TQP Development, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.

In a notable example of a widespread patent assertion campaign, TQP Development, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), sued MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (MLBAM), the digital media and technology arm of Major League Baseball. TQP Development is a patent assertion entity known for acquiring patents and filing infringement lawsuits against a large number of companies across various industries. MLBAM, on the other hand, is an operating company responsible for MLB.com, the official websites for all 30 MLB teams, live game streaming services, and online ticket sales. The lawsuit alleged that MLBAM's digital infrastructure, which provides encrypted data for its websites and streaming services, infringed on TQP's patent.

The case centered on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730, which generally covers a method for encrypted, secure communications. The technology involves using a pseudorandom number generator seeded with a value combined with message data to create encryption keys, aiming to ensure that data transmitted over a network is decipherable only by authorized recipients. TQP asserted this same patent against hundreds of other defendants in a coordinated litigation campaign, targeting companies that used common forms of data encryption on their websites and online platforms. This suit was part of a wave of over 100 lawsuits TQP filed against various companies in 2012.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who manages one of the heaviest patent dockets in the country. At the time of filing, the Eastern District of Texas was widely regarded as a favorable venue for patent plaintiffs due to its local patent rules, expedited trial schedules (often called a "rocket docket"), and a history of plaintiff-friendly jury verdicts. This reputation made it a magnet for patent assertion entities like TQP. The case is notable not for a specific legal ruling, but as a classic example of the business model employed by prolific NPEs in the early 2010s: asserting a broad technology patent against numerous operating companies in a plaintiff-friendly venue to extract settlement payments. As with the vast majority of TQP's cases, this lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, indicating a likely settlement between the parties.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between TQP Development, LLC and MLB Advanced Media, L.P. followed a trajectory common to many cases in TQP's widespread enforcement campaign. Filed in a plaintiff-friendly venue, the case was resolved without any substantive court rulings on the merits of the patent infringement claim, ultimately ending in a dismissal that suggests a private settlement.

Filing and Initial Stages (2012-2013)

• 2012-08-31: Complaint Filed
  TQP Development, LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against MLB Advanced Media, L.P. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged that MLB Advanced Media's use of encryption technology, such as the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, on its websites and digital platforms infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730. This filing was one of over 100 similar lawsuits filed by TQP against a wide array of companies in the same period.

• 2013-01-14: Case Reassignment
  As part of a broader reallocation of cases within the Eastern District of Texas, this case was reassigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This was a significant development, as Judge Gilstrap was well-versed in handling large patent dockets and had overseen many of the other TQP cases. This consolidation of TQP cases under a single judge was intended to streamline the proceedings.

Mid-Litigation and Final Disposition (2013)

Detailed docket entries for this specific case, such as the defendant's answer, motions, or claim construction orders, are not readily available in public online sources. However, the typical progression of TQP's cases and the ultimate outcome of this case allow for a high-confidence reconstruction of its likely path.

• Pre-trial Motions and Discovery:
  It is probable that MLB Advanced Media filed an answer denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the '730 patent. Given the high volume of parallel litigation, it is unlikely that this specific case saw significant unique motion practice. Discovery was likely coordinated or impacted by developments in other TQP cases that were further along in the litigation process. There is no indication that the case advanced to a claim construction (Markman) hearing or summary judgment motions.

• Settlement and Dismissal (2013):
  The case was ultimately dismissed. While the specific filings are not available through general web searches, court records show the case status as "Dismissed." This outcome, without a trial or substantive ruling on the merits, is indicative of a settlement. TQP's litigation model was predicated on extracting licensing fees or settlement payments from a large number of defendants, making early resolution a primary objective.

  • 2013-11-04: Stipulation of Dismissal
    Based on information from docket aggregators, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal, which the court likely entered shortly thereafter, officially closing the case. This type of filing, typically a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," is standard practice when parties reach a settlement, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.

Parallel Proceedings

There is no public record of MLB Advanced Media filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '730 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While other defendants in the broader TQP litigation campaign did challenge the patent, the timing of this specific case's resolution in late 2013 suggests it concluded before the surge of IPR filings that became a more common defense strategy in subsequent years. The '730 patent did face challenges at the PTAB, but these appear to have been initiated by other defendants in later stages of TQP's overall campaign.

In summary, the litigation between TQP and MLB Advanced Media was a short-lived affair, characteristic of TQP's broader strategy. The case was filed, assigned to a judge managing the bulk of the campaign, and then privately settled and dismissed within approximately 14 months, never reaching any significant litigated milestones.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on appearances in numerous parallel cases filed by TQP Development in the Eastern District of Texas and the typical structure of such litigation campaigns, the following attorneys represented the plaintiff, TQP Development, LLC.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: As chair of his firm's patent litigation department, Mr. Fenster was the lead architect of TQP's nationwide litigation campaign and served as lead trial counsel in a related case against Newegg that went to trial.

• Name: Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Mr. Mirzaie is a partner at Russ August & Kabat who frequently litigates alongside Marc Fenster and has substantial experience in high-stakes patent trials for patent assertion entities.

Local Counsel

• Name: Andrew W. Spangler
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Spangler Law PC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Spangler founded his own firm in Longview, Texas, and has extensive experience serving as local counsel in the hundreds of patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas. His firm's location and his experience made him a common choice for out-of-state firms like Russ August & Kabat.

Counsel for Defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P.

Based on an analysis of available dockets and news coverage concerning TQP Development's litigation, the counsel representing defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (MLBAM) included attorneys from the intellectual property firm Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. MLBAM has relied on this firm for representation in other intellectual property matters as well.

The following attorneys were counsel of record:

• J. Christopher Jensen | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. (New York, NY)
  • Note: Jensen is an experienced patent litigator who has represented MLBAM in other intellectual property disputes, including a breach of contract and patent licensing case in New York state court.

• Robert A. Cote | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. (New York, NY)
  • Note: Cote's practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling, representing clients in federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

It is common practice in the Eastern District of Texas for out-of-state firms to partner with local counsel. However, the specific local counsel for MLBAM in this case is not prominently identified in the publicly available search results. The case was one of over a hundred filed by TQP Development around the same time, often concluding in confidential settlements before extensive litigation records were generated.