DCT

1:26-cv-03893

Sandpiper CDN LLC v. Cox Communications Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-03893, N.D. Ga., 07/11/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district and have committed acts of alleged infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's content delivery network (CDN) services, which utilize open-source Apache software tools, infringe six patents related to foundational CDN technologies, including request processing, caching, and content delivery infrastructure.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), a critical internet infrastructure for efficiently distributing digital content like streaming video and web resources from content providers to end-users at scale.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on December 2, 2025, Plaintiff sent Defendants a notice letter with infringement allegations and claim charts proposing a patent license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subsequently refused to engage in licensing discussions. The complaint also notes prior litigation involving the asserted patent family against Comcast.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-05-24 Sandpiper Networks develops streaming infrastructure
1998-02-10 Priority Date for '903 Patent
1998-09-11 Sandpiper caches content for the L.A. Times
1998-10-30 Sandpiper partners with WebRadio for streaming audio
1999-04-19 Sandpiper broadcasts a live concert
1999-12-01 Sandpiper merges with Digital Island, Inc.
2007-01-01 Level 3 acquires assets of Sandpiper Networks
2011-01-12 Priority Date for '232 Patent
2012-12-13 Priority Date for '347 Patent
2012-12-13 Priority Date for '876 Patent
2013-07-02 Issue Date for '903 Patent
2013-08-08 Priority Date for '481 Patent
2014-01-01 Cox begins running a national CDN based on Apache Traffic Control (approximate)
2014-12-15 Priority Date for '229 Patent
2016-01-01 Cox develops its own in-house CDN (approximate)
2017-04-18 Issue Date for '347 Patent
2017-05-23 Issue Date for '876 Patent
2019-10-01 Issue Date for '481 Patent
2019-11-19 Issue Date for '232 Patent
2022-10-12 Cox engineer posts a bug report on GitHub
2023-11-14 Issue Date for '229 Patent
2024-01-01 Level 3 sells the Asserted Patents to Sandpiper CDN (approximate)
2025-12-02 Sandpiper sends notice letter to Cox
2026-01-08 Cox responds to Sandpiper's notice letter
2026-07-11 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903 - "Shared Content Delivery Infrastructure"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903, "Shared Content Delivery Infrastructure," issued July 2, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that as internet usage increased, website owners faced challenges with bandwidth, dynamic load changes, and poor performance for distant users, making content delivery from a single origin server slow and inefficient Compl. ¶50, citing '903 Patent, col. 1:27-31
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a content delivery system that off-loads requests from origin servers to a network of "repeater servers" (i.e., CDN servers) Compl. ¶51, citing '903 Patent, col. 2:62-65 A core aspect of the solution is using at least one "shared repeater server" that can replicate resources from multiple, distinct origin servers and direct requests to it using "alias names" Compl. ¶¶52, 54 For example, a repeater server can maintain a partial mirror of multiple origin servers to provide additional bandwidth for multiple website owners Compl. ¶53, citing '903 Patent, col. 4:37-40
  • Technical Importance: This technology was foundational to early CDN architecture, enabling scalable content delivery for multiple providers through a shared infrastructure, which improved performance and reduced latency Compl. ¶51

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 28 Compl. ¶81
  • Independent Claim 28 recites a content delivery system with the following essential elements:
    • A plurality of origin servers, each having resources associated therewith.
    • At least one shared repeater server operable to replicate resources from the plurality of origin servers.
    • Associating the repeater server with a first alias name, and directing requests for a first resource on a first origin server to the repeater server based on the first alias name.
    • Associating the repeater server with a second alias name, and directing requests for a second resource on a second, distinct origin server to the repeater server based on the second alias name.
    • Providing a table that lists origin servers with their content.
    • The shared repeater server is adapted to analyze an alias name from a client request, using the table, to determine an associated origin server.

U.S. Patent No. 9,628,347 - "Layered Request Processing in a Content Delivery Network (CDN)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,628,347, "Layered Request Processing in a Content Delivery Network (CDN)," issued April 18, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As CDNs matured, they began handling diverse content types (video, images, text) for various origin servers, each with unique configurations. The conventional "one-size-fits-all" approach to request processing became inefficient and problematic (Compl. ¶56).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a specific technical solution of employing a "layered approach" for processing requests, which uses a "modifiable, modular control environment" Compl. ¶57, citing '347 Patent, col. 64:11-16 Processing begins at a first layer and proceeds conditionally through subsequent layers. Critically, at least one layer modifies the "modifiable control environment" to produce a "modified control environment," which then serves as the basis for processing by a subsequent layer Compl. ¶58
  • Technical Importance: This layered approach allows for separate, customized levels of configuration for each service, improving hardware operation by providing lower latency and better performance compared to a monolithic configuration (Compl. ¶58, citing '347 Patent, col. 67:37-38; '347 Patent, col. 158:53-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶101
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method with the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a request for a CD service of a particular service type, where the service type defines a number of configurable layers of request processing.
    • Processing the request, starting at a first layer, based on a modifiable runtime environment.
    • Conditionally continuing the processing through each subsequent layer.
    • Wherein, during processing, at least one layer modifies the modifiable control environment to produce a modified control environment.
    • Wherein processing by a subsequent layer is based on the modified control environment.

U.S. Patent No. 9,660,876 - "Collector Mechanisms in a Content Delivery Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,660,876, "Collector Mechanisms in a Content Delivery Network," issued May 23, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of configuring CDNs to handle diverse content types and parameters Compl. ¶60 The claimed solution involves using "state data" derived from "multiple event streams" to inform a "peering policy" for a set of caches, which improves computational efficiency through specialization and enhances fault tolerance Compl. ¶¶61-62
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶137
  • Accused Features: The use of Apache Kafka to receive multiple event streams, produce state data from those streams, and use that state data to inform a peering policy Compl. ¶¶137, 139, 143, 146

U.S. Patent No. 10,432,481 - "Content delivery methods and systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,432,481, "Content delivery methods and systems," issued October 1, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge for CDNs in managing large numbers of properties and high rates of modification Compl. ¶64, citing '481 Patent, col. 2:14-17 The solution involves receiving a content request at a "virtual IP address" and processing the request based on a "property template" associated with that virtual IP, where the template includes parameters like delivery region, cache control, or geo-blocking Compl. ¶¶65-66
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶150
  • Accused Features: The use of Apache Traffic Control to receive requests at a virtual IP address and process them using configurations (the alleged "property template") associated with the Delivery Service Compl. ¶¶154-155, 158

U.S. Patent No. 11,818,229 - "Caching in a content delivery framework"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,818,229, "Caching in a content delivery framework," issued November 14, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of serving stale content from CDN caches and the inefficiency of forcing invalidations to apply new caching policies Compl. ¶69 The solution involves a node in the CDN determining and applying a "current cache policy" that includes two separate and distinct internal policies: one "honored by the node when caching content" and another "honored when the content is served" Compl. ¶¶70-71
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶160
  • Accused Features: The use of Apache Traffic Server as a node in a CDN that allegedly applies separate caching policies for caching versus serving content, such as by honoring different "Cache-Control" headers or cache.config file rules depending on the operation Compl. ¶¶183-185

U.S. Patent No. 10,484,232 - "Customized domain names in a content delivery network (CDN)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,484,232, "Customized domain names in a content delivery network (CDN)," issued November 19, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for CDN systems to collect values for policy control, such as selecting an optimal server for content delivery Compl. ¶74 The solution involves a cache server receiving a client request with a first domain name, determining values from the request, and generating a "second domain name" that includes information from the first domain name and the determined values to direct subsequent client requests Compl. ¶76
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶188
  • Accused Features: The use of Apache Traffic Control, where a cache server receives a request with a domain name and allegedly generates a second domain name (e.g., via a redirect) that contains new information (values) to direct the client to the appropriate cache for subsequent requests Compl. ¶¶193, 198-199

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Cox's in-house content delivery network (CDN) and related services, collectively referred to as the "accused Cox CDN functionalities" Compl. ¶¶4, 78 These functionalities are alleged to be built using and implementing open-source software, including Apache Traffic Control ("ATC"), Apache Traffic Server, and Apache Kafka Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused CDN is a large, national network that Cox has operated since approximately 2014 to deliver content, including live television and video-on-demand streaming services, to its customers Compl. ¶¶29, 31 The complaint alleges Cox built this platform to deliver quick download speeds and an improved customer experience (Compl. ¶29). The system is described as using a hierarchical architecture of servers, including mid-tier and edge-tier assemblies, to distribute content Compl. ¶39 An architectural diagram provided in the complaint illustrates a system with components for traffic control, DNS, and tiered traffic servers (edge and mid-tier) handling client requests for content from an origin Compl. p. 12 Cox is identified as the third-largest cable television provider in the United States, utilizing this CDN for services like Contour TV and Cox Managed Cloud Services Compl. ¶¶42-43

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'903 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a content delivery system with a plurality of origin servers, each of said origin servers having resources associated therewith, and at least one shared repeater server operable to replicate resources associated with the plurality of origin servers The accused Cox CDN includes multiple origin servers and uses Apache Traffic Server, which acts as a "repeater server" by functioning as a reverse proxy that can cache and serve content from multiple origin servers Compl. ¶83 Compl. ¶93 ¶83; ¶93 col. 4:37-40
associating at least one repeater server with a first alias name The Cox CDN, using Apache Traffic Server, utilizes an alias name (e.g., a hostname like edge01.rd.at.cox.net or a FQDN) for a given cache node (repeater server) Compl. ¶85 ¶85; ¶86 col. 4:51-53
requests for a first resource located on a first origin server are directed, based at least in part on said first alias name, to the at least one repeater server for delivery of the first resource from said at least one repeater server Requests for a resource on an origin server are directed to a repeater server (Traffic Server) based on an alias name (e.g., FQDN) Compl. ¶87 ¶87; ¶88 col. 5:18-24
associating the at least one repeater server with a second alias name The accused Cox CDN functionalities associate a repeater server (e.g., Traffic Server) with a second alias name for a second, distinct origin server (e.g., real_daines_books.com and bigserver.net) Compl. ¶92 Compl. ¶93 ¶92; ¶93 col. 5:25-28
requests for a second resource located on a second origin server are directed, based at least in part on said second alias name, to the at least one repeater server...wherein the second origin server is distinct from the first origin server Cox's Traffic Server supports multiple distinct origin servers (e.g., real_daines_books.com and bigserver.net) and remaps traffic sent to these distinct origin servers to an edge or mid-tier cache server (repeater server) using an alias URL Compl. ¶93 Compl. ¶94 An example from the complaint shows a Traffic Server as a reverse proxy for two distinct origin servers, real.dianes_books.com and big.server.net Compl. p. 43 ¶93; ¶94 col. 5:29-37
providing a table listing origin servers having content located thereon The accused functionalities provide a remap.config file and/or an origin table in the traffic control code that lists origin servers and maps FQDNs (aliases) to origin server addresses Compl. ¶96 Compl. ¶97 ¶96; ¶97 col. 5:38-48
the at least one shared repeater server is further constructed and adapted to analyze, using the table, an alias name received with a client request for a particular resource to determine an origin server associated with the particular resource Apache Traffic Server is allegedly configured as a reverse proxy and uses a remap table (remap.config) to analyze an alias name (hostname in a request) to determine the associated origin server Compl. ¶98 Compl. ¶99 ¶98; ¶99 col. 5:49-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A central point of contention may be whether the components of Cox's CDN, such as Apache Traffic Server, qualify as a "shared repeater server" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis may turn on whether a standard reverse proxy cache that serves content for multiple origin servers meets the specific structural and functional requirements of the claimed "repeater server."
    • Technical Question: Another question will be whether the hostnames, FQDNs, and URLs used in Cox's system function as the claimed "first alias name" and "second alias name." The dispute could focus on whether these are merely standard network addresses or if they are used in the specific "associating" and "directing" manner required by the claim.

'347 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computer-implemented method...on a device comprising hardware including memory and at least one processor The accused CDN functionalities are offered across a distributed system of servers that comprise memory and processors Compl. ¶102 ¶102 col. 1:17-19
(A) receiving a request for a CD service of a particular service type, wherein a CD service of said particular service type defines a particular number of configurable layers of request processing... The accused CDN functionalities, via Apache Traffic Control, receive client requests for a CD service (a DeliveryService) that defines configurable layers of request processing (e.g., header rewrite rules, remap configurations) Compl. ¶105 Compl. ¶106 A complaint visual describes how a DeliveryService can be configured with different header rewrite rules for different cache tiers (layers) (Compl. p. 54). ¶105; ¶106 col. 64:11-16
(B) processing said request, starting at said particular first layer, said processing being based on a modifiable runtime environment... The accused CDN processes requests starting at a first layer (e.g., an edge tier cache server), and the processing is based on a runtime environment that can be modified by plugins Compl. ¶107 Compl. ¶112 ¶107; ¶112 col. 64:33-36
said processing continuing conditionally through each of said particular layers... The accused functionalities allegedly continue processing conditionally through different layers, such as plugins and related logic, until the request is terminated or the last layer processes it Compl. ¶113 ¶113 col. 64:36-41
wherein, in processing of said request, at least one of said layers modifies said modifiable control environment to produce a modified control environment... The accused functionalities allegedly use plugins (e.g., a Denylist plugin) or remap configurations at one layer to modify the control environment for subsequent processing Compl. ¶116 Compl. ¶117 Compl. ¶131 ¶116; ¶131 col. 64:42-45
and wherein processing of said request by a subsequent layer is based on the modified control environment. The accused CDN functionalities allegedly provide for continuation between layers, allowing a subsequent layer (e.g., a Traffic Server plugin) to obtain and be based on the modifiable request environment from the previous layer Compl. ¶127 Compl. ¶128 ¶127; ¶128 col. 64:45-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A likely point of dispute will be the definition of "configurable layers of request processing." Defendants may argue that a standard tiered CDN architecture with different rules at each tier does not meet the specific, sequentially processed, and conditionally modifying "layered" system claimed in the patent.
    • Technical Question: An evidentiary question will be whether the "modifiable runtime environment" is actually "modified" by one layer to "produce a modified control environment" for a "subsequent layer," as required by the claim. The analysis will likely focus on the technical implementation of plugins and configuration files to determine if they create the specific inter-layer modification and dependency claimed, or if they are simply independent rule sets operating at different tiers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903:

  • The Term: "shared repeater server"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the '903 Patent hinges on whether Cox's caching servers (Apache Traffic Servers) meet the definition of a "shared repeater server." The construction of this term is central, as it will determine if the accused architecture falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a neologism defined by the patent, and its scope relative to conventional caching servers is the core of the dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the server as "operable to replicate resources associated with the plurality of origin servers" Compl. ¶83 This functional language could be argued to encompass any caching server that stores content from multiple sources, a common feature of CDNs.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "repeater server" as maintaining a "partial mirror of more than one origin server" and implementing a "distributed and/or coherent cache" Compl. ¶53, citing '903 Patent, col. 4:37-40 Defendants may argue that "repeater server" is not a generic cache but a specific type of server with these precise characteristics, which their system may not have.

For U.S. Patent No. 9,628,347:

  • The Term: "modifiable runtime environment"
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of Claim 1 requires processing to be based on a "modifiable runtime environment" that is modified by one layer and used by another. The definition of this term will be critical to determining if Cox's use of plugins and configuration files creates the claimed dynamic environment.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the layered approach may "provide for separate levels of configuration for each service," a general statement that could support a broad interpretation covering any configurable, tiered system (Compl. ¶58, citing '347 Patent, col. 67:37-38). The use of the general term "environment" could be argued to include any set of software configurations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires a specific causal link: one layer "modifies said modifiable control environment to produce a modified control environment," and a subsequent layer's processing "is based on the modified control environment" Compl. ¶58 This suggests a specific data flow and dependency between layers. Defendants may argue that their use of plugins at different tiers does not create this specific input/output relationship between a shared, modifiable "environment" as taught in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants provide services utilizing the accused CDN functionalities, and that video presentations by Cox engineers describe the use of the accused Apache tools Compl. ¶5 These allegations may be used to support a claim of induced infringement, suggesting Cox encouraged or instructed its employees or customers to use the technology in an infringing manner.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice to Defendants on December 2, 2025, which included a letter and "detailed claim charts" identifying the asserted patents and the accused technologies (Apache Traffic Control, Apache Traffic Server, and Apache Kafka) Compl. ¶¶3, 46 The complaint further alleges that Cox refused to engage in licensing discussions, which may be presented as evidence of willful infringement post-notification Compl. ¶¶4, 6

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "shared repeater server," as defined in the context of the '903 Patent, be construed to read on the Apache Traffic Servers used in Cox's CDN? The case may turn on whether this term is limited to a specific architecture disclosed in the patent or is broad enough to cover conventional reverse-proxy caches serving multiple origin servers.

  2. A key question will be one of technical implementation: does Cox's use of plugins and tiered configurations in its Apache-based CDN meet the specific claim requirements of the '347 Patent's "layered request processing"? The court will need to determine if Cox's system creates a "modifiable runtime environment" that is modified by one layer and subsequently used by another, or if it is functionally distinct from the claimed invention.

  3. An important evidentiary question will focus on proof of operation: given that the accused instrumentalities are based on open-source software, the dispute will likely involve detailed evidence of how Cox has specifically configured and implemented Apache Traffic Control, Traffic Server, and Kafka. The outcome may depend on whether Plaintiff can show that Cox's particular use of these tools matches the specific functions and structures recited in the patent claims, beyond the generic capabilities of the software.

Loading Complaint