    • • Cloud to cable enables a visual component with audio and video,
    • • Cloud to cable can be used for VOD or SVOD
    • • Cloud to Cable has been tested and besides being a patent is a software device with implementation.

    Clearly, Cloud to Cable does and creates all what Music Choices states and claims Stingray is doing.

    However, Stingray MUST provide to the court that a NIA exists and a license was possible without infringing on it. This can be achieved with a licensing deal, in my opinion, and all Dr. Ugone’s analysis would be then with problems.

    Then assuming only AT&T and LIBERTY, or $15.6M in damages, could translate to $10% royalty or $4.5M or even at 1% or $450k total losses, which would be a significant decrease and impact from this litigation.

    Lesson #3 : Greenberg and Traurig $9M hole

    It doesn’t matter how large is your attorney’s firm or how much you paid, they may dump you.

    I contacted Greenberg and Traurig and presented them with my non-infringement alternatives back in 2018. I spoke with a few gentlemen but then radio silence. I still do not understand how strategically was not to discuss anything with me, after seeing all these rulings by the jugde.

    Greenberg and Trauring billed $9M to Stingray for a few years of litigation and dropped them, or were fired, it is not clear to me what happened but, what the new lawyers from Stingray are saying is that on Dkt #339:

    After nearly five years of litigating this lawsuit for Stingray and after collecting more than $9,000,000 in legal fees, Greenberg now seeks to withdraw as Stingray’s counsel of record at the same time this Court is understandably eager to get this case tried. Because of the timing of Greenberg’s Motion to Withdraw, Stingray is placed in an untenable position.

    Clearly, Stingray is still holding a hot potato and may go to trial, or accept  settlement that appears not to be of their liking.

    Greenberg’s withdrawal at this moment in time would materially prejudice Stingray’s ability to prepare for and participate at trial. Indeed, while it will not take several years or millions of dollars—as it has thus far—it will take considerable time for replacement counsel to acquaint themselves with the case in a manner sufficient to assist Stingray in mounting a robust defense. 

    Conclusions

    Lessons learned are:

    • • Stay on top of all potential solutions, and outcomes,
    • • Get lawyers from other firms, to work with the main firm, more expensive but who can keep checks and bounds,
    • • It is more inexpensive to simply take a license to a patented technology than infringing, I bet if Stingray Digital would I found some patents that were alternative would have spent less than the in a license.
    •  •Now, the case is a total mess, and who knows what the outcome will be
    Read more
  • MVDP Monetization

    Content Monetization with Cable TV and Satellite Operators

    December 26, 2019 edwin Cloud, cloud to cable, Media Projects, Mevia, Mobile Development, Mobile Device, Music for Cable TV
    Cloud to Cable TV is the best way to monetize video and music content for cable TV operators and satellite systems with examples - MPVD (Multichannel Programming Video Distribution) . ...
    Read more

  • 5G Handover

    December 22, 2019 edwin 5G, LTE, Mobility, Wireless

    5G Handover

    4G LTE handover was called X2 and S1, in 5G NR are called XN and N2

    5G has come close to standardization with many news from Verizon and T-Mobile regarding deployments and acquisitions specially with NOKIA.

     

    NOKIA logo

    5G Systems

    The new elements in 5G are gNB, AMF, UPF, which are using new interfaces as the XN and N2 interface to link the AMF with gNB and vice versa, replacing X2 and S1 AP interfaces.

    There are also several other components as follows:

    • gNB : Refers to the Base Station, like in the old LTE, the eNodeB
    • NR: Refers to the “New Radio” technology
    • NG-RAN: NG-RAN is Next Generation Radio Access Network. This consists of gNB and ng-ENB.
    • AMF Access and Mobility Management Function AF Application Function
    • UPF User Plane Function
    • NGC: Next Generation Core

     

    There in 5G the handover is called Xn Handover and N2 Handover

    • As the UE sends the measurement reports and the Source gNB detects that a handover is required, then it connects with the Target gNB to start a switch
    • The UE does a handover and connects to theTarget gNB That has already switched the tunnels to the target
    • The UE forwards as part of the handover process, This is called RRC

    The NG-RAN sends the UE Notification message to report the current RRC state for the UE (i.e. RRC Inactive state or RRC Connected state). The current UE location information (i.e. TAI + Cell Identity) is always included when RRC state information is reported.

    • Thru this, the UE can then handoff fast and all the data is available for you.

    How is the difference from the X2 Handover

    The differences are subtle, and the main difference is that the X2 handover. We server that Location Information is mandatory, but it was after LTE
    Rel-13 as well. The changes are minimum and this facilitates the understanding of all functions including AMF / UPF in 5G. In TS 38.423 V.15, the Xn-AP commands are shown, which is a similar document to the X2-AP specification.

    TS 123.502 v.15.02
    Technical Specification from 3GPP TS 123.502

    If the Location Reporting InformationIE is included in the HANDOVER REQUEST message, then the target NG-RAN node should initiate the requested location reporting functionality as defined in TS 38.413 [5].

    Similarly this is shown in TS 123.502 with

    1. Target NG-RAN to AMF: N2 Path Switch Request (List of PDU Sessions To Be Switched with N2 SM Information, List of PDU Sessions Rejected with a rejection Cause per PDU Session, UE Location Information)

    4G LTE Systems

    In the 4G LTE System, we would have an ENodeB, MME, S-GW, PDN-GW, as common elements of the network, hence the X2 and S1 interfaces were used for handover.

    In this design, X2 handover facilitates handoff between eNodeBs and relies on the MME for S1-AP handoff only.

    In 5G, things have changed a bit:

    As shown in the figure, the gNB has other entities and interfaces such as ch Xn interface, NG-C/U, and in the infrastructure called (NGC) no longer (EPC) we observe the AMF/UPF duality that resembles the MME/S-GW on LTE.

    In comparison, UEs are the same, different radios, on one end LTE, and into the future a 5G radio.

    What are the main actors for handover on LTE

    • ♠ eNodeB – or the Base Station, contains the RF and all IP-level connectivity to the MME/S-GW/PDN-GW to create and maintain connectivity between the RF and EPC-Bearer or Tunnels to the outside world.
    • ♠ S-GW: Refers to a component that connects the eNodeB with the PDN-GW and is usually a router that sends the tunnel to the PDN-GW with data from the eNodeB or the UE
    • ♠ PDN-GW: Functions as the anchor or the home of the network, is the main NAT/Routing GW to the internet and keeps track of all tunnels for each UE on the network, and knows how to forward packets to the UEs.
    • ♠ MME: The Mobility Management Entity, handles mobility in general, required for the S1-AP handover, and handles many mobility functions coordinating with the PDN-GW/S-GWs.

    There are multiple specifications related to handover on LTE and defined by ETSI/3GPP organizations.

    https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136300_136399/136331/10.07.00_60/ts_136331v100700p.pdf
    PDF TS 136.331
    https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136300_136399/136300/08.09.00_60/ts_136300v080900p.pdf
    PDF TS 136.300
    https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/129200_129299/129275/10.01.00_60/ts_129275v100100p.pdf
    PDF TS 129.275

    Read more

  • X2 Handover in LTE: A Tutorial

    December 22, 2019 edwin Inventions, LTE, Mobile Device, Mobile World Congress, Mobility, Wireless

    X2 Handover:  How does it work?

    An X2 Handover is used by LTE as well as S1 handovers for User Equipment (“UE”) or mobile phone mobility.

    First and foremost,  LTE and 5G both share an ALL-IP Architecture. In the past, in UMTS systems or even older systems, mobility consisted in several layers of IuB interfaces from the RNC to the NodeBs.  It is not then an ALL-IP network as expected.

    We will not go over Tracking Area Updates and Tracking Area Indentifiers as that’s will be discussed in a later post.

    In UMTS, the Radio Network Controller (RNC) manages hundreds of NodeBs, all interconnected using the IuB interface and RNC to RNC uses the IuR Interface. The SGSN or Serving GPRS Support Node is in charge of setting up the internet link or GTP-U tunnel from the SGSN tot he RNC. However the IP link will not move although an you can switch from NodeBs, meaning that any soft-handover or hand-handovers that occur between NodeBs does not affect the GTP-U link form the internet to the UE.

    UMTS Network

    In LTE, on the other hand there are many changes, one is that eNodeB is the end-point of the IP link, making it an ALL-IP network. This change requires some redesign to the protocols and specially the insertion of “hard handovers” plus X2 and S1AP Handover protocols that are now based on IP Mobility.   As shown in the figure below, X2 interfaces communicate eNodeBs, and S1 links from eNodeBs to S-GWs and S1-MME to the MME. The MME is the Mobility Management Entity which tracks the UE and does paging, as well as updates.


    LTE X2 Interface

    As you can observe, the X2 Interface is key for handoff as this interface is used not only to detect adjacent eNodeBs but also to exchange information as interference and others.

     

     

    The X2 handover will be illustrated as follows:

    The UE has to be in RRC_CONNECTED stated not in RRC_IDLE where a process called “Cell Reselection” i used. Lets Start with 1-6 Steps:

    Step 1: Handover Command

    As opposed to others, we will start with the Handover Command, which is the an RRC Connection Reconfiguration Message that contains a field called “MobilityConttrolInfo” this field contains the Physical Cell ID to handover to, as well as a list of neighbor cells with their associated “Cell Individual Offsets” that are used for A3, A5 and other events.

    Handover Command

    The Handover Command forces the switch from a previous cell to the next cell. Handover can only occur

    In this example a Handover Command was issued to connect to eNodeB with ID=1.

    An RRC Connection Reconfiguration message may follow with a list of Cell IDs, in this example, 2, 3, and maybe 4, to add to the list to monitor for a measurement report to be created.

    Mobility Control Info Structure

    This structure can be found in the specification as follows:

    Mobility Control Info

    Step 2 : Measurement Reports and Events

    As we know, LTE specification defines several reports. In this example we will focus on A5 and A3 events, that are programmed using the Cell Individual Offsets and Frequency offsets found in the specification.   Since the device is in “Connected State”  Layer 3 filtering is applied to the measurements made by the UE.

    The filtering algorithm may use different coefficients that the eNodeB sets as default.

    L3 Interfaces

     

    Events and measurements

    The state machine inside the UE, is configured by the rrcConnectionReconfiguration message to track all the eNodeBs provided and its frequencies, including applying SIB4 blocks that are submitted by the eNodeB to the target.

    In a way the eNodeB is predicting the next state to follow reporting A5 and A3 Events to the eNodeB.

    X2 handover Measurement Reports

    STEP 3:  HANDOVER REQUEST

    Now it is known by the eNodeB that Handover might be required and decides based on all the events or measurement reports, where to Handoff the UE too, and creates a HANDOVER REQUEST to a a Target eNodeB or the one with ID=2.

    X2 handover Handover Request

    STEP 4: Allocation of resources in Target eNodeB

    Now that Handover Request is moving forward, a setup for tunnels is created to the Target such that all internet traffic will start flowing tot he Target eNodeB with Cell ID =2

     

    X2 handover Handover Resources Allocated

    Once this is successful a Handover Acknolwedgement is made to the source and packets start going to the Target, similarly, Downlink and Uplink tunnels start being moved to the target eNodeB with Cell ID = 2

     

    STEP 5.  Handover Command to Switch to Target

    Exactly as in STEP 1, a Handover Command (in an rrcConnection Reconfiguration message) containing the Target ID = 2 is issued from the Source, also at some point another rrcConnection Reconfiguration message will contain all neighbor nodes with its respective Cell Individual Offests and this process will continue.

    X2 handover Handover Command

     

    STEP 6.  All is switch to the Target and MME is updated of the move.

    As a final step of handover, the path switch is complete which is a process called “Late Path Switch” that generates all traffic to move from the Source to the Target eNodeB in its totality.

     

    X2 handover Handover Completion

    You can hire us for consulting for your 4G or 5G Project.

    We have R&D Labs with wireless capabilities for IOT, Mobile, Emulation

    Hands-on Experts in Computer Communications, Networking, Cloud, Network Function Virtualization (NFV), Edge Computing, Smartphones, and all your strategic intellectual property needs.

    Contact Us
    Read more

  • Smartphone Expert Witness

    December 21, 2019 edwin Android, Cloud, Expert Witness, Intellectual Property, J2ME, Linux, Mobile Development, Mobile Device, Mobile World Congress, Smartphone, Wireless
    Our team of engineers have worked in companies like Motorola Mobility,  Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, and many other phone manufacturers.  Dr. Edwin Hernandez has licensed some of his technologies to major phone manufacturers. ...
    Read more

  • Cloud to Cable Patent Updates

    December 19, 2019 edwin Cloud, cloud to cable, Intellectual Property, IPTV, Media Projects, Music for Cable TV, Patents, USPTO

    Cloud to Cable Patent Officially Issued (2nd Patent)

    The new patent also covering “Cloud to Cable TV” was issued on December 11th, 2019.

    What does Cloud to Cable Patent Covers?

    Cloud to Cable is a patented solution for music streaming providers to distribute content to MVPDs. Amplify your ooffering from online streaming to Cable TV & IPTV systems with linear channels and SVOD subscriptions. Create visually appealing streams with great sound, bundled with a mobile experience
    through the MEVIA app.

    Patents: US 10,123,074, and 10,524,002 with European Patent filed/PCT.

    Music and Video are ready in all broadcasting platforms for easy monetization from your affiliates in MVPD, IPTV, Smart TVs & Mobile systems.

    Cloud to Cable are high-performance servers ready for your customer’s CABSAT headend, with a fault-tolerance design for quick integration. The
    content is available in mobile applications and Cable TV Broadcasts as SVOD or linear channels, all at once

    Cloud to Cable TV patent Issued

    10,524,002 Patent Now Available

    Cloud to Cable Patent Portfolio

    As of December 11th, 2019, the USPTO officially issued US Patent 10,524,002 covering aspects of Cloud to Cable TV that were not covered in the initial patent. I received a notification today of my 12th issued US Patent and hopefully more to come in the coming years.

    This patent includes several claims that include: Generation of a parallelized set of MPEG TV / DVB Broadcasted to Cable TV systems or IPTV;  MPEG TV bi-directional communication from the Set Top Box to the Cable TV system’ Virtualized versions of the broadcasting embodiment or the Cloud and other important inventions covered..

    Edge Computing for TV Broadcasting

    Both, Cloud to Cable Patents, 10,123,074 and 10,524,002 cover a device or computing system that can be embodied into an edge server located at the Cable TV premises, IPTV System, or even at newly defined 4G LTE and 5G broadcasting platforms.

    Cloud to Cable TV brings virtualization to media broadcasting and distribution.

    For licensing proposals, partnerships, don’t hesitate to reach me.

    Cloud to Cable TV Patent

    The family of patents includes now 10,123,074 and 10,524,002, both patents entail

    As shown herein, those claims include for example:

    Two way control messages from Claim 24, Claim 24 itself,

    Injection of MPEG Metadata or MPEG Frames into the stream.

    Fault-tolerance system and multicasting server for MPEG encoded video and audio,

    HTTP Live Streaming, RTSP, or HTTP Playlist

    Linear and Video on Demand (VOD) Support.

    Software Platform and Reference Implementation

    The reference implementation and production device is implemented under our “MediaPlug” or “Mevia” Appliance. In general, any server with 8-16GB of RAM, i7 Intel Processor or AMD, 2TB drive (RAID), ethernet or fiber interfaces is more than sufficient to load all docker  images and be provisioned for media delivery.

    Additional Software Requirements

    Xen Server 7.2 or higher, or Ubuntu Linux 14.04 or higher with Docker Images.
    Sources implemented with PHP, Python, C/C++, BASH, and other modules.

    Mux and Cable Headend Requirements

    The Cable Headend should consist of a Motorola-based Cherry or any other DVB/MPEG mux. All Set Top Boxes can support multicast streams directly for IPTV systems with fiber, or Coaxial with DOCSIS 2.0-3.0.  MPEG messages and encoding depends on provider.

    Formatted for Audio-only, HTML-based Standard Definition (SD), High Definition (HD), 4K, and/or Dolby-digital Sound.

    Read more

  • IPR Consultants

    December 18, 2019 edwin Damages Expert, Expert Witness, IPR, Litigation, Patents, PTAB, USPTO
    IPR Consultants We assist our clients and law firms crafting strong arguments for a Patent Owner or a Petitioner in IPRs. We consider infringement, estoppel issues, and provide a strategic technical value to your IPR process. ...
    Read more

  • Case Opinions – Music Choice v. Stingray Digital

    November 24, 2019 edwin Damages Expert, Damages Report, Daubert Challenge, Expert Witness, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Media Projects, Music for Cable TV

    Introduction

    I will start quoting, MultiChannel article that describes the genesis of this dispute..

    Stingray and Music Choice have a long history. In 2015, Music Choice sued Stingray for patent infringement after AT&T U-verse dropped Music Choice in favor of the Canadian company. Music Choice had claimed that Stingray’s service included digital audio music and video-on-demand features that infringed on its patents, features that Stingray enhanced after getting access to confidential information during talks about possibly buying Music Choice in 2015. Stingray counter-sued, asserting “claims of unfair competition, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships, and unfair competition.” (Source: Multichannel)

    It was very interesting that in 2017, Stingray made a $120M offer to Music Choice, that was, rejected, not publicly, simply ignored. The offer was sweet basically no strings attached, and likely this case in dispute completely dismissed.

    “Canadian digital and music video company Stingray Digital Group said it has made an unsolicited offer to purchase pay TV stalwart Music Choice for $120 million. (Id) “

    As  consequence of this lawsuit, multiple other litigation steps have followed this case: IPR,  Counter Claims, Daubert challenges, and much more. I have been tracking this case I have a portfolio in the same are as “Music Choice” & “Stingray Digital”

    Now all my observations resulted accurate, and in other words, the analysis of this cases that I made in 2017 is now a reality.

    In summary, I concluded, and you can confirm at [1]. [2]. [3]. and at edwinhernandez.com  that:

    • ♠ Stingray IPRs was not going to be super successful, as the PTAB judges were not fully convinced with the arguments.
    • ♠ I still believe that Music Choice’s slashed patents by PTAB might have some light in appeal.
    • ♠ Damages Report, challenged by Stingray, with a multi-million dollar award was going to be accepted by the court
    • ♠ Alice defenses were futile by Stingray
    • ♠ Trial was going to be conducted and all other defenses denied

    Now this case is scheduled for trial  Dec 9th, 2019 in Marshall, TX.

    Opinions

    Several rulings have gone unfavorable to Stingray Digital, which includes adoption of the Magistrate judge opinions followed by  an order denying the Daubert challenge made to Dr. Keith Ugone. What this means is that Mr. Ugone’s damages report is safe and sound, in other words the damages expert, Dr. Ugon representing Music Choice,  will be able to tell the jury his story about this case.

    Clearly, this was a big reverse to Stingray ,specially when Dr. Ugone has testified that a “non-infringing alternative” presented by Stingray was not suitable and hence, the damages model was at least $23M from the numbers released in a court ruling.

    Dr. Ugone’s testified that in absence of a non-infringement alternative, loss profits need to be used to compute damages, instead of a reasonable royalty. Assuming $23M in loss profits, that means revenues could have been $75M. If, an expert applies a royalty of 10% that’s $7M and 1%, 700k in reasonable royalties.  Potentially saving $23M in loss profits, or even higher at $75M for treble damages, if the judge considers necessary to punish Stingray.

    As you know, already, I completely disagree as my patents when in use in Cable TV systems are a non-infringing alternative to Music Choice’s.

     

     For that reason and the other reasons stated within the Order, the Court agrees with the conclusion reached within the Order. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is therefore ADOPTED. 

    On second adverse ruling, Judge Payne has provided to Judge Gilstrap its report and recommendations regarding the Alice challenge that Stingray has made against Music Choice, Inc patents. The adverse ruling indicates that as a matter of law, Alice Step One, fails and there is no need to conduct any further steps,

    The Court concludes that each of the remaining asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One. Because the Court resolves the Alice inquiry at Step One, the Court need not proceed to Alice Step Two. Thus, the Court recommends that Music Choice’s cross-motion be GRANTED and that Stingray’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED. 

    As jury selection is due December 9th, 2019, clearly Stingray has a low chance of surviving a trial, and in my opinion, Stingray has increase its chances to be found guilty of infringement and pay a hefty amount, likely a multi-million dollar judgment and a potential injunction relief favorable to stingray.

    What will happen?

    Stingray digital has to find a way to now settle this case or, maybe even better, Stingay can discuss a way to present a license to my patents and technology. My patents and technologiss are clearly as a non-infringing alternative to Music Choice, and my patents are new, and will last for a longer time as a protection.

    Either way, this is not good to be in this position for Stingray.

    Stingray could take a license to my portfolio and present it to Music Choice and the court, and avoid all infringement claims.

    Besides that, Stingray Digital made an offer for $120M to purchase Music Choice, and Music Choice rejected the offer, risked a trial and now their position has been getting more solid day after day.  I would assume that it will have to make an offer around that to settle? That means that Stingray’s revenues in the US, which totals $9M per Quarter or $36M/year are now at risk.

    The current damages report shows a $23M loss profits made by Music Choice as of this date, however a full report is only REDACTED and unavailable to the public.

     

    “Revenues in the United States increased 12.2% to $9.4 million (12.9% of total revenues) and in Other Countries, revenues increased by 31.3% to $16.1 million (22.1% of total revenues)” (Source: Globenewswire).

    Greenberg and Trauig is defending Stingray and Dechert Law, LLP is Music Choice’s plaintiff.

    Licensing of My Patent Portfolio

    There are several ways to find out about my portfolio of patents and software implementation, you can contact me via email to sales@eglacorp.com or call me.   My innovations are covered by US Patents 10,123,074 and 10,524,002 and other continuation patents, including European Patent filings, plus the technology and software platform:

     

     


     

    Read more

  • Assisted Cases: Expert Witness & Damages Expert

    November 22, 2019 edwin Damages Expert, Damages Report, Expert Witness, Intellectual Property, IPR, Litigation
    Cases where we have assisted clients against different plaintiffs and defendants, as well as consulting for strategic decision making. ...
    Read more

  • Why Cloud to Cable : MVPD Licensing Portfolio and Technology.

    November 12, 2019 edwin Cloud, cloud to cable, Patents, software

    Why Cloud to Cable?

    Cloud to Cable is a patented solution for music streaming providers to distribute content to MVPDs. Amplify your offering from online streaming to Cable TV & IPTV systems with linear channels and SVOD subscritions. Create visually appealing streams with great sound, bundled with a mobile experience through the MEVIA app.

    Music and Video are ready in all broadcasting platforms for easy monetization from your affiliates in MVPD, IPTV, Smart TVs & Mobile systems.Cloud to Cable are high-performance servers ready for your customer’s CABSAT headend, with a fault-tolerance design forquick integration. The content is available in mobile applications and Cable TV Broadcasts as SVOD or linear channels, all at once.

    For more details:

    IP Cloud to Cable Licensing - small - public

    Technology Licensing

    Some existing patents, now expiring, cover VOD linking and Visual Complement to generate music streams for MVPD (Multi-video Programming Distribution) providers.

    Our innovative technologies achieve better results and more benefits under patents US Pat. 10,123,074 , US20190037271, PCT 16/152,606 and EP3238457 (under prosecution) with 39 approved claims.

    The MEVIA App is in charge of interfacing with the end-user via mobile phone or smart TV.

    These patents are implemented in software and hardware for music broadcasting as a “Music for Cable TV” service for operators.

    The software includes modules in Python, C/C++, and PHP, Linux OS-baseline only. Servers are configured for high-reliability and fault-tolerance designed for MVPD systems.

    The system creates visual components and mixes high-end audio with the HTML-based interfaces that are then broadcasted into the CABLE TV System, IPTV Network, or to the mobile devices.

    The technology and patents are available for licensing or acquisition.

    Read more

  • Global Mobile Awards – Judge for Mobile World Congress 2020

    November 12, 2019 edwin Inventions, Mobile World Congress

    Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez will be attending a judge for the Global Mobile Awards at the Mobile World Congress 2020 in Barcelona, Spain.
    Stay tuned for coverage from TECHED.tv

    Read more

  • An innovative approach to compute damages models KPI-based businesses

    November 10, 2019 edwin Damages Report, Expert Witness, USPTO

    This analysis only works when Panduit testfails for a computation of loss profits and only works for a reasonable royalty damagers model.

    I personally submitted a damages report in a the case: Mobility Workx, LLC vs Cellco Partnership aka Verizon Wireless in the E.D. Texas, and Judge Mazzant ordered me to present it to a jury which means a Daubert challenge was made and survived..

    The model I created for damages can be used for many technology disputes where “Key Performance Indicators” are measured to map a business performance, and how and what intellectual property maps to the revenues generated by a business and its performance.

    My report mapped, KPIs from ETSI Specification “TS 32.451 Version 8.0.0 Release 8”  describing the following subcategories:

    • Accessibility
    • Retainability
    • Integrity
    • Availability
    • Mobility

    Judge Mazzant accepted my report due to my experience at Motorola and all my overall resume working with startups, licensing deals, and being part of multiple patent and technology licensing agreements that involved companies like Qualcomm, Google, and many others.

    For example, TS 32.451 contain several KPIs for LTE Systems or E-UTRAN and you can map an Intellectual Property piece to one or several subcategories, and then from that category you can then establish the proper proportion of what an intellectual property maps to, which means that clearly a percentage of the revenues that a company generates can be mapped to a certain technology.

    Key performance Indicators are part of not only 4G LTE systems but are found in most technological systems.  The process is presented in the following slides:

    KPI - Damages Reports
    In summary, one can say that many KPIs have a mapping to revenues, and that’s how companies can value performance to value.

    Once these mappings are determined, which all KPIs may offer the same proportion of value to the generated revenues of a corporation, then one can map the features of a patent portfolio to one or many KPIs and create a weighed average of contribution to the KPIs and hence to the revenues.

    In the following charts, I represent that maybe a single patent or IP maps to a KPI which equates to a percentage of the revenues, let’s say it is 20%. Assume for a second that the KPI category contains 20 parameters, that for simplicity will be equally weighted.  As such, the technology where damages are being calculated corresponds to 2 parameters let’s say, hence a 10% of the KPI is then affected or benefited by the patents or technologies.

    Setting up a royalty rate, of let’s say 3% to 5% seems reasonable and affects only the percentage of the revenues a KPI is affected by the patents. Hence, there is no dispute on how much effect a patent or an IP affects a business model.

    KPIs are usually defined by the defendant or an industry-defined, like in LTE, and each are granular enough that a mapping between a patent portfolio and /or an intellectual property can be mapped to. 

     

    As such a simply royalty yield of 5% can be used to compute an overall royalty that only affects the revenues generated by let’s say LTE Revenues for example, or any other technology with KPIs.

    if you have any questions you can contact me or hire me to calculate your damages report.

    ts_132451v080000p
    Read more
  • MEVIA logo

    Cloud to Cable – Second Patent Allowed

    September 5, 2019 edwin Cloud, cloud to cable, Intellectual Property, Inventions, Media Projects, Mevia, Music for Cable TV, USPTO

    Cloud to Cable Second Patent Allowed

    Besides US Patent 10,123,074 a new patent is allowed within the same family. A second set of claims were allowed on September 3rd, 2019 and that means that several claims that cover MPEG TV and Music broadcasting, MPEG 2-way communications, HTTP Live Streaming broadcasting, and fault-tolerance for carriers.

    The patent covers a system to deliver multiple video and audio broadcasts that combine web pages with multimedia to be delivered to cable operators.

    The following summary of inventions and claims for the following inventions:

    ✪ MPEG Broadcasting – DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting)

    ✪ MPEG 2-way broadcasting (On Demand)

    ✪ HTTP Live Streaming (Applications, OTT TV, Over-the-Top)(

    ✪ Fault-Tolerance and broadcasting

    The  claims allowed are essential for modern broadcasting systems for video, music, and web-pages

    The Cloud to Cable TV patents are a bridge between cloud systems and TV & Audio broadcasting platforms where the convergence of HTML and Virtualization make possible, what is called today Edge Computing.

    In 4G & 5G systems, Edge Computing is classified as:

    Edge computing provides compute and storage resources with adequate connectivity (networking) close to the devices generating traffic. The benefit is the ability to provide new services with high requirements on e.g. latency or on local break-out possibilities to save bandwidth in the network – data should not have to travel far in the network to reach the server. Regulatory compliance and network scalability are also important edge computing drivers. Source (Ericsson)

    In a way, Cloud to Cable brings compute and storage resources for TV broadcasting systems, either DVB, Content Delivery Networks, or other similar systems.

    You can review a summary of what’s been published by the USPTO.

    For Licensing Information:

    Licensing-Technologies-Presentation-small

     

    USPTO Public PAIR Information:

    16152606-2
    Read more

  • IPR Declaration and Expert Witness Assistance

    August 26, 2019 edwin IPR, Patents, USPTO
    Inter Partes Review and IPR Assistance to Patent Owner or Petitioner. ...
    Read more

  • Artificial Intelligence in 4G and 5G Systems

    March 21, 2019 edwin AI, Expert Witness, Intellectual Property, Inventions, Machine Learning, Mobile Development, Mobile Device, Mobile World Congress, Neural Networks
    4G and 5G networks are being influenced by "AI" or Artificial Intelligence for optimization, fault detection, and other methods in the infrastructure. ...
    Read more

  • Cloud to Cable TV – Intellectual Property Portfolio

    November 30, 2018 eglacorp Cloud, cloud to cable, Mevia, Music for Cable TV

    Cloud to Cable TV is the platform that makes it easy to send music channels, video channels, video on demand, and any other multimedia streaming content to millions of subscribers.  Cloud to Cable enables a friendly distribution system for media owners, content providers, to subscribers in IPTV, Cable TV, OTT, or even satellite operators.

    CLOUD TO CABLE
    Mobile and Cable TV distribution

    We have developed a technology that sim greatly simplifies multimedia delivery of deliver music & TV content to cable operators and mobile devices, all in one-stop shop. Upload your content to our online drive or cloud storage, and get ready for distribution and monetization.;

    Our intellectual property portfolio includes the following assets:

    • US patents
    • European patents
    • Software and trade secrets

    Our patented innovative technology is called:    CLOUD to CABLE

    In essence, cloud to cable brings value by bringing to you, an easy way to do:

    • Music broadcasting to Operators, mobile, IPTV, cable TV, or even satellite,
    • Modern virtualization and cloud technologies integrated into our software,
    • Broadcasting with fault-tolerance, ready for high-reliability, and great quality of service.
    • Parallel transcoding meaning you can deliver 5, 10, 50, even 100 music or TV channels depending on the hardware chosen, number of instances, and bandwidth purchased from us,
    • Web-based approach, yes all is web-based, no funky DIGICIPHER II, MPEG TS, or any of that, all if works on the web, works with Cable TV, Satellite, all and all.
    • Interactive and VOD integration
    • TV & Music all in one Platform

    PDF file with our presentation slide deck:

    CloudtoCable Intellectual Property – Nov 2018Download
    Read more

  • Cloud to Cable TV Patent Issued Today.

    November 6, 2018 eglacorp Cloud, Mediamplify, Mevia, Patents, USPTO

    US Patent 10,123,074

    Today, the US Pat 10,123,074 issued for Cloud to Cable, after a provisional was filed December 2014. This patent covers the currently commercialized Cloud to Cable TV system.  The process was not that long, considering that the initial firm, NOVAK DRUCE was disbanded and I had to transfer the case to Greg Nelson and Fox & Rothschild, LLP in West Palm Beach, FL.The patent issued  is titled: Method, system, and apparatus for multimedia content delivery to cable TV and satellite operators 
    A patent continuation was filed in October to cover other aspects of the invention, as shown in the picture the patent generates video with an MPEG Transport Stream that is compatible with a Cable TV system.

    What is Cloud to Cable?

    The main aspects and novelty of the invention include but are not limited to the following items:
    • Integration of web-elements, web pages, or HTML5-related content with rendering of this content on OTT, IPTV, and most importantly, Cable TV systems.
    • Virtualization and use of containers in the distribution of music and TV content to cable operators, by provision at virtual machine or docker container with the web page plus content for rendering purposes.
    • Essentially, the patent covers music and TV distribution to cable operators and systems for broadcasting.
    • Over-the-Top, IPTV systems, or Cable TV operators can now integrate novel ReactJS, Javascript, and all advanced mechanisms for designing user interfaces into their video feeds.
    • Audio and music channels can be integrated and created by just connecting to the web-based content provider.
    • Fault-tolerance and high-reliability is presented in the disclosure.
    In many ways, the invention covers a device, system, and methods to accomplish media distribution with ease, reducing costs, and implementing a novel mechanism that replaces satellite delivery, hardware encoders, and many other devices,

    Cloud to Cable Video

    A video can be found at EGLA’s Youtube Channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80G-rh6Dlns

    You can download the official specification and claims from he USPTO 10,123,074 patentDownload
    Read more

  • NBC Universal Hackathon – Miami 2018

    November 5, 2018 eglacorp Cloud, cloud to cable, Edwin, Entrepreneurship, Hacking, Inventions, Media Projects, Mevia, software
    This weekend I went and spent some time hacking some code at the “NBC Universal Hackathon” and trying it out new ideas, meeting new friends, and learning a ton on many technological aspects and innovating.  The particular problem that we decided to to solve was the irrelevance  aspects of current TV and how more interactive could it be with current technologies.  The way to solve it thru a collaborative experience where users can interact with their phones and cameras with the video shown on screen.The team was composed by: Satya, Paul Valdez, Juan Gus, Myself, and Chris.What we did what simple, we could create a website that could have a canvas that could be treated with effects, add the TV/Video feeds into it and  that distribute the content using a platform like “Cloud to Cable TV” to cable operators or OTT/IPTV systems.
    Cloud to Cable TV
    The solution required a few items to be setup and configured:
    • RTMP Server or WebRTC Setup to receive video feeds from Smartphones or your laptop,
    • FFMPEG to encode, compress, and publish  video/audio feeds
    • Mobile App with RTMP Client or WebRTC Client or laptop. We tried several but this one worked out ok.
    • A web application in Python to map each feed and position it on top of the TV Channel video source (assuming an M3U8 feed or a movie in MP4)
    With this in place, it is a matter compiling CRTMP, FFMPEG, and we tried other components as Deep Learning such as the “Deep Fakes” project. The idea that we had was to replace one of the actors image, as well as superimposed our live feeds into the video.Issues:
    • The safari browser doesn’t allow you to play content with autoplay features, meaning that the user MUST initiate a playback. If SAFARI sees or detects that onLoad the content autoplays this fails.
    • There are issues with SAFARI and dynamically loading the content and video.oncanplaythrough() is required to be added to the javascript.
    The live feeds had a delay of about 30-40seconds, as it had to:
    • Convert and push from mobile phone to RTMP Server,
    • Grab RTMP Stream and send it as an m3u8 encoded file to the website.
    The standard CRTMP Screen would look like and connections from Gus and Pablo successfully took place:
    
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                     Services|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| c |      ip       | port|   protocol stack name   |     application name    |
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1112|           inboundJsonCli|                    admin|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1935|              inboundRtmp|              appselector|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8081|             inboundRtmps|              appselector|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8080|             inboundRtmpt|              appselector|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 6666|           inboundLiveFlv|              flvplayback|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 9999|             inboundTcpTs|              flvplayback|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 5544|              inboundRtsp|              flvplayback|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 6665|           inboundLiveFlv|             proxypublish|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8989|         httpEchoProtocol|            samplefactory|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8988|             echoProtocol|            samplefactory|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1111|    inboundHttpXmlVariant|                  vptests|
+---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    We were trying to use WebRTC but we had many issues with latency and delays.The FFMPEG command required and that was used for the demo was:
    ffmpeg -re  -i rtmp://96.71.39.58/live/pablo -c:v libx264 -c:a aac -ac 1 -strict -2 -crf 18 -profile:v baseline -maxrate 200k -bufsize 1835k -pix_fmt yuv420p -flags -global_header -hls_time 3 -hls_list_size 4 -hls_wrap 10 -start_number 1 /var/www/html/live/pablo.m3u8

ffmpeg -re  -i rtmp://96.71.39.58/live/gus -c:v libx264 -c:a aac -ac 1 -strict -2 -crf 18 -profile:v baseline -maxrate 200k -bufsize 1835k -pix_fmt yuv420p -flags -global_header -hls_time 3 -hls_list_size 4 -hls_wrap 10 -start_number 1 /var/www/html/live/gus.m3u8
    The Mobile App published an RTMP Stream to the server under /live/pablo and /live/gus.  The demo video on what it will look like:
    https://vimeo.com/299048743
    Screen capture in Vimeo using Safari
    For screen capturing in a Mac with FFMPEG with 3 screens, list your devices and capturing to avoid any MOOV issues and useless MOV/MP4 files.
    ffmpeg -f avfoundation -list_devices true -i "" 

ffmpeg -f avfoundation -i "3:0" -t 120 -pix_fmt yuv420p -c:v libx264 -c:a libmp3lame -r 25 teleport.mov
    The presentation we made to the judges at the “NBC Universal Hackathon” can be found here:
    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sKAvnC-Y-KHu2qclulH2Fp-8yWvTslq6bLaocyEgtfQ/edit?usp=sharing
    The source code consists on an HTML site using DOM objects, video source, and a canvas. As shown, the video is hidden it is native format in ways that you can use canvas drawing to copy the video from the “src” in m3u8, MOV, MP4 or whatever format your browser can handle to the canvas. The canvas is then the placeholder for all the overlays and divs. The idea with the canvas is that messages can then by typed and exchange between users, as a WhatsApp application or any other chat application that uses the canvas.
    var canvas = document.getElementById("c");
var context = canvas.getContext("2d");

window.onload = function() {
 // document.getElementById("fb-profile").style.display = "none";
  
    var canvas = document.getElementById("c");
    var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
    // grab the video element
    // var video = document.getElementById("v");
    
    // drawVideo(context, video, canvas.width, canvas.height);
    // calls drawVideo() function, passing all the objects

}

var splayer = {};

function showIt(id, url, hideOrNot) {
  console.log(id+"  "+url+ " setting it to " +hideOrNot); 

  splayer["v_"+id] = document.getElementById("v_"+id);
  document.getElementById(id).style.display = hideOrNot;
  if (document.getElementById(id).style.display == "none" ) { 
     document.getElementById(id).style.display = "block";
     var vId = "vsrc_"+id; 
     console.log("playing "+vId + "  "+url);
     document.getElementById(vId).src = url;
     if (splayer["v_"+id].paused) { 
        console.log("Video paused.... ");
        splayer["v_"+id].load();
        splayer["v_"+id].oncanplaythrough = function() {
            splayer["v_"+id].play();
         };
     } else {
       console.log("Video is playing already..."); 
     }
  } else {
     console.log(" Stopping .... v_"+id);
     splayer["v_"+id].pause();
     document.getElementById(id).style.display="none";
  }
}

 var player = document.getElementById("v");
 
function ChangeHarry(){
    console.log("Playing Harry Potter.... ");
    document.getElementById("vsrc_main").src = "http://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/teleportme/videos/HarryPotterClip.mp4";
    player.load();
    player.play();
    drawVideo(context, player, canvas.width, canvas.height);
}

function ChangeQueen(){
  console.log("Playing Queen of the South ... ");
  player.pause();
  document.getElementById("vsrc_main").src="http://96.71.39.58/queen0.mp4";
  player.load();
  player.play();
  // drawVideo(context, player, canvas.width, canvas.height);
}

setTimeout(function() {
       showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantharry.mp4", "none");
       setTimeout(ChangeHarry, 6000);
     } , 2000 );

setTimeout(function() { 
      showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantharry.mp4",  "block"); 
}, 8000 ); 

setTimeout(showIt, 5000, "second", "http://96.71.39.58/live/pablo.m3u8", "none");
setTimeout(showIt, 6000, "third",  "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8", "none");
console.log("Starting changing stuff"); 

setTimeout(function() {
            console.log("Preeping to switch to Queen of the South" ); 
            showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantqueen.mp4", "none"); 
          }, 13000);  

setTimeout(showIt, 15000, "third",  "http://96.71.39.58/live/pablo.m3u8", "none"); 
setTimeout(showIt, 15010, "second", "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8" ,  "none"); 

// setTimeout(showIt, 20000, "third", "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8", "none"); 
setTimeout(function() { 
            console.log("Queen of the South");
            ChangeQueen();                        
            showIt("first", "", "block");
           }, 19000); 



function fbProfile() {
    var x = document.getElementById("fb-profile");
    if (x.style.display === "none") {
        x.style.display = "block";
    } else {
        x.style.display = "none";
    }
}

function drawVideo(context, video, width, height) {         
   context.drawImage(video, 0, 0, width, height); // draws current video frame to canvas     
   var delay = 100; // milliseconds delay for slowing framerate
   setTimeout(drawVideo, delay, context, video, width, height); // recursively calls drawVideo() again after delay
}
    For a functional demo, 1st allow the site to play video in autoplay:
    Update your settings in SAFARI
    Teleport ME – Demo on Mediamplify.com
    We didn’t win the “NBC Universal Hackathon” but had a ton of fun doing it!.  We failed in the presentation, it was only 3 minutes and our presenter disappeared in the last minute, and Gus improvised and didn’t use all the time provided by the judges. We knew we were done when no questions were asked. …. Anyways!!! You cannot always win.
    Read more

  • Cloud to Cable Patent Issued & Inventors Protection Act Updates

    October 19, 2018 eglacorp Cloud, cloud to cable, Mevia, Music for Cable TV

    Patent Issued for One of Our Media Streaming Technologies

    As you have read in my blog, Cloud-to-Cable is a platform and technology that merges the worlds of cloud and Cable TV.One of the main objectives of the patent and as you can read in the description is to:” ……   systems, devices, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable media for media delivery from a cloud or IP-based distribution network, or CDN (Content Delivery Network) to MSO (Multiple System Operators) or head-ends that include cable and satellite delivery mechanisms. The present technology unifies cloud-based delivery (Mediamplify cloud) with the cable-based mechanism (e.g. Comcast, Verizon FiOS).”  
    https://www.slideshare.net/edwinhm/what-is-cloud-to-cable-tv-mevia-platform
     I filed for patent protection in the US and Europe for the methods and system called: “Method, system, and apparatus for multimedia content delivery to cable tv and satellite operators” now protected under US Patent 10,123,074 that will be published and formally issued on November 6th, 2018.  This patent protection gives me the exclusive rights in the US, and we are applying to Europe and other countries, for our method and system to broadcast TV and Music stations on Cable TV, OTT, IPTV, and other MVPD systems. The technology in place is in use by our Music for Cableproduct and is now branded under MEVIA : Cloud to Cable. The patents are owned by me and are available for licensing, including all specifications, and software to create our broadcasting network appliance (MEVIA Network Appliance)

    Ted Deutch – Boca’s Congress Representative on HR.6557 – Inventors Protection Act

    Ted Deutch is a well-known congressman that represents the area were EGLA COMMUNICATIONS is located, and after sending some emails to Mr. Deutch regarding how the new system in place for patent enforcement is no longer favorable for innovation and on the contrary is a incentive to steal technology and use it without paying royalties.  The HR. 6557 is a new legislation called “Inventors Protection Act” that aims to assist and help inventors protect their Intellectual Property after their patents have been issued by the USPTO.Let’s recall new changes made in the USPTO regarding software patents, specially Alice and American Invent Act changes made, not forgetting IPRs and the PTAB processes now in place.EGLA is glad to see our Congress react and move in the right direction and we are hopeful these efforts will fructify soon.
    A few years back our team received a visit or this congressman at our offices in FAU – Research Park, before we moved to the EGLAVATOR.
    Read more

  • Music Choice Patent Axed Partially by PTAB

    October 15, 2018 eglacorp Claim Construction, Cloud, cloud to cable, IPR, Mediamplify, Mevia, Patents, USPTO

      

    Late September and early October total of two judgments have been filed thus far by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the case against Music Choice’s patent. As indicated in the rulings for IPR2017-00888 and IPR2017-01191, partial axing fo the patents have been granted to Stingray or against Music Choice’s interest.  Interesting findings that enforce the value of our cloud to cable TV patents.The final written decisions are available herein:
    IPR2017-01191Download
    IPR2017-0088Download
    As Law360 points out:
    ” The case split the PTAB panel, with each of the three judges filing opinions. The majority ruling by Judge Mitchell Weatherly held that eight of the patent’s 20 claims are invalid because Stingray showed that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the earlier inventions to arrive at Music Choice’s invention, which includes both a playlist and on-demand playback. Source: https://www.law360.com/media/articles/1091845/ptab-partly-axes-music-choice-patent-in-row-with-rival “
    This goes in accordance to the prediction made by myself back when this issue was discussed initially, specially in the article where I analyzed the acquisition of Music Choice by Stingray digital.
    Music Choice Acquisition or Patent Defense

    Infringement and Damages Model

    As expected Music Choice should be more interested not so much on the “Video on Demand” revenues which is what these two patents cover, but more so in the patent covering the method and system for broadcasting to Cable TV which is the main source of revenues for both companies. The patent in dispute will be resolved this Friday October 19th, 2018, and the patent 8,769,062 as well as the original applications from 2001-08-28 which is claimed as priority date.
    Patent 8769062
    It is my opinion that a similar outcome may result from the PTAB panel.Hence, what would the damages be for Music Choice? Well, I don’t have access to any information but what is found online, and in a letter from 2014, Music Choice was claimed to have 56M homes, or 57M listeners per month.  Source: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2014/08/18/307851.pdf ‘In this document, Music Choice indicates that their Multi-Video Programming Distributors (MVPD) constitutes a main source of income for the company. Additionally, in a marketing material VOD distribution is said to have 72M subscribers as of Music Choice’s 2016 PDF :http://corporate.musicchoice.com/files/2214/6228/4671/2016_Music_Choice_Media_Kit.pdfIn a similar filing, Music Choice makes a case with a rebuttal testimony by Gregory S. Crawford, PhD https://www.crb.gov/rate/16-CRB-0001-SR-PSSR-SDARSIII/rebuttals/2-21-17-music-choice.pdf Hence, assuming a price point of let’s say 0.05c to 0.25c/subscriber and recalling what Mr. Boyko said in a prior-conference call, Music Choice should have revenues could be:
    • 0.05c per subscriber @ 50M subs = $30M/year
    • 0.25c per subscriber @ 50M subs = $150M/year
    Assuming now that, Stingray has landed $8M/quarter with an increase of 102.2% or 23.5% o the total revenues, from the 4th Quarter Report available online
    ” … or the quarter, Canadian revenues decreased 2.6% to $13.6 million (41.3% of total revenues) due to decrease in non-recurring revenues related to digital signage, United States revenues increased 102.2% to $7.8 million (23.5% of total revenues), whereas revenues in Other Countries increased by 34.4% to $11.6 million (35.2% of total revenues). (CNBC source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/globe-newswire-stingray-reports-fourth-quarter-2018-results.html) “
    What this means is that somehow per year $32M/year o revenues were eroded from Music Choice’s pie, or since 2014 when the lawsuit was said to have had some issues with Stingray, then the total loss could be $32×4=$120M on damages.  Which, it seems to have been the offering made by Stingray digital to Music Choice for a full acquisition.The question is, what would be the forward revenues would be for a Georgia-Pacific model that a damages expert would have done for pricing moving forward and how Stingray Digital would have to pay for any future earnings to Music Choice. The information collected indices a 35% tax by Stingray on royalties and potentially another 20-30% which in turn would make operations in the United States at no profit or even at a loss.

    Conclusion

    It is very hard to compute a damages calculation, assuming that infringement takes place in the surviving claims of the patents in dispute. Hence, if damages were to be computed should be in the range of 8-9 digits with upside to the future, not including potential treble damages which could account for more money to be paid.Alternatively, Cloud to Cable TV  is the best technological platform for monetization with Cable TV and works using the most recent advancements in Cloud computing, Web technologies, and in combination with standard DVB Systems.  A unified patented technology for Cable TV distribution!
    https://eglacomm.net/cloud-to-cable-tv/
    Cloud to Cable TV  – US Patent 10,123,074
    Read more