Netflix Inc v. Copy Protection LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00921
• Patent #: 7,079,649
• Filed: March 23, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Netflix, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Copy Protection LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-14 and 16-26

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Protecting Data Transmitted Over a Computer Network
• Brief Description: The ’649 patent relates to methods and systems for protecting data transmitted from a server to a client over a network. The technology involves a client-side program that receives and decrypts encrypted data for display while simultaneously restricting or suppressing the client computer’s native copy and save functions for the unprotected data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Erickson - Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14, 17, 19-21, and 23-25 are anticipated by Erickson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Erickson (Patent 5,765,152).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Erickson disclosed every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Erickson taught a system for managing copyrighted electronic media where a client-side "VIEWER" program requests access to data on a server, receives the data in an encrypted format, decrypts it, and displays it. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Erickson's VIEWER program explicitly blocked the user from copying or saving the decrypted media to the local file system without obtaining further permissions, thus selectively controlling access to copy/save functions as claimed.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Erickson's system, including its methods for encryption, decryption, client authentication, and restriction of user functions, directly mapped to the steps recited in the independent and dependent claims challenged under this ground.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Erickson and Kamba - Claims 7, 8, 13, 22, and 26 are obvious over Erickson in view of Kamba.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Erickson (Patent 5,765,152) and Kamba (a 1995 conference proceeding).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Erickson taught the core functionality of receiving, decrypting, and protecting content as described in Ground 1. Kamba was introduced to teach the additional limitations recited in this set of claims, specifically the steps of "generating a program portion at a server" and "downloading the program portion to the client." Kamba disclosed a system where a Java applet (the program portion) was composed by a server-side script and sent to the client to run, allowing the client to fetch and display newspaper articles.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Erickson and Kamba because both were directed to the same technical endeavor of delivering media content over a network. Kamba’s use of a downloadable Java applet was a well-known method for implementing client-side functionality and was the type of program expressly contemplated by Erickson for integration into browsers.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Kamba's server-generated applet to implement the client-side VIEWER functionality of Erickson, as it was a straightforward application of a known software distribution model to a known content protection scheme.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kamba and Lagoze - Claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 19-26 are obvious over Kamba in view of Lagoze.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kamba (a 1995 conference proceeding) and Lagoze (a 1995 magazine article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this combination as an alternative to the Erickson-based grounds. Kamba was argued to teach a client-server system using a downloadable Java applet to request and display data. Lagoze, which described secure digital libraries, was cited for teaching the missing elements of encryption and decryption. Lagoze explicitly disclosed encrypting data for dissemination and using a network-accessible applet in a "safe language" like Java to decrypt the data after user authentication. The final limitation—selectively controlling copy/save functions—was allegedly met by the inherent, well-known properties of Java applets at the time, which disabled right-mouse-button functionality and blocked access to the client file system.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Kamba and Lagoze to enhance Kamba's personalized newspaper system with the security features described by Lagoze. Both references were in the field of network-based content distribution and addressed the use of Java applets. Adding Lagoze's known encryption/decryption methods to Kamba's system was a predictable solution to provide secure data transmittal.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges, primarily based on combinations of Erickson or Kamba/Lagoze with Applicants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) regarding hashing and watermarking, and Mihm (Patent 5,402,490) for machine-identifier-based authentication.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed constructions for two means-plus-function terms in claims 13 and 26, governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
• “protecting means for cryptographically protecting the requested data set”: Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the ’649 patent’s specification as a special-purpose computer programmed to implement the Data Encryption Standard (DES) algorithm or equivalents.
• “generating means for generating a program portion for sending to the source of the access request”: Petitioner identified the structure as a special-purpose computer programmed to package program code for transmission over a network.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Inherent Functionality of Java Applets as Prior Art: A central technical contention was that the claimed feature of "selectively controlling access to copy or save functions" was an inherent, default function of prior art Java applets. Petitioner argued, supported by the patent's own admissions (termed AAPA), that Java applets were well-known to disable right-mouse-button context menus (which contain copy/save commands) and were programmed not to allow access to the client's local file system for security reasons. Therefore, merely choosing to use a Java applet, as taught by Kamba and Lagoze, would have rendered the copy/save restriction functionality obvious.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 and 16-26 of the ’649 patent as unpatentable.