PTAB

IPR2014-01455

Hulu LLC v. Intertainer Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Managing and Marketing Digital Media Content
  • Brief Description: The ’099 patent describes methods for managing and distributing media content via a digital platform. The system provides content to consumers based on their geographic location and embeds advertisements that allow for the purchase of merchandise other than the video content itself.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hendricks/Hidary Combination - Claims 13-15 and 18 are obvious over Hendricks ’536 in view of Hendricks ’585 and Hidary.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hendricks ’536 (Patent 6,201,536), Hendricks ’585 (Patent 6,463,585), and Hidary (Patent 5,774,664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Hendricks ’536, taught a digital media content service platform ("network manager") for controlling the distribution of television content, including targeted advertisements. Hendricks ’585 was asserted to supplement this by explicitly teaching the use of a user's demographic and geographic information (e.g., address, zip code) to create targeted advertising for specific groups of users. Petitioner contended that this combination taught the core limitations of claim 13, including distributing content according to business rules related to geographic location. To address the final key limitation, Hidary was introduced for its teaching of a system that embeds purchasing opportunities within video content, allowing a consumer to "instantly" buy a product seen on television.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the two Hendricks references because they share an inventor, are in the same patent family, and both address targeted advertising in television distribution. The motivation to further combine this system with Hidary’s teachings stemmed from the well-known commercial desire to integrate e-commerce capabilities directly into video advertising, a predictable and desirable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known elements for their intended purposes would have yielded the claimed invention with a high expectation of success, as it involved the application of known technologies to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Strietzel/Eldering/Hidary Combination - Claims 13-15 and 18 are obvious over Strietzel in light of Eldering and Hidary.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Strietzel (Patent 6,950,804), Eldering (Patent 6,820,277), and Hidary (Patent 5,774,664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Strietzel disclosed a digital media service platform for the targeted distribution of media content and advertising, including a content server that receives content directly from multiple content providers. To the extent Strietzel did not explicitly teach grouping consumers by geographic location for ad targeting, Petitioner argued Eldering supplied this element. Eldering taught a system for inserting targeted advertising into video content where user profile data could be based on an individual, a household, or a group of households, including by "serving area." As in Ground 1, Hidary was relied upon for its disclosure of embedding interactive purchasing opportunities within video content, allowing for instant e-commerce.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Strietzel’s platform with Eldering’s group-based profiling to improve ad targeting efficiency and relevance beyond individual users. The motivation to incorporate Hidary was to add valuable e-commerce functionality, allowing consumers to act on advertisements immediately. This combination represented a logical convergence of known technologies to create a more feature-rich and commercially viable video distribution system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that the combination was predictable, as it involved integrating known features (platform, group targeting, e-commerce) without changing their respective functions, leading to a system with a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "business rules": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "parameters (e.g., geographic location, bit rate service, service provider, encryption, price, price range, method of delivery, past purchasing history and time frame available for offering the media content to consumers) used to define the use of a particular media asset." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent specification.
  • "digital content service platform": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a system allowing for the storage and distribution of digital media assets provided by content suppliers." This definition was asserted to align with the system described in the ’099 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 13, 14, 15, and 18 of Patent 8,468,099 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.