• Content Monetization with Cable TV and Satellite Operators

    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) . ...
  • Cloud to Cable Patent Updates

    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.

  • Case Opinions – Music Choice v. Stingray Digital

    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:

     

     




     

  • Cloud to Cable – Second Patent Allowed

    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
  • Cloud to Cable TV – Intellectual Property Portfolio

    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:


  • Cloud to Cable Patent Issued & Inventors Protection Act Updates

    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.
  • Music for Cable Re-Launch

    Music for Cable and Music for IPTV

    Powered by CLOUD TO CABLE

    Music for Cable and Music for IPTV ara part of the sites being relaunched for lead generation for “Cloud to Cable TV” and Music as a Service offerings for operators.   Music for MVPD and Operators is available for licensing

    Music for Cable Sites Relaunched: cloudtocable.com, cloudforcable.com, musicforcable.com and ubiquicast.com

    Cloud to Cable enables a music or video streaming service to be delivered to CABSAT systems. Our platform can cover 10, 50, 100+ music or radio channels that are directly obtained using your HTML5 web interface and sent directly to a Cable TV System and to subscriber’s set top boxes.

    A “MediaPlug” server appliance is provisioned with our cloud-based VM with our proprietary software, connecting to a streaming service. As an example we have created  “MEVIA & Mediamplify Music” a Cable TV offering also available for Cable/Satellite systems. Read more

    Music for Cable TV is then as quickly as signing a partnership agreement with EGLA COMMUNICATIONS and creating a selection of stations for CABSAT. Licensing should be fast an easy to obtain directly from SoundExchange, BMI, ASCAP and other providers.

    We will power your music streaming service and protect all your content with appropriate Digital Rights Management (DRM) as suggested by the industry using encrypted and authenticated secured lines to our cloud or yours directly. Read more

    [spiderpowa-pdf src=”http://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Music-for-Cable.pdf”]Music for Cable

    Cloud to Cable

    Music for Cable TV, Music for IPTV sites being generated :

    [spiderpowa-pdf src=”http://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Mevia-Cloud-to-Cable-Music-TV-for-Cable.pdf”]Mevia – Cloud to Cable – Music, TV for Cable
  • Music Choice vs Stingray Digital – Case 2:16-cv-586-JRG-RSP

    Music Choice vs Stingray Digital – Case 2:16-cv-586-JRG-RSP

     vs. 

    Music Choice vs Stingray is a case taking place in the E.D. of Texas.  We will discuss in the article, the judge’s order (Judge Roy Payne) and memorandum regarding all the claims terms and its construction. As expected, the judge went for:

    “[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.

    As in many cases, this was also the case as well, here the order/memorandum available online:

    [spiderpowa-pdf src=”http://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Music_Choice_v_Stingray_Digital_Group_Inc__txedce-16-00586__0145.0.pdf”]Music_Choice_v_Stingray_Digital_Group_Inc__txedce-16-00586__0145.0

    As shown, in all cases where Music Choice made a simple term definition, Judge Payne went for the simplest and more appropriate meaning to the words. Music Choice won pretty much all terms in their favor and in all “indefinite” arguments did not move an inch in favor of Stingray. Hence the judge also sided with Music Choice’s arguments and claim construction. For instance:

    • What was the goal on trying to interpret a Cable TV system as it if was not a digital system? I don’t really understand why Greenberg did not agree to this simple term?  And the judge sided with Music Choice: “Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposed “not a digital network” and “signal” limitations and determines the transmission-system terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.”   The claim recites a first transmission and a second transmission system,
    • The same thing with “multicast,” this is a well-known term in all Cable TV systems, where multicasting is used to transmit all Linear TV signals. “Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ proposed “not a digital network” and “signal” limitations and determines the transmission-system terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.”
    • A very similar analysis is found with the term “trigger message” where the judge sided with the same simple meaning as follows:” Accordingly, the Court construes “trigger message” as follows: “trigger message” means “message configured to initiate an action”
    • And you can find a very similar argument for most of the terms in dispute.

    All the evidence is sealed and there is no way to see exactly how these terms match the device in dispute, however, Music Choice’s attorneys should be prepared and if those terms were favorable to them, now one can asume that their evidence to match these terms is solid.

    We will keep track on this case and how this develops, on a different note, Music Choice also got hit by Stingray with several IPRs:

    Music Choice then has to defend the following IPR cases filed by Stingray Digital regarding this particular case:

    • Trial Number – IPR2017-01450
      Filing Date – 5/18/2017
      Patent # – 9,414,121
      Title – SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AN ON-DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE
      Patent Owner –  MUSIC CHOICE
      Petitioner – Stingray Digital Group Inc.
      Tech Center – 2400
    • Trial Number – IPR2017-01192
      Filing Date – 3/31/2017
      Patent # – 8,769,602
      Title – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN INTERACTIVE, VISUAL COMPLEMENT TO AN AUDIO PROGRAM
      Patent Owner –  MUSIC CHOICE
      Petitioner – Stingray Digital Group Inc.
      Tech Center – 2400
    • Trial Number – IPR2017-01191
      Filing Date – 3/30/2017
      Patent # – 9,351,045
      Title – SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A BROADCAST ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE AND AN ON-DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICE
      Patent Owner –  MUSIC CHOICE
      Petitioner – Stingray Digital Group Inc.
      Tech Center – 2400
    • And maybe others http://www.gbpatent.com/content/uploads/IPR.pdf

    For example we found:  http://ptolitigationcenter.com/2017/05/pto-litigation-report-may-19-2017/

     


    Disclosure: EGLA, which I own, provided a platform for DMX for digital music distribution. Stingray acquired DMX Music but not our technology and kept its own music delivery system, the infringing system now. However, EGLA owns a patented technology that is called “CLOUD to CABLE TV“ that enables delivery of linear music channels to Cable TV subscribers in a more clever, fault-tolerant, and efficient way than these patents disputed here. Source: http://edwinhernandez.com/2016/08/01/platform-nternet-tv-music/

     

    https://www.slideshare.net/edwinhm/egla-communications-cloud-to-cable-tv-licensing-proposal?qid=9a8ef586-78a7-45a5-b02f-fc6ad1e0a95a&v=&b=&from_search=1

    and,

     


    Patent for the Cloud to Cable TV – WIPO Format

    EGLA CORP has a patented technology, superior to all the patented technologies out there, that brings the Cloud -based systems and generated images for music and TV channels that can be overlapped.  The Cloud to Cable TV system provides:

    • A system to convert HTML5 to Video, MPEG-4 or MPEG2Video, or H.265
    • A fault-tolerant system for MVPD and MSO’s – Cable TV Systems
    • Streaming for M3U8, HTTP Streaming, and compatible with other technologies
    • Virtualized TV in a box system with Cloud

    The device is called MediaPlug and also contains other Management APIs, as well as a good implementation tested with:

    • Cisco
    • Ericsson
    • Huawei
    • and Many other multi-plexers

     

    Advantages over all other systems

    There is no dependency into any Set Top Box or DOCSIS 2.0, DOCSIS 3.0, or other MPEG frames or dependencies in changes to STB.

    All the systems, are fault-tolerant and enable great reliability and remote management system for all distribution devices

    Uses standard DSL/Cable Modem technologies with the system to deliver 50, 100, 200 music channels, and 10-20 HD/SD/4K TV Channels.

    Many more advantages that are benefit DRM security, provisioning, and tracking for media playback.

     


    [spiderpowa-pdf src=”http://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WO2016106360.pdf”]WO2016106360, however the right set of sighted is attached and is corrected in the US/Europe and other applications.
    Cloud to Cable TV White paper [spiderpowa-pdf src=”http://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cloudtocable_whitepaperl.pdf”]cloudtocable_whitepaperl