Nimitz Technologies LLC v. Bloomberg L.P.

On March 30, 2022, Nimitz Technologies LLC (“Nimitz” or “Plaintiff”), represented by George Pazuniak of O'Kelly & Ernst, LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief for the alleged infringement of a U.S. Patent owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware with Judge Colm F. Connolly presiding. 

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,328, entitled “Broadcast Content Encapsulation” (the “’328 Patent”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “Claim 1 of the ’328 Patent is directed to a specific implementation of a highly technical method for delivering to consumers multiple versions of a specific content. The claimed method begins with ‘components.’ Upon receiving the audio and/or visual elements of a specific content, the provider processes and compresses the information into a series of files that are packaged into a series of ‘components’ which are specific containers storing the resulting video/audio files. The “components” are versatile and the provider may design ‘components’ in a form that is most suitable for the needs of the particular provider.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “Claim 1 then requires the specific content to be delivered in different versions via multiple data streams with each stream corresponding to a ‘component.’ All the claims differed from the closest prior art, Arad et al. US Pat. 7,590,991, Balakrishnan et al. US Pat. 7,227,899, Poli et al. US Pat Appln. 2005/0122976, Anschutz et al. US Pat. Appln. 2004/0230695 and Rakib, Selim Shlomo US Pat. 6,970, 127, all of which disclosed conventional communication systems, either singularly or in combination, and, thus, failed to anticipate or render the above features obvious. (Notice of Allowability).”

Plaintiff also alleged that “as stated by the Examiner, prior to the present invention, there was no prior art disclosing a system and method for encapsulating data streams, and particularly where the data streams related to a specific content that is mapped to components of a transmission service that delivers multiple versions of that specific content.”

Plaintiff further alleged that “in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Bloomberg has practiced and continues to practice the method of at least Claim 1 of the ‘328 Patent by streaming the content found in https://www.bloomberg.com (‘Accused Instrumentality’). As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’328 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered damages. Only method claims of the ‘328 Patent are being asserted, and, thus, patent marking is not an issue. In any event, Nimitz has not commercialized any products under the ‘328 Patent and has no information that any prior owners of the Patent have not complied with patent marking requirements.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief alleging patent infringement.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s past infringement of the ’328 Patent.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.