Cisco Systems v. Constellation Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-01220
• Patent #: 6,128,649
• Filed: July 30, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Constellation Technologies LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 8, 10-14, 18, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multimedia Distribution System and Associated Methodology
• Brief Description: The ’649 patent discloses a method and system for selectively presenting real-time media streams to users in a multi-party video conference. The system allows each user to establish a policy that, in conjunction with monitored network and terminal conditions, dynamically determines which streams are displayed to that user, independent of what other conference participants see.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Bochmann - Claims 1-5, 10, 13, and 14 are anticipated by Bochmann under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bochmann ("Architectural Design of Adaptive Distributed Multimedia Systems," a 1996 article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bochmann, which describes a "News-on-Demand" system, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Bochmann's system provides users with customized access to multimedia streams (e.g., different versions of a video) by querying a user profile containing Quality of Service (QoS), cost, and delivery settings. The system monitors network conditions (e.g., congestion) and dynamically selects which version of a media stream to display based on the user's profile and the network conditions. This selection is performed independently for each user based on their individual QoS policies.
  • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that even if the ’649 patent claims are construed broadly to cover on-demand video (a position taken by the Patent Owner in litigation), Bochmann’s system for dynamically providing media streams based on user profiles and network state anticipates the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bochmann and LeMair - Claims 8, 11, 18, and 19 are obvious over Bochmann in view of LeMair under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bochmann (a 1996 article) and LeMair ("Centralized versus Distributed Schemes for Videoconferencing," a 1995 article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bochmann taught the core method of claim 1. LeMair was introduced to teach the limitations of certain dependent and independent claims not explicitly found in Bochmann. Specifically, LeMair taught using multicast-capable networks for distributing multimedia streams in multiparty conferences (mapping to claims 11 and 18). LeMair also taught that functions like stream selection could be performed at either the network or the end-user's terminal, rendering it obvious to locate Bochmann's QoS manager at the user's terminal (mapping to claims 8 and 18).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine LeMair with Bochmann to leverage known efficiencies. Using LeMair's multicast networking would reduce network load when multiple users access the same content from Bochmann's system. Furthermore, placing the stream selection intelligence at the user's terminal, as LeMair teaches is a known design choice, would be an obvious implementation detail for Bochmann's system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as combining a known distribution method (multicast) with a media selection system was a predictable implementation yielding known benefits.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ogdon, Sreenan, and LeMair - Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 18, and 19 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Sreenan and further in view of LeMair under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,598,075), Sreenan (Patent 5,742,772), and LeMair (a 1995 article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative unpatentability theory based on prior art directly related to multi-party conferencing. Ogdon was argued to teach a primary system for distributing presentation content to multiple users, with dynamic selection based on network conditions and user preferences like language. Sreenan was argued to supplement Ogdon by teaching the use of user-defined QoS profiles that dictate stream degradation policies (e.g., degrade video before audio) during network congestion. LeMair was argued to add the ability for each user to select a specific subset of streams to receive from other participants.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a more robust and customizable conferencing system. Adding Sreenan’s QoS policies to Ogdon’s system would provide more granular, user-defined control over stream selection beyond just language or network conditions, a predictable improvement. Further adding LeMair’s teaching would allow users to customize their view by selecting which participants to see, conserving bandwidth and processing resources by not transmitting or rendering unnecessary streams.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining these known features for user customization (QoS policies, stream selection) into a conferencing system would have been straightforward for a POSITA and would have predictably resulted in a more efficient and user-friendly system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "real-time media streams": Petitioner argued that the ’649 patent specification and prosecution history limit this term to live multiparty conferences. However, acknowledging the Patent Owner’s broader infringement contentions in parallel litigation, Petitioner also advanced its unpatentability arguments under an "unduly broad" construction of the term as "any streaming video, voice, or data distribution in which data segments are temporarily buffered or cached before being called for present display."
• "independently of selections made for passing to the other users": Petitioner argued this phrase means that the stream selection for one user is made without regard to the selections made for other users, resulting in an independent, customizable display for each participant. This was a key feature distinguished over prior art during the patent's original prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 18, and 19 of the ’649 patent as unpatentable.