IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Licensing entity’s infringement lawsuit against video delivery provider properly dismissed, (Dec 16, 2025)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The licensing entity failed to plausibly allege that the enterprise video delivery provider used trace-route-based segmentation as required by the asserted patent.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a California district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of an infringement suit filed by a licensing entity against an enterprise video delivery provider. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) failed to plausibly allege that the video delivery provider’s accused content delivery product used “trace routes” to segment content—a limitation found in every asserted claim of the patent at issue (Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc., No. 24-1550 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, Cooperative Entertainment, Inc., is a non-practicing entity. The defendant/appellee, Kollective Technology, Inc., specializes in enterprise software-defined content delivery networks (SD ECDNs).

The asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 (the ’452 patent) is titled “Systems and Methods for Dynamic Networked Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution.” It describes a system in which digital content—such as video files—is delivered via a dynamic P2P network rather than a static CDN. According to the patent, peer nodes, which simultaneously consume the same content, share data segments directly with one another. A central feature of the claimed invention is the use of trace routes, among other tools, to segment content intelligently for more efficient delivery. Notably, the Federal Circuit had earlier characterized this trace-route-based content segmentation as an “inventive concept” in Cooperative Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 131 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“Cooperative I”).

Cooperative initially filed suit in the Northern District of California, alleging that Kollective’s SD ECDN product infringed independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’452 patent. The district court first dismissed the suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding the claims ineligible as abstract. On appeal in Cooperative I, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the claims contained inventive subject matter, particularly their use of trace-route-based content segmentation.

Following remand, Kollective moved to dismiss Cooperative’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting that Cooperative failed to plausibly allege that its product practiced the trace route-based segmentation limitation. The district court agreed but allowed an amendment. Cooperative’s SAC reiterated that all claims “require segmenting the digital content according to the trace routes.” Still, it alleged only that Kollective’s mesh agents use traceroutes to “gather key information” about networks—not to segment content.

The district court again dismissed the case, this time with prejudice, finding that Cooperative had not cured the core deficiency: failure to allege any factual basis for the claim that the accused product segmented content based on trace routes. Cooperative appealed.

Plausibility. The Federal Circuit applied Ninth Circuit standards for reviewing a motion to dismiss, reaffirming that while a complaint need not allege patent infringement element-by-element, it must offer sufficient facts to make infringement plausible. Citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court held that conclusory statements unsupported by factual content were insufficient. Here, Cooperative’s SAC failed to allege that Kollective’s product segmented content—as opposed to merely gathering network data—based on trace routes.

New arguments on appeal. Cooperative attempted a new claim construction on appeal, asserting that the ’452 patent requires segmenting networks or peers, not content, based on trace routes. The Federal Circuit declined to consider this theory, holding that it was never presented to the district court. Reaffirming principles from Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the court emphasized that issues not raised below are generally waived.

Judicial estoppel. The court further held that Cooperative’s new theory was barred by judicial estoppel. In Cooperative I, Cooperative had expressly argued—and succeeded—in asserting that the claims required content segmentation based on trace routes. Citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001), the Federal Circuit concluded that Cooperative could not now assert the opposite merely for strategic advantage. Because its new position contradicted earlier representations and was integral to its prior appellate success, estoppel applied.

Claim construction. Even assuming the new theory was not waived or estopped, the court found it meritless. The plain claim language, specification, and prosecution history all indicated that the invention required the use of trace routes to segment content. The court pointed to multiple parts of the ’452 patent, including claims requiring that a server “use the trace route to segment requested content,” and to the prosecution history, in which Cooperative distinguished its invention from the prior art on that basis.

Leave to amend. Lastly, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of leave to amend a third time. Citing Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008), and Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011), the court found no abuse of discretion, noting Cooperative’s repeated failure to cure deficiencies and the futility of further amendment.

Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Cooperative’s lawsuit.

The Case is No. 24-1550.

Judge: Stark, L.

Attorneys: William Peterson Ramey, III (Ramey LLP) for Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. Michael S. Dowler (Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP) for Kollective Technology, Inc.

Companies: Cooperative Entertainment, Inc.; Kollective Technology, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet FedCirNews CaliforniaNews