DigiMedia Tech v. WideOpenWest: Three-Patent Streaming Suit Ends With Prejudice
DigiMedia Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against WideOpenWest and its affiliates in Delaware, asserting three patents against WOW’s streaming apps. The case closed after 266 days via stipulated dismissal with prejudice — each side absorbing its own legal costs, suggesting a private resolution was reached.
Three streaming patents, one stipulated exit: Delaware dismissal dissected
On December 12, 2023, DigiMedia Tech, LLC filed suit in the District of Delaware against WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, WideOpenWest Networks, LLC, and WideOpenWest, Inc. — the corporate family behind the WOW broadband and streaming service. The complaint alleged infringement of three patents: US6684220B1, US6807568B1, and US7065778B1, each directed at streaming media delivery technology. The accused products were identified as WOW’s consumer-facing streaming applications.
The case closed on September 3, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties agreed to bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes DigiMedia’s ability to re-file the same claims against WideOpenWest on these patents, making the resolution final. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a confidential settlement, though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
At 266 days, the case resolved significantly faster than a typical Delaware patent trial lifecycle, suggesting the parties reached agreement before substantial pretrial litigation had accrued. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal — coupled with no fee award to either side — is a classic hallmark of a negotiated resolution. What drove the outcome, whether licensing terms, non-infringement positions, or commercial considerations, remains unknown from the publicly available record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 266 days
266 days — resolved below the typical Delaware patent trial timeline of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal, final and binding
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the consent of all parties and, when entered with prejudice, operates as a final adjudication on the merits. DigiMedia cannot refile these specific infringement claims against WideOpenWest on the same three patents. The court retains no further jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.
Permanent bar on re-filingWith prejudice: DigiMedia’s claims are extinguished permanently
Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which would preserve the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal permanently forecloses DigiMedia’s infringement claims against WideOpenWest on US6684220B1, US6807568B1, and US7065778B1. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff, and is strongly consistent with a negotiated settlement where DigiMedia received something of value in exchange for relinquishing future litigation rights.
Claims permanently extinguishedWideOpenWest escapes infringement liability — at least publicly
WideOpenWest and its affiliates are shielded from any further assertion of these three patents by DigiMedia in connection with WOW streaming apps. The each-side-bears-own-costs structure means no fee-shifting occurred, and no adverse judgment was entered. Whether WOW obtained a license or simply negotiated a clean exit is not determinable from the public record.
No adverse judgment enteredPrivate resolution leaves streaming patent risk unresolved for the sector
Because the case settled before any claim construction or merits rulings, the three asserted patents remain unlitigated on validity or scope. Other streaming service operators cannot rely on this case for guidance on invalidity or non-infringement. DigiMedia’s patents remain in force and could be asserted against other defendants, making FTO analysis relevant for any streaming app operator.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DigiMedia Tech, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US6684220B1, US6807568B1, and US7065778B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wideopen West Finance, LLC | Company | WideOpenWest (WOW) — US broadband and streaming service provider and its affiliatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wideopenwest Networks, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | WideOpen West, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney S. Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for DigiMedia Tech, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Weinblatt | Attorney | Counsel for DigiMedia Tech, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stamatios Stamoulis | Attorney | Counsel for DigiMedia Tech, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing DigiMedia Tech, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan M. Stemerman | Attorney | Counsel for Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn E. Ford | Attorney | Counsel for Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle G. Gottuso | Attorney | Counsel for Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard L. Brophy | Attorney | Counsel for Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sydney K. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Armstrong Teasdale LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wideopen West Finance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring mutual consent — distinguishing it from a unilateral plaintiff dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it functions as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring DigiMedia from reasserting these claims against WideOpenWest on the same patents. The mutual cost-bearing clause — ‘each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees’ — signals a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side, as fee-shifting is typically reserved for clear-cut wins or exceptional case findings.
US6684220B1, US6807568B1 & US7065778B1 — Streaming Media Delivery Patents
The three asserted patents — US6684220B1, US6807568B1, and US7065778B1 — share application-era roots in the early 2000s, a formative period for internet-based media streaming infrastructure. Filed under application numbers US09/666029, US09/625646, and US09/865970 respectively, these patents cover methods and systems relevant to digital media delivery, content streaming, and networked app-based access — technologies foundational to today’s OTT and broadband-bundled streaming services.
These patents are strategically significant because they predate the mass commercialisation of app-based streaming, meaning their claim language may be drafted broadly enough to read on modern implementations. Held by DigiMedia Tech — an entity whose business model appears centered on IP licensing rather than product development — they represent a potentially recurring enforcement asset. Any broadband operator, IPTV provider, or streaming platform offering app-based content access should assess exposure, particularly given that no invalidity ruling has narrowed or invalidated any claim.
Should your streaming platform run an FTO against these three patents?
If your organisation develops or operates app-based streaming services, IPTV platforms, or broadband-bundled video delivery products, US6684220B1, US6807568B1, and US7065778B1 warrant formal freedom-to-operate review. DigiMedia has demonstrated willingness to litigate in Delaware — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and the absence of any invalidity ruling means these patents carry full presumptive validity. The WideOpenWest dismissal does not create any collateral estoppel protection for third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against these specific patent claims, identify prior art that could support IPR petitions, and benchmark claim scope against related patents in the streaming delivery family. Running this analysis proactively — before a demand letter arrives — is significantly less costly than litigating in Delaware. Eureka’s claim-level analysis can help you assess whether design-arounds or IPR filings are the stronger strategic path.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6684220B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar streaming media patent suits in Delaware District Court
Cases involving streaming media and app-based content delivery patents litigated in Delaware District Court by patent licensing entities against broadband and OTT operators.
What this case signals for the streaming media IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in Delaware suggests commercial leverage — and leaves three streaming patents fully intact for future enforcement.
Early resolution typically signals licensing leverage, not weakness
Cases dismissed with prejudice in under nine months — before claim construction — most commonly reflect a licensing agreement rather than a defendant win. For streaming app operators, this pattern suggests DigiMedia’s portfolio may carry sufficient perceived risk to extract settlements. Competitors in the OTT and broadband-bundled streaming space should take note.
No merits ruling means these patents are still dangerous
None of the three asserted patents — US6684220B1, US6807568B1, or US7065778B1 — were subjected to claim construction, invalidity analysis, or a Markman ruling. Their scope remains untested by any court. Any streaming platform or IPTV operator delivering content via app-based interfaces should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
DigiMedia v Wideopen — key questions answered
DigiMedia Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against WideOpenWest and its affiliates in the District of Delaware on December 12, 2023, asserting three patents against WOW streaming apps. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on September 3, 2024, after 266 days, with each party bearing its own costs — consistent with a confidential settlement.
DigiMedia asserted US6684220B1 (App. No. US09/666029), US6807568B1 (App. No. US09/625646), and US7065778B1 (App. No. US09/865970) — three patents covering streaming media delivery technology filed in the early 2000s. All three patents remain in force with no invalidity ruling having been issued.
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars DigiMedia from refiling the same infringement claims against WideOpenWest on these three patents. It functions as a final judgment on the merits. However, DigiMedia retains the right to assert the same patents against other defendants.
No. The dismissal with prejudice only binds DigiMedia and WideOpenWest. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or merits adjudication was issued. Other streaming platform operators, IPTV providers, and broadband-bundled video services cannot rely on this case for any protection and should conduct independent FTO analysis on the three asserted patents.
At 266 days, the case resolved well before the typical 2–3 year Delaware patent trial timeline. This pace — combined with a with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing — is consistent with an early-stage licensing negotiation that concluded before significant pretrial milestones such as Markman hearings or fact discovery. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not part of the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.