IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: NFL loses bid to dismiss patent infringement suit over app, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

However, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff may face potentially fatal obstacles after discovery and at summary judgment.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has allowed, for now, a patent infringement lawsuit to proceed against the National Football League. The suit alleges infringement of a patent related to technology for displaying videos from a smartphone to a second device, such as a television. Noting the early stage of the litigation, the court said the plaintiff has met the standard to survive a motion to dismiss. However, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff may face potentially fatal defects as the litigation proceeds (Err Content IP, LLC v. NFL Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-09450-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 27, 2026)).

Background. On Nov. 12, 2025, plaintiff, Err Content IP, LLC, filed a lawsuit against defendant, NFL Enterprises, LLC (NFLE), alleging patent infringement. Err Content owns U.S. Patent No. 10,721,542 (the ‘542 Patent), titled “Method and Device for Providing a Main Content and an Extra Content to a User Through Reference Item.” The ’542 Patent claims a method pursuant to which main content received from a first source is displayed on a first device and extra content originating from a second source is displayed simultaneously as the main content on either the first device or, alternatively, on a second device. Err Content alleges that NFLE directly and/or indirectly infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘542 Patent by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States its NFL app system and related systems, namely that the NFL App has a method for providing a main content and an extra content to a user because it allows users to cast videos from a smartphone to a second device, such as a television. After Err Content filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), NFLE filed a motion to dismiss. Err Content subsequently filed an opposition and NFLE filed a reply.

Discussion. Err Content alleges that NFLE directly infringes the ‘542 Patent, induces third parties such as customers to infringe the ‘542 Patent, and contributorily infringes by encouraging others to do so. In response, NFLE argued that the FAC fails to plausibly state a claim for either direct or indirect infringement.

Direct infringement. The court held that Err Content met the standard to survive a motion to dismiss on its direct infringement claim. Err Content attached the ‘542 Patent to the FAC, identified the NFL App as an accused product, attached photographs of the NFL App, and alleged that the NFL App meets every element of claim 1 of the ‘542 Patent.

NFLE argued that the alleged infringement documented in the images does not interact with the NFL App, but with software native to a mobile device. The court said such a claim, if true, would be damning to Err Content’s case. However, at this early stage of the litigation, and in drawing all inferences in favor of Err Content, the allegations are sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.

The court also rejected an argument by NFLE that Err Content’s reliance on a YouTube video posted more than six years prior to the commencement of the lawsuit fell outside the six-year statutory damages window. The court reasoned that because the FAC expressly alleges NFLE “continues to directly infringe,” the fact that the video is older does not contradict or nullify the allegation.

NFLE further argued that the FAC fails to plausibly state a claim for direct infringement because it “alleges at least three separate entities who perform claim steps.” The court disagreed, writing that Err Content has alleged that it is the NFL App, and not another party, that performs the functions key to claim 1. However, the court said it may well be that the alleged infringement is divided among multiple actors who are not acting pursuant to NFLE’s control or involvement, and that any factual determinations about technical operations are best reserved for claim construction or a targeted summary judgment motion.

Indirect infringement. The court denied dismissal of Err Content’s indirect infringement claims. NFLE argued that because Err Content failed to plausibly allege direct infringement, there can be no induced or contributory infringement without an underlying act of direct infringement. However, the court said this argument fails because Err Content has met the standard to survive a motion to dismiss. NFLE also argued that the induced infringement claim should fail because Err Content failed to allege specific intent, but the court wrote that the FAC sufficiently alleges intent. However, the court noted that NFLE has asserted “potentially fatal defects in the FAC and a concerning pattern with Err Content’s counsel, and it may well prevail on its arguments after discovery.”

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-09450-JPO.

Judge: Oetken, J.

Attorneys: William P. Ramey, III (Ramey LLP) for Err Content IP, LLC. Brittany B. Silvester (Vinson & Elkins LLP) for NFI Enterprises, LLC.

Companies: Err Content IP, LLC; NFI Enterprises, LLC

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews