DCT

1:26-cv-01063

DISH Tech LLC v. Daily Burn Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01063, D. Del., 08/20/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Daily Burn, Inc., is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's online fitness video streaming platform infringes five patents related to foundational adaptive bitrate streaming ("ABR") technology.
  • Technical Context: ABR technology is a core component of modern video streaming, enabling services to dynamically adjust video quality in real-time based on a user's available network bandwidth to ensure smooth playback.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have been subject to extensive prior proceedings. Notably, U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 was previously asserted in an International Trade Commission (ITC) action where it was found to be infringed by other fitness streaming companies and not invalid. The complaint also details numerous Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against all five asserted patents, with outcomes including institution denials, final written decisions, and pending appeals.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-01-01 MOVE Networks, Inc. founded
2004-04-30 Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents ('234, '772, '798, '138, '554)
2010-12-01 EchoStar acquires MOVE and its ABR Patent portfolio
2014-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 ('772 Patent) Issues
2015-01-01 DISH launches Sling TV
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 ('554 Patent) Issues
2022-09-09 ITC Action, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 ('138 Patent) Issues
2023-03-08 ITC Action, Notice of Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation
2023-03-23 ITC Action, Commission Opinion (Public Version) affirming infringement of '554 Patent
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 ('798 Patent) Issues
2024-05-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 ('234 Patent) Issues
2024-08-07 PTAB denies institution of IPR for '798 Patent
2024-11-21 PTAB denies institution of IPR for '234 Patent
2025-04-14 PTAB issues Final Written Decisions for '798, '138, and '554 Patents
2025-07-16 PTAB denies institution of IPRs for '798 and '554 Patents
2025-08-13 PTAB denies institution of IPR for '138 Patent
2025-08-14 PTAB denies institution of IPR for '554 Patent
2026-02-02 PTAB issues Final Written Decision for '234 Patent (later vacated)
2026-06-11 DISH sends notice letter to Daily Burn
2026-08-20 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 - "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234, "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming," issued May 21, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the shortcomings of early internet streaming, which sacrificed quality for immediate access and was unreliable compared to downloading a file Compl. ¶23 '772 Patent, col. 1:50-54 Existing proprietary streaming protocols were also costly, incompatible, and required complex server configurations Compl. ¶22
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-side "pull" system for ABR streaming. A media file is encoded into multiple copies at different bitrates, and each copy is segmented into small, individually requestable files called "streamlets" Compl. ¶24 A client device monitors network performance and requests the appropriate streamlet from the appropriate bitrate copy, allowing it to adapt to changing network conditions seamlessly and use standard HTTP web servers for delivery Compl. ¶¶28-29 '234 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled reliable, high-quality video streaming over the public internet using standard, scalable web infrastructure, a significant improvement over proprietary "push" systems Compl. ¶¶27-29

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 12 Compl. ¶61
  • Key elements of independent claim 12 include:
    • A method at a client device receiving digital content from a server.
    • Multiple copies of the content at different bit rates are stored as "individually-requestable portions" on the server.
    • The client automatically requests subsequent portions of content, with the requested bit rate being dependent on "successive determinations" made by the client.
    • The automatic requesting includes "repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content," which relates to network performance.
    • The successive determinations are made based on this factor to achieve continuous presentation, including requesting a higher bit rate copy when the factor exceeds a first threshold and a lower bit rate copy when it is less than a second threshold.
    • Arranging the requested portions in order of ascending presentation time.

U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772 - "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,868,772, "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming," issued October 21, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '772 Patent, part of the same family, addresses the same problems of unreliability, inefficiency, and latency in early internet video streaming Compl. ¶25 '772 Patent, col. 2:39-44
  • The Patented Solution: As a parent patent to the '234 Patent, the '772 Patent describes the same fundamental solution of client-side, HTTP-based ABR. It details how content is stored as "multiple files" for each of the different bitrate copies and how a media player makes successive determinations to shift playback quality Compl. ¶80 '772 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: The invention laid the groundwork for modern streaming by shifting the intelligence for quality adaptation from the server to the client, simplifying the delivery infrastructure and improving the user experience Compl. ¶¶28-29

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶80
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method of streaming a video by a media player on an end user station from servers.
    • Multiple different copies of the video at different bit rates are stored as "multiple files" on the servers, with each file having a time index.
    • The media player requests a plurality of sequential files from one copy.
    • The media player automatically requests subsequent portions of the video by requesting a file from one of the copies dependent on "successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality."
    • This includes "repeatedly generating a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming" related to network performance.
    • Making successive determinations to shift playback quality based on the factors to achieve continuous playback.
    • Presenting the video by playing back the requested files in order.
  • The complaint notes that some claims of the '772 Patent are on appeal from a PTAB decision and reserves the right to assert claims that are confirmed or restored Compl. ¶80

U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798 - "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798, "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming," issued June 13, 2023 Compl. ¶12
  • Technology Synopsis: The '798 Patent claims a server-side process for ABR streaming. It focuses on storing multiple streams (each comprising a group of "streamlets") at different bitrates, where at least one stream is above 600 kbps, and then receiving requests from end-user stations and sending the requested streamlets to them Compl. ¶97
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 22 Compl. ¶97
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Daily Burn's servers and content delivery endpoints directly infringe by storing, retrieving, and sending streamlets that meet the claim limitations Compl. ¶¶98-99

U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 - "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138, "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming," issued October 11, 2022 Compl. ¶13
  • Technology Synopsis: The '138 Patent claims a system for adaptive-rate streaming. It requires storing video encoded into low, medium, and high quality streams, with at least one encoded at no less than 600 kbps. A key aspect is the alignment of the "first streamlet" of each stream to have the same duration and encode the same portion of the video Compl. ¶116
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8 Compl. ¶116
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Daily Burn's streaming system, including its storage devices and web servers, infringes by storing and delivering video streams with the claimed bitrate and streamlet alignment characteristics Compl. ¶117

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 - "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554, "Apparatus, system, and method for multi-bitrate content streaming," issued November 5, 2019 Compl. ¶14
  • Technology Synopsis: The '554 Patent is directed specifically to a system for ABR streaming of live event video. Like the '138 Patent, it requires storing the video in low, medium, and high quality streams (at least one over 600 kbps) and specifies the alignment of the first streamlets of each group Compl. ¶135
  • Asserted Claims: At least dependent claim 7 (dependent on independent claim 1) Compl. ¶135
  • Accused Features: The complaint specifically targets the "Daily Burn 365" live-streaming fitness program, alleging its system of delivering live video infringes the '554 Patent's claims Compl. ¶136

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products and services are Daily Burn's online fitness video streaming platform, which includes the Daily Burn website (www.dailyburn.com), related Daily Burn applications, and the "Daily Burn 365" live-streaming program, collectively referred to as the "Accused Streaming Services" Compl. ¶6
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Streaming Services provide both live and on-demand video content to users Compl. ¶44 The service allegedly uses the HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) protocol to deliver content, encoding each video at multiple bitrates as individually requestable segments (referred to as "streamlets") Compl. ¶46 These segments are allegedly stored on servers, including content delivery network endpoints such as cdn.jwplayer.com and videos-cloudfront-usp.jwpsrv.com Compl. ¶46 According to the complaint, a player script delivered to the end-user's device executes HLS instructions to manage the adaptive streaming playback Compl. ¶46 The complaint posits that this use of ABR technology has enabled Daily Burn to build and operate a platform that generates substantial revenue Compl. ¶47
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'234 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method executable by a client device to output rate-adaptive streams received via at least one transmission control protocol (TCP) connection with at least one server over a network... The Accused Streaming Services are received by client devices from Daily Burn's servers via TCP connections. ¶62 col. 17:1-5
receiving, by the client device, digital content from the at least one server... wherein multiple different copies of the digital content encoded at different bit rates are stored as individually-requestable portions on the at least one server... Client devices receive digital content from Daily Burn's servers, where multiple copies of content are encoded at different bitrates (e.g., 290000, 420000, 460000, 750000, and 1200000 Bandwidth variants) and stored as individually-requestable portions (streamlets). ¶62 col. 17:6-14
automatically requesting by the client device from the at least one server subsequent portions of the digital content... dependent upon successive determinations by the client device to change a requested bit rate... Client devices automatically request subsequent portions from higher or lower bit rate copies based on successive determinations to change the requested bit rate. ¶62 col. 17:28-34
the automatically requesting including repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content at a rate sufficient for presenting the digital content as the digital content is received, wherein the factor relates to a performance of the network; and The client device repeatedly generates a factor indicative of its ability to receive content, relating to network performance. ¶62 col. 17:35-41
making the successive determinations... to change the requested bit rate... [including] requesting a subsequent individually-requestable portion from a higher bit rate... when the at least one factor is greater than a first threshold; and requesting a subsequent individually-requestable portion from a lower bit rate... when the at least one factor is less than a second threshold... The client device makes determinations to request a higher bit rate copy when the performance factor exceeds a first threshold, and a lower bit rate copy when the factor falls below a second threshold. ¶62 col. 18:1-12
arranging the individually-requestable portions requested... in order of ascending presentation time for output to a presentation device. The client device arranges the requested portions in order of ascending presentation time for playback. ¶62 col. 18:13-16

'772 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for presenting rate-adaptive streams, the method comprising: streaming by a media player operating on an end user station a video from a set of one or more servers... A media player on an end user station streams video from Daily Burn's servers. ¶81 col. 13:21-23
...wherein each of a plurality of different copies of the video encoded at different bit rates is stored as multiple files on the set of servers, wherein each of the multiple files yields a different portion of the video on playback... Different copies of the video are encoded at different bitrates (e.g., 290000, 420000, 750000 Bandwidth variants) and stored as multiple files on Daily Burn's servers. ¶81 col. 13:24-30
...each of said files having a time index such that the files whose playback is the same portion of the video for each of the different copies have the same time index... Each file has a time index. ¶81 col. 13:33-37
requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of... (TCP) connections based on the time indexes; The media player requests a plurality of sequential files over TCP connections based on time indexes. ¶81 col. 13:38-43
automatically requesting by the media player... subsequent portions of the video by requesting... one of the files from one of the copies dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback quality... The media player automatically requests subsequent portions from different copies based on successive determinations to shift playback quality. ¶81 col. 13:44-51
...repeatedly generating a set of one or more factors indicative of the current ability to sustain the streaming of the video using the files from different ones of the copies, wherein the set of one or more factors relate to the performance of the network; and The process includes repeatedly generating factors indicative of the ability to sustain streaming, relating to network performance. ¶81 col. 13:52-57
making the successive determinations to shift the playback quality based on at least one of the set of factors to achieve continuous playback... Successive determinations are made to shift playback quality to achieve continuous playback using the highest quality copy determined to be sustainable. ¶81 col. 13:58-62
presenting the video by playing back with the media player on the end user station the requested files in order of ascending playback time. The video is presented by playing back the requested files in order of ascending playback time. ¶81 col. 13:63-66
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on mapping the terminology of the patents (e.g., "individually-requestable portion," "file") to the technical components of the HLS standard (e.g., ".ts segments," "m3u8 manifest files") allegedly used by the accused services Compl. ¶46 A central dispute may be whether the claimed "streamlet" or "file" can be read to cover the segments and manifest files used in HLS.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the client device "repeatedly [generates] a factor" to make quality-switching decisions (Compl. ¶¶62, 81). A key factual question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused player script performs this specific claimed logic, rather than a different or more generic form of ABR logic. The nature of the "factor" and the "thresholds" used for decision-making will be a focus of technical discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "streamlet" ('234 Patent) / "file" ('772 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: These terms define the fundamental unit of content that is requested and delivered. Their construction is critical because the infringement case depends on whether the segments used in the HLS protocol, which Daily Burn allegedly employs, fall within the scope of these terms as defined by the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense may argue that HLS segments and manifest files are architecturally distinct from the "streamlets" or "files" described and enabled by the patent specification.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the '554 Patent, from the same family, defines "streamlet" as "any sized portion of the content file" '554 Patent, col. 7:40-41, which could support a broad interpretation covering various types of video segments.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same specification describes a streamlet as being "encapsulated as an independent media object" '554 Patent, col. 7:43-44 A defendant might argue this implies a specific file structure or metadata wrapper that is not present in a standard HLS segment, thereby narrowing the term's scope.

  • The Term: "factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content" ('234 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the adaptive logic claimed by the patent. The case may turn on whether the method used by Daily Burn's player to assess network conditions qualifies as this claimed "factor."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional ("indicative of"), suggesting that any measurement that reflects network performance could fall within its scope. The specification states the factor "relates to a performance of the network" '234 Patent, col. 17:40-41, which is broad language.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's flowchart for this process shows a step of "Monitor Receive Time" '234 Patent, Fig. 10, step 1006 which leads to generating the "Performance Factor." A defendant could argue this ties the "factor" to a specific method of monitoring streamlet download times, potentially excluding other methods of assessing network bandwidth.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents.
    • Inducement: The allegations are based on Daily Burn's alleged actual knowledge of the patents, coupled with the specific intent to cause infringement by designing the Accused Services and providing "user-facing instructions" and "help articles" that direct users to perform the infringing methods Compl. ¶¶66-67 Compl. ¶¶85-86
    • Contributory: The complaint alleges the Accused Streaming Services embody the "core adaptive bitrate streaming functionality" of the patents, were "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement," and have "no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶75; Compl. ¶92).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Daily Burn's market position, the publicized ITC Action against competitors using similar HLS technology, and DISH's virtual patent marking Compl. ¶¶48-50 Post-suit knowledge is based on a notice letter sent on June 11, 2026 Compl. ¶52 Willful blindness is also pleaded in the alternative Compl. ¶71 Compl. ¶89

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and validity in a modern context: can the terms and methods described in this patent family, which dates to 2004, be construed to cover streaming systems that operate on widely adopted, standardized protocols like HLS? This will involve a detailed analysis of claim construction and an examination of the extensive prior art and PTAB proceeding history mentioned in the complaint.
  • A second central issue will be one of willfulness and pre-suit knowledge. A key evidentiary question will be whether DISH can prove that Daily Burn knew or should have known about the asserted patents before receiving a notice letter, particularly through the earlier, highly publicized ITC litigation against its direct competitors (Peloton, iFit, etc.) who allegedly used the same underlying HLS technology.
  • A third issue will be divided infringement for the method claims. For method claims performed by the client device (e.g., claim 12 of the '234 patent), a question will be whether Daily Burn can be held responsible for the actions of its end-users, which will turn on the evidence of its direction or control over the client-side player script and user actions.