PTAB

IPR2014-00526

NeuLion Inc v. Cascades Ventures Inv

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Audio-Video Data Switching and Viewing System
  • Brief Description: The ’236 patent describes a system for streaming audio-visual content that allows a user to switch between different video streams (e.g., camera angles) seamlessly without interrupting the audio stream. The technology purports to solve prior art problems of latency and excessive bandwidth consumption by using a "feed distributor" to manage the switching and interleaving of a single audio file with multiple selectable video files.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over RealSystem G2 - Claims 18-20, 26, 28-31, and 34 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by the RealSystem G2 documents.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Documents describing the RealSystem G2 multimedia streaming system from RealNetworks, Inc. (Exhibits 1002-1020).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that RealSystem G2, a commercially available and well-documented system prior to the ’236 patent’s priority date, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. This system streamed multimedia files over a network using a client-server architecture (RealServer and RealPlayer). It established persistent connections using application-level protocols like RTSP, created software object instances for different bandwidth streams, and allowed seamless switching between these streams to compensate for network congestion. The system also supported continuing an audio stream while switching between different video streams, as described in claim 19.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this argument was that the patent claimed a general system for adaptive bitrate streaming, a function that was a hallmark feature of RealSystem G2's "SureStream" technology.

Ground 2: Obviousness over RealSystem G2 and Switching Art - Claims 16 and 25 are obvious over the RealSystem G2 documents in view of Radha, Omoigui, Girod, or Watkinson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: RealSystem G2 documents, Radha (Patent 6,806,909), Omoigui (Patent 7,237,254), Girod (Patent 6,480,541), and Watkinson (a 1999 text on MPEG-2).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that RealSystem G2 taught most limitations of claims 16 and 25, such as a client-server system for streaming interleaved audio-video data. To the extent RealSystem G2 did not explicitly disclose a "feed distributor" for switching between different video sources (as opposed to different encodings of the same source), this feature was well known in the art. Radha taught a "splicer" for seamlessly switching between different MPEG-2 program streams while continuing the audio stream. Omoigui disclosed a streaming server that performed seamless switching between different time-scale versions of media content based on user selection. Both Radha's splicer and Omoigui's server performed the functions of the claimed "feed distributor." Furthermore, the limitation of switching at a "key frame" (or I-frame) was a common, necessary practice for avoiding video artifacts, as taught by Girod and Watkinson.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Radha or Omoigui with the RealSystem G2 platform to enhance its functionality. RealSystem G2 already performed seamless switching for bandwidth adaptation; it would have been a simple and predictable step to apply similar, known switching techniques (like those in Radha) to allow users to switch between different content sources (e.g., camera angles), which was a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining these systems involved applying known video splicing techniques to a standard streaming architecture. The underlying technologies (e.g., MPEG-based compression, key frames, client-server protocols) were compatible and widely understood.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges under §103 for claims 17, 21, 22, and 27, relying on the same foundational combination of the RealSystem G2 documents with the teachings of Radha, Omoigui, Girod, or Watkinson to demonstrate the unpatentability of method claims and other system configurations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "persistent connection" (claims 26, 28): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a connection that is used for multiple requests and responses occurring between a server and a client in the time the connection is opened until the time the connection is closed." This construction, based on standard industry protocols like HTTP/1.1 and RTSP, was important to show that the RealSystem G2, which used these protocols, inherently established the claimed persistent connection.
  • "interleaved" (claims 16, 17, 18, 22): Petitioner proposed the construction "Distinct segments of data from the first audio file and distinct segments of data from the first video file are interspersed with each other." This straightforward construction was used to map onto the RealMedia file format used by RealSystem G2, which explicitly disclosed interleaving data packets from different media streams within a single file.
  • "software object" (claims 26, 28): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a structured set of code and data for effecting one or more functions and retaining state information." This construction was broad enough to encompass the different encoded versions of a multimedia file created by RealSystem G2, where each version (an "instance") could be selected and streamed based on network conditions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 16-22, 25-31, and 34 of the ’236 patent as unpatentable.