PTAB

IPR2014-01456

Hulu v. Intertainer Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Interacting with Video
  • Brief Description: The ’246 patent discloses a system for interacting with video content by displaying associated interface links. When a user interacts with a link, the system pauses the video stream to allow viewing of ancillary content retrieved over a network, and subsequently resumes the video stream after the user elects to continue.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Wallenius - Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-22, & 24-30 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Wallenius.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wallenius (Patent 7,139,813).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wallenius disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Wallenius taught a method for associating time-dependent hyperlinks with a video stream using a "switchover application." When a viewer selected a hyperlink, the browser would switch to a new session to display the linked content. Wallenius explicitly disclosed that the original video stream could be paused upon hyperlink selection and resumed afterward at "switchover back to the original content." This functionality, including the use of a link program ("switchover application") to interrupt and resume video for accessing ancillary content via a URL, directly mapped to the independent claims. Petitioner also noted that during the prosecution of the related ’592 patent, the Examiner found inventor declarations insufficient to antedate Wallenius.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Wistendahl - Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-14, 16, 19-22, 24, 26-28, & 30 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Wistendahl.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wistendahl (Patent 6,496,981).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wistendahl taught a system for making existing videos interactive by mapping object data to create "hot spots" within video frames. Wistendahl’s system provided linkages via an "interactive media program" that linked hot spots to other functions or content. Crucially, Wistendahl disclosed that upon a user selecting a hot spot, its system could "pause the running of the movie" to allow the user to absorb the program's response (the ancillary content). The system also included VCR-like controls for playback, including resuming the video. Petitioner contended this disclosed the claimed method of interrupting streaming upon interaction with an interface link to access ancillary content and subsequently continuing the stream.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chen and Davis - Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are obvious over Chen in view of Davis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (EP 0840241 A1) and Davis (Patent 5,796,952).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Chen taught a method for creating a "hot MPEG video" containing embedded hyperlinks. When a user clicked a hyperlink, the video was paused, and a signal was transmitted to a URL to retrieve and display linked ancillary content. The user could then resume the original video with another click. Chen’s system relied on a "hot video decoder" within the user's browser to process the links. Davis taught a method for sending browser helper objects or "plug-ins" over a network for installation on a user's computer.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Chen and Davis addressed the common problem of delivering functionality to a user's browser over a network. To the extent Chen did not explicitly disclose how its required "hot video decoder" was provided to the browser, Davis supplied the well-known solution. A POSITA would combine the references because if a user's browser lacked the specific decoder needed to view Chen's "hot video," it would have been an obvious and routine step to download and install that decoder as a plug-in, as taught by Davis.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would predictably yield a functioning interactive video system. Using a downloadable plug-in (Davis) to enable a specific media feature (Chen) was a common and well-understood practice in the art with a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 are obvious over Wallenius in view of Realplayer (a user manual disclosing explicit icon controls for video playback); claims 15 and 28 are obvious over Wistendahl in view of Hartanto (a paper teaching the use of wireless networks for video transmission); and claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 are obvious over Wistendahl in view of Realplayer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard for the purposes of the review:
    • "link program": Construed as "a set of instructions that tells the computer what to do when a link is selected." This construction was previously adopted by the Board in a related covered business method review.
    • "providing": Construed as "to make available" or "to supply."
    • "ancillary content": Construed as "any content or page of content linked to the primary content or content linked therefrom," consistent with the patent's specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 and 24-30 of the ’246 patent as unpatentable.