Patent Infringement Claim Charts & Damages Analysis

Patents: US 10,205,986 B2 and 10,958,961 B2 — Mobile live-streaming selection, session control, hybrid live/VOD delivery systems.
Inventor: Gabriel De La Vega Jr.
Counterparties: Amazon/Twitch • Voxer • Emblaze (BSD Crown) • Nokia
Purpose: Technical overlap analysis, invalidation arguments, and illustrative damages model.
Disclaimer: Informational only; not legal advice. Final positions should be vetted by patent counsel and refined with discovery data.

Amazon / Twitch — Patent Infringement Analysis

Low-latency streaming
Adaptive bitrate delivery
Live/VOD integration
Server switching continuity

Claim Chart: US 10,205,986 B2 / 10,958,961 B2 vs. Amazon/Twitch Patents

My Patent Claim Amazon/Twitch Patent Overlap / Infringement Analysis
US 10,205,986 B2 – Selecting live video streams for mobile devices; managing multiple streams with bandwidth constraints. US 11,425,178 (Twitch, 2022) – Low-latency streaming using playlists with "future" segments, adaptive delivery by network capacity. Both address adaptive bitrate & network-based delivery for mobile viewers. My earlier priority date (2003/2004) supports invalidation arguments against Twitch's patent. Strong case for both infringement and invalidity claims.
US 10,958,961 B2 – Systems for switching between live and on-demand streams seamlessly on mobile devices. US 11,870,830 (Twitch, 2024) – Embedded streaming content management: integrates live streaming with on-demand service. Direct overlap in hybrid live/on-demand integration. Exceptionally strong case that Twitch's patent relies on my core invention. Prime candidate for infringement assertion and invalidity challenge.
US 10,205,986 B2 – Controlling session initiation and routing of mobile live streams. US 11,765,418 (Twitch, 2023) – Seamless server switching during a live stream, preserving continuity. Session control & continuity overlap. Their patent extends infrastructure handling, but foundation exists in my earlier claims. My priority date provides strong invalidity position.
US 10,958,961 B2 – Mobile live streaming with real-time selection and delivery to viewers. Amazon Interactive Shopping Patents (e.g., US 10,021,458 B1, 2018) – Live video with e-commerce overlays. Different commercial focus, but both rely on core live streaming delivery methods. My patent could be asserted as underlying technology for their live shopping implementations.

Summary: Amazon/Twitch's patents issued between 2018–2024 show substantial overlap with functionality already claimed in my patents with priority dating back to 2003/2004. This strengthens arguments for both direct infringement (if they use my patented technology without license) and invalidity of their patents (as my prior art anticipates their claims).

Voxer — Patent Infringement Analysis

Real-time video messaging
Time-shifted playback
Adaptive delivery
Hybrid live/VOD

Claim Chart: US 10,205,986 B2 / 10,958,961 B2 vs. Voxer Technology

'986: Mobile device initiates live stream; system selects route/endpoint for viewers under bandwidth constraints. Voxer "walkie-talkie" video: real-time send; server selects appropriate stream quality/route per recipient conditions. Direct overlap on initiation + network-aware selection to recipients. If Voxer claims post-priority implementations, my earlier priority + public embodiments anticipate/obviate their selection/routing logic.
'961: Seamless switching between live and time-shifted playback on mobile. Voxer supports live reception or later playback of the same message/video. Direct hybrid live/VOD parity. Core functionality matches my patent claims. Obviousness combination: known live chat + recorded clip backlog. Argue predictable use of prior art live + store-and-forward systems already disclosed in my patents.
'986: Session control & metadata for low-latency delivery. Voxer adaptively sends "degraded" (lower bitrate/quality) variants to meet bandwidth. Functional parity with adaptive session control. If claims are broader than enablement, argue written-description gaps or lack of specific control-path disclosure for mobile multi-endpoint selection.

Note: Voxer primarily operates as licensing/enforcement entity. Invalidation strategy focuses on priority, anticipation, and obviousness combinations around hybrid live/time-shift plus adaptive bitrate delivery already taught by my earlier patent systems.

Emblaze (BSD Crown) — Patent Infringement Analysis

Adaptive Bitrate (ABR)
Segmented HTTP streaming
Multi-variant delivery

Claim Chart: US 10,205,986 B2 / 10,958,961 B2 vs. Emblaze Patents

My Claim Element Emblaze Patent / Tech Element Overlap Summary Potential Invalidation Angles
'986: Network-aware stream selection & endpoint provisioning to multiple mobile viewers. Emblaze ABR: clients receive segments at bitrates matching bandwidth; server provides multiple variants. Overlap on selection mechanics & multi-variant delivery. Deep prior art in ABR/HLS; argue my earlier device-centric selection orchestration anticipates generic ABR selection claimed by Emblaze.
'961: Hybrid live/VOD continuity on device, seamless switching. Segmented streaming with buffer allows quasi time-shift; later playback uses stored segments. Conceptual hybridization via segment buffers parallels live→VOD functionality. Obviousness: combination of ABR + DVR-style buffer + known mobile players. My patents disclose this combination earlier.
'986: Session control signals with metadata for low latency. Manifest/playlist files direct clients to next segments/bitrates. Both rely on metadata-driven control of stream selection. Argue that manifest-driven ABR is a subset of my broader control model; potential written description breadth issues on their claims.

Note: Emblaze/BSD Crown frequently asserts ABR patents against streaming services. Core defense strategy: leverage deep prior art + argue my claims anticipate/obviate ABR selection logic from the device/session-control perspective disclosed in my earlier patents.

Nokia — Patent Infringement Analysis

Streaming codecs & transport
Player/DRM integration
Adaptive delivery pipelines

Claim Chart: US 10,205,986 B2 / 10,958,961 B2 vs. Nokia Patents

My Claim Element Nokia Patent / Tech Element Overlap Summary Potential Invalidation Angles
'986: Device-initiated live session; routing/selection to multiple endpoints. Nokia: streaming pipeline claims (transport, coding, CDN handoff, client logic). Partial overlap where routing/selection and client controls are claimed broadly by Nokia. Argue system-level anticipation: my earlier mobile-centric orchestration predates generic pipeline claims covering the same control outcomes.
'961: Seamless live↔VOD switch on device with metadata continuity. Nokia: live delivery with trick-modes, buffer, and continuity for playback. Overlap in continuity/trick-modes tied to live streams. Obviousness combination of known DVR/time-shift + live streaming; argue my claims disclose earlier specific mobile continuity method.
'986: Multi-stream selection under bandwidth constraints. Nokia: adaptive delivery and client feedback loops. ABR-style overlap on bandwidth-based decisioning. Prior art saturation in adaptive streaming; argue Nokia claims read on well-known ABR and my earlier teachings make them obvious or anticipated.

Note: Nokia's extensive patent portfolio covers codec/transport/licensing. My invalidation posture is strongest where Nokia claims extend beyond pure codec IP into session control, live/VOD continuity, and device-level selection — areas my patents specifically taught earlier with clear priority dates.

Illustrative Financial Damages Model

This analysis presents illustrative exposure ranges for asserting my patents against each counterparty for products/services allegedly practicing my patented claims. Values derive from reasonable royalty calculations and comparable licensing outcomes. Replace these assumptions with actual discovery data when available.

Counterparty Accused Use / Products Est. Annual Revenue Base Reasonable Royalty Rate Past Damages Period Forward License Term* Indicative Settlement Range Strategic Notes
Amazon/Twitch Live streaming platform (Twitch), interactive shopping, AWS streaming services $8B–$15B 1.5%–4% 3–6 years To March 2027 $400M–$2.5B Massive scale; strongest infringement case given direct overlap with core streaming technology. High-value settlement target.
Voxer Live/time-shifted messaging app & licensing revenue streams $25M–$150M 5%–12% 3–6 years To March 2027 $5M–$60M Smaller commercial scale; leverage comes from mutual invalidation counterclaims. Cross-license opportunity.
Emblaze (BSD Crown) ABR patent licensing receipts (if practicing my claimed selection/session control) $50M–$200M 4%–10% 3–6 years To March 2027 $8M–$80M NPE business model; damages hinge on their own exploitation/use—often limited. Strong cross-license leverage position.
Nokia Streaming delivery infrastructure where claims extend beyond codec into session/continuity control $300M–$1.2B 2%–6% 3–6 years To March 2027 $150M–$900M Assumes measurable revenue tied to streaming pipeline features beyond pure codec royalties. Requires careful apportionment; refine with licensing disclosure data.

*Forward license term ends at patent expiration (March 2027). Ranges reflect portfolio-level bargaining positions including past damages, forward-looking license, global peace, and no sublicensing rights. Replace revenue bases and royalty rates with audited financial figures obtained through discovery.

Damages Calculation Methodology

Damages estimates use the reasonable royalty framework under 35 U.S.C. § 284, considering:

Next Steps

  • Have patent counsel map my earliest priority dates to each overlapping claim element documented above.
  • Collect product/usage evidence for each counterparty to tighten the royalty base calculations.
  • Prepare comprehensive invalidity charts (anticipation/obviousness) using my patents plus external prior art.
  • Calibrate damages model with discovery data (actual revenue, units sold, geographic distribution).
  • Consider strategic licensing approach vs. litigation for each counterparty based on their patent portfolio strength.
  • Evaluate defensive patent positions and cross-licensing opportunities, especially with Voxer and Emblaze.

Additional Evidence Resources

Explore comprehensive infringement evidence and technical documentation:

Amazon/Twitch Infringement Evidence ABC Network Infringement Evidence

These pages contain detailed technical claim charts, product screenshots, and public documentation demonstrating alleged patent infringement.

Patent Portfolio Details

US 10,205,986 B2

Title: Systems and methods for selecting live video streams for mobile devices

Filed: December 2004

Issued: February 2019

Priority Date: March 2003

Key Claims: Mobile device-initiated live streaming, network-aware stream selection, bandwidth-constrained multi-endpoint delivery, session control and routing, adaptive bitrate selection for mobile viewers.

US 10,958,961 B2

Title: Systems for switching between live and on-demand streams on mobile devices

Filed: January 2019

Issued: March 2021

Priority Date: March 2003

Key Claims: Seamless hybrid live/VOD switching, metadata continuity during stream transitions, real-time to time-shifted playback conversion, mobile live streaming with on-demand integration.