Virentem Ventures LLC (d/b/a Enounce) has filed a lawsuit asserting 11 patents against Alphabet (Google, YouTube) (1:18-cv-00917). The plaintiff characterizes the general subject matter of the underlying technology purportedly covered by the patents-in-suit as "allowing users to select and alter playback speeds while viewing content". Enounce accuses Google and subsidiary YouTube of infringement through the provision of devices and services (including "the Google Pixelbook, Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL hardware that render YouTube content via Chrome, Chrome apps, YouTube apps, the Google/YouTube servers, and/or hardware that renders YouTube TV content via Chrome") that play YouTube, YouTube TV, and OnDemand YouTube TV content. At issue are certain YouTube features that alter video playback speed without affecting the pitch of the audio and that track the duration of displayed videos. Google is also accused of infringing one of the asserted patents through the provision of certain Nest video security products that skip to different portions of the video depending on certain criteria (e.g., the detection of motion).

Enounce, Inc., a startup offering video playback software, folded in 2015 and was subsequently acquired by Virentem Ventures. It was cofounded by Donald J. Hejna, Jr., who acted as its CEO and who is a named inventor on most of the entity's patents. Hejna holds himself out as a managing partner and founder of Kestros Capital, as well as having been the managing member for Virentem since April 2010, when that entity was formed in Delaware. The complaint pleads that Hejna's MIT Master's thesis resulted in an issued patent (5,175,769) incorporated by reference into many of the patents-in-campaign.

Those patents fall into one of three families. A family of ten patents, of which four are asserted (6,801,888; 7,043,433; 7,299,184; 9,185,380), issued, with Hejna as sole named inventor, on dates ranging from April 2002 and May 2016 with earliest estimated priority date in October 1998. Prosecution of an application related to this family, filed in October, appears to continue before the USPTO. A family of seven patents, of which three are asserted (6,598,228; 7,100,188; 8,566,885) issued, again with Hejna as sole named inventor, between July 2003 and January 2018 with earliest estimated priority date in May 1999. Prosecution of an application related to this family, filed in September 2017, continues before the USPTO. Finally, a family of nine patents, of which four are asserted (7,683,903; 8,068,108; 8,345,050; 9,785,400) issued, with Edward Bianchi and Richard Goldhor as named inventors, between September 2004 and October 2017 with earliest estimated priority date in December 2001. Goldhor cofounded Enounce with Hejna; Bianchi was an engineer with the company. Prosecution of an application related to this family, also filed in September 2017, continues before the USPTO.

That '769 patent was asserted by EPL Holdings, LLC, together with three other patents (the '903, '050, and 8,384,720 patents, the latter a part of the nine-member family), against Apple in a Northern District of California case lasting from August 2012 to December 2014. The plaintiff accused Apple of infringement through the provision of certain iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads, MacBooks, and iMacs. EPL characterized Enounce as its predecessor-in-interest in that case, identifying Enounce in a certificate of interested parties as its corporate parent. In that certificate and a later amended version, EPL also identified RealNetworks (as having a minority interest in Enounce); IP Navigation Group, LLC (d/b/a IPNav) (as an advisor); SNR Denton US, LLP (as original litigation counsel, subsequently replaced); and Russ, August & Kabat (later counsel) as having an interest in the outcome of the proceeding. The court sustained Apple's objection to IPNav's review of confidential discovery produced in the case, and after a February 2014 claim construction order in which the court five times adopted Apple's proposed construction, either directly or in modified version, and twice adopted EPL's proposed construction, litigation came to standstill, leading to a December 2014 settlement and dismissal.

Another Hejna patent (6,266,674) formed the centerpiece of a separate, sprawling and notorious campaign, litigated by eDekka LLC, an affiliate of monetization firm IP Edge LLC. The campaign hit over 250 defendants and saw the '672 patent, which generally relates to storing and labeling information, invalidated under Alice as patent-ineligibly drawn to the abstract idea of "organizing information". In a rare move, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap subsequently ordered the plaintiff to pay to a set of defendants attorney fees under Octane. Judge Gilstrap emphasized that eDekka's inadequate §101 arguments were a key rationale for his decision on the attorney fees issue. He found that because that the '674 patent's claims were so clearly directed toward unpatentable subject matter, "no reasonable litigant could have reasonably expected success on the merits" when defending against an Alice motion.

Virentem pleads that the defendants were aware of its patented technology as far back as 2009 based on a series of alleged interactions with Enounce.

More information on Virentem and the other entities mentioned here is available on RPX Insight.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.