VideoShare, LLC has added a Western District of Texas case against Facebook (6:21-cv-00254) to its video streaming campaign, targeting the new defendant over the provision of various Facebook platforms and services, including Facebook Live, Facebook Watch, Instagram, and more. In the other active case in the campaign, filed against Alphabet (Google, YouTube) in November 2019, the parties continue to hotly contest the effect on the current litigation of a 2017 summary affirmance of the Aliceinvalidation of two prior VideoShare patents by District of Delaware Judge Gregory M. Sleet.
Last November, VideoShare, LLC sued Alphabet (Google, YouTube) in the Western District of Texas over the fifth member of a family generally related to streaming video over a “structured hierarchical network”. The patent issued to VideoShare in July 2019, roughly two years after the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the invalidation of two prior VideoShare patents under Alice by District of Delaware Judge Gregory M. Sleet. Google and YouTube moved to dismiss, arguing that claim preclusion should block VideoShare from pursuing the new case, but District Judge Alan D. Albright has just disagreed. The court’s order provides additional guidance about how Judge Albright views the intersection of claim preclusion and patent eligibility—guidance that may nonetheless do little to dissuade plaintiffs from filing patent litigation in the Western District, adding to already climbing numbers.
VideoShare, LLC has filed another lawsuit against Alphabet (Google, YouTube) (6:19-cv-00663), accusing the defendants of infringing a single patent generally related to streaming video over a “structured hierarchical network”, with infringement allegations again focused on the YouTube video platform. This new lawsuit comes roughly two years after the Federal Circuit affirmed District Judge Gregory M. Sleet’s invalidation under Alice of two patents previously asserted by VideoShare, perhaps motivating the plaintiff to also seek a declaratory judgment from the Western District of Texas that the patent that it has asserted, which issued just this past July, is valid.