What is 5G? I am currently in the process of writing a book and will be working on some ideas in my blog. My book will be called “Viva5g” and in my book I will have several series one for for “Entrepreneurs and Executives” and another series of books written into more technical depth for engineers and experts.
Where is 5G derived from? Answer: Standard Bodies
5G is what is called the fifth generationwireless communication technology or standard. The current wireless communication standard is called 4G or the fourth generation. Therefore, there was a third and a second generation, or 2G and 3G? Who wouldn’t recall purchasing an iPhone 3S with 3G enabled?All of these wireless communications generations are nothing but ways for carriers to marry or meet and match certain “terminology” to a set of standard or standards, and consumers to identify what they are getting into. Not only consumers, but investors, media, and even their own workforce. It is a bit complicated to make precise mappings, but I will try to explain it in the following paragraphs.First, you may have seen “5GE” at the top right corner of your AT&T iPhone? If not, this picture depicts mine.Why is it 5G now and my iPhone is a X or iPhone 11?What happens is that behind the scenes, there is an organization called the “3GPP” or the “Third Generation Partnership Project,” that establishes and deals with very complex standards. The 3GPP groups is composed of other standard bodies and all boils down to a group of companies that are 3GPP “members.” This club or “members” get together in multiple committees meet with the purpose to define, literally, to define how things will work or operate into the future.Some people may say on youtube videos that 5G is the devil and may even hint that the 3GPP is part of the “new world order” and is here to control us all, the answer is no!!! That’s just fiction and conspiracy theories from youtubeers. 3GPP is just a group of companies and several other standard development organizations worldwide that have built or developed ways to improve and make things better, faster, higher-performance, and meet to agree on how to get this process done.Let’s start with 4G or the fourth generation wireless network, which we already use, or you maybe using to read in this posting.4G corresponds to a mapping made to the 3GPP organization via a set of “Technical Specifications” has labeled as Releases 8, 9, 10, and 11, and maybe 12, and 13, whereas 5G corresponds to a set of “Technical Specifications” improved and changed that are labeled Release 15 and 16.For example, 3GPP Release 14 includes many new concepts not found din Release 8, those are: Internet Of Things, Vehicle-to-Everything, Radio Improvements, etc, as shown in the following screen shot.In between those release, let’s sy Release 15 and Release 11, we find a gray area where 4G ends and 5G begins. In fact, many features from 5G are found in releases that are supposedly part of 4G, as well as new features for 5G appear in newer releases only,. That’s is why some companies like AT&T have called this process “5GE,” and presented us with a “logo” or an icon, that is shown int your iPhone’s screen.This simple icon caused Verizon to file a lawsuit to AT&?T for doing so and t is not clear what 3GPP releases AT&T refers to 5GE..Going in to more detail, the 3GPP organization defines itself in the 3gpp.org website as follows :
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) unites [Seven] telecommunications standard development organizations (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TSDSI, TTA, TTC), known as “Organizational Partners” and provides their members with a stable environment to produce the Reports and Specifications that define 3GPP technologies.
In fact, the communications standards created by the 3GPP cover multiple technologies for instance: Radio Access Networks (RAN), Services & Systems Aspects (SA), and Core Networks & Terminals (CT), as well as many other aspects.3GPP is hence, as you can imagine, a complex body and I won’t go into more details. In my opinion, one of the main things that are distinguished by 4G and 5G is are the core components, handover, use of frequencies, and physical layers, more importantly the “softwarezation” and the use of software-based technologies at a much higher frequency band, which leads to higher bit rates.In essence, in today’s 4G and 5G core networks a concept has been introduced and it is called, “Network Function Virtualization” or NFV, which brings the cloud to telecommunications systems together, making all the changes in software, and much less in hardware. Obviously, there are servers, CPUs, GPUs, and all that working to manage all signals, but that is multi-purpose and can be easily upgradable, as in the past, it was not.
Cloud Computing and Open Networks
As you may expect, NFV brings as a main feature, the virtualization of all network components done in multiple instances or containers, which is popularly called, the cloud.
It’s easy to confuse virtualization and cloud, particularly because they both revolve around creating useful environments from abstract resources.RedHat.com site
I agree with RedHat’s comments, however, virtualization is what has made all cloud computing concepts possible, and it is clear that has come to optimize and improve 4G and hence 5G systems.Therefore as the cloud makes its way to 4G and more to 5G, we will find new terms that were not part of telco’s, one of those is “Open Network.” Fir instance, “Open Mobile Evolved Core,” or an open “Core” network, which is not necessarily “open source” but what that means is that APIs are used just like in any cloud-based environment, and things or components can be easily interconnected.Therefore, under this model, all 4G and 5G network components and hence the entire 5G network runs in the cloud with servers executing multiple instances of machines or containers.For example, there are any standardized 4G components that include Mobility Management Entity (MME), Service Gateway Control (SGW-C), Packet Gateway Control (PGW-C), Policy Charging Rules Function (PCRF), among some others, those now run as server instances.For instance, the MME or Mobility Management Entity, is a server or cloud of servers entities that handles mobility and tracks the mobile terminal in the network, assisting the UE or User Equipment, or your mobile phone with handover and selecting the right cell to move to, as it travels around a different geographical area.In this picture taken from the “Open Mobile Evolved Core,” we cab read that all of these components may all reside in one server, and the network created is virtual, or a software-defined network.
What is then Network Function Virtualization?
In essence, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) is nothing but a way to put all these network elements or components in servers or virtual machines. These virtual machines run in standard VMWare servers or Docker Instances, and now you can introduce standard cloud computing concepts and tools like Open Stack, or Kubernettes, for what is called “Orchestration” or the process of creating and making instances.
Orchestration is the automated configuration, coordination, and management of computer systems and software. A number of tools exist for automation of server configuration and management, including Ansible, Puppet, Salt, Terraform, and AWS CloudFormation. Wikipedia
These virtual machines are the main fabric of the “cloud,” the “cloud” is a set of machines or virtual machines that reside, ultimately still in datacenter and servers, somewhere, but are sufficiently operational from a “File” or an “Image” that can be copied into multiple data centers and operate without issues. These images or files are stored as “containers” or “virtual machines” that are executed in a real or hardware machine, that performs certain task.
Another concept that has existed among “computer science” professionals for many decades, is: moving computation to the “edge” of the network. It seems quite obvious, but it is not.Edge computing is a natural evolution to optimize processes.Historically, in the past, mainframe computers controlled everything with a dumb terminal that displayed what the mainframe processed. Later on, the PC or a Personal Computer evolved and all control was passed down to the PC and some servers, the use of mainframes becomes less important. As progress created the internet, all moved to web and cloud. Now, the control has been passed on to the cloud or a distributed computing system governs what we do and how we do it. Hence, the closer computation is being moved, in proximity your resources are to you, the better, lower latency, falser responses, but also causes problems for the overall system to maintain authentication, caching, and other dependencies.For example, we use “Edge” computing every day, in “content delivery networks” (CDN) that are used by NETFLIX or HULU to stream movies to thousand or millions of homes. The CDN’s r main goal is to move content, music or video files, closer to your local internet link by making multiple copies available closer to the consumer or to the “edge” of a network.This concept is practical when all components use the same protocol, in this case IP or the Internet Protocol. The cloud, and an “ALL-IP” network architecture is found in 4G already, and subsequently is found in 5G.Therefore edge computing is now a more formalized concept, feasible and practical.The major evolution from 3G to 4G is that “all” components in 4G including the core infrastructure in 4G (and obviously in 5G) runs over internet protocols or IP. This evolution is a a major distinction between UMTS, CDMA, and older systems with 4th generation wireless networks.In 5G, IP is also the main fabric for communications, and all signaling data, voice, videos, are no longer using proprietary signaling but “IP.” In the past, UMTS or GPRS, IP was an afterthought and was emulated on top of those proprietary protocols which made the networks slow and expensive to maintain. Obviously, challenges surfaced as 3G moved to 4G including changes in handover protocols, billing, and access to the network.
These proprietary protocols in 2G and 3G were designed to operate “Circuit Switched Networks” and 4G is an all “IP” network designed to operate in a 100% Packet-based Network.
Edge Computing works well with all IP networks and now the way to go. As computation is moves to the “Edge” and as the “Edge” of the network is now a server or a cloud-based component of a a bigger cloud, many new ideas are being formulated and network and computation blend in as what is called today a “Software Defined Network.” In other words, the network is defined virtually by software and multiple networks can be created using the same physical interconnections.Edge Computing is :
Edge computing is a distributed computing paradigm which brings computation and data storage closer to the location where it is needed, to improve response times and save bandwidth.
Edge Computing is now a major area of innovation, for example “Cloud to Cable,” my own patented technology is an “Edge Computing” entity that facilitates caching, which is data storage, and computation which is covered by my own patents, closed to the cable operator. However, the same is true for a 4G and 5G system. I am personally working on how to achieve that at EGLA Research Labs. As a consequence of the use of the cloud, organizations like the “Open Network Foundation” or ONF and others, are looking for ways to standardize how this is done.
The Open Networking Foundation (ONF) is a nonprofit trade organization, funded by companies such as Deutsche Telekom, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Verizon, and Yahoo! aimed at promoting networking through software-defined networking (SDN) and standardizing the OpenFlow protocol and related technologies. The standards-setting and SDN-promotion group was formed out of recognition that cloud computing will blur the distinctions between computers and networks. The initiative was meant to speed innovation through simple software changes in telecommunications networks, wireless networks, data centers and other networking areas.
Obviously, since now the cloud is powering 4G and 5G, the same standardization and SDN with protocols like “OpenFlow” are now plausible to be used in the network infrastructure of 5G systems. In fact, the fabric of a Software Defined Network, has always been of my own use at EGLA since 2014, when we moved into an “Equinix” data center with the first version of the Mediamplify platform.
Network Slicing and Beamforming
Another concept that has been introduced mostly with 5G is beam forming and network slicing.Network slicing is used to assign an IP Address or a network for your own company or a user, this enhances quality of service to what a user has paid or a company is paid. A separation of virtual networks within the core network is being done for purposes of individualized routing and treatment of user’s traffic.
Network slicing is the separation of multiple virtual networks that operate on the same physical hardware for different applications, services or purposes.
Similarly, as part of the network is “Sliced,” the RF or Radio Frequency or wireless signals are now set to multiple beams.In a way, 5G operates at a high-bit rate, up to Gigabits per second, but at much higher frequency bands, sub-6 GHz or over 6 GHz. At these frequency bands, propagation of signals and physics brings the size covered by a base station to a smaller footprint. In other words, the power levels and noise are not appropriate to establish a link at 1km but are great at 100m, for example, and as opposed to 4G, a sector instead of covering a wide area, covers a few meters of wide. According to Metaswitch site:
“Due to the high propagation loss of the millimeter wavelengths (mmWaves) employed in 5G new radio (5G NR) systems, plus the high bandwidth demands of users, beamforming techniques and massive Multiple Input and Multiple Output (MIMO) are critical for increasing spectral efficiencies and providing cost-effective, reliable coverage.”
Hence, signals are sent from multiple antennas (MIMO) and received by multiple antennas at the phone. This is already being achieved in 4G, at a smaller level, with a a technology called “Carrier Aggregation.”As expected, now that all operations and network is based on software and running on server and virtual machines, just like google cloud, Amazon’s cloud, Azure, Digital Ocean, and EGLA CORP’s cloud-based servers, what can stop “Artificial Intelligence” from being used? The answer is nothing, Artificial Intelligence or AI has been incorporated to work with the network.AI, Machine Learning, and other methods are used for network optimization and use radio resources better, to optimize power management and decrease electricity bills, frequency reuse at the radio-level, handover optimization, and network management with predictive failure detection.The machine learning mechanisms in existence today, can learn from large amount of data logs collected by the telcos’ and are perfectly suitable for cellular networks. The cellular network adapt and generate more data for thousands or hundreds of thousands of base stations that are deployed with millions of users in phones, IOT (Internet of Things) devices, and connected vehicles. The possibilities are endless.Here some AI examples in telcos of what I posted in my show, TECHED.TV.
Low Latency and High Bandwidth
Low Latency is now another factor of great importance for 5G. Low-latency makes robotics and self-driving cars possible. Before, latency was 800ms or a few seconds, let’s in GPRS and CDMA 2000, even UMTS provided latencies of 200-300ms.
Network speeds in 5G will be in the Gigabits per Second
High Bandwidth as expected would be in the order of Gbps or Gigabit per Second.LTE decreased latency to a few tens of milliseconds, but remember that you have to connect to the internet and account for all signaling, which provided an overall latency of 40-60ms, still unsuitable for remote robotics.Since the access or network is sliced, a portion of that network could be allocated to be higher priority and hence decrease latency of the overall access to a few milliseconds, which is now perfectly suitable for robotics and automation, or even self-driving cars, AR, and 5G Gaming.
Music Choice vs Stingray Settlement arrives right before trial. This case has been analyzed as a case by our experts from two angles:
On February 4th, 2020, Music Choice announced that has settled the case for $13.3M right before an important hearing and a potential trial date set for March 3rd, 2020. Obviously, there is no more hearing and no more trial. ...
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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
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. ...
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.
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.
♠ 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.
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 email@example.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:
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.