PTAB

IPR2017-00829

Twitter Inc v. VidStream LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Recording and Publishing Content On Social Media Websites
  • Brief Description: The ’997 patent describes a system for recording and sharing video content online. The system uses a video management server to provide an embedded link on a first webpage (e.g., a social media site), which, when activated, invokes media recorder software to display a recorder interface within the webpage, allowing a user to capture, stream, and store a video file on the server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nassiri and Bradford - Claims 1-8 and 11 are obvious over Nassiri in view of Bradford.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nassiri (Application # 2012/0254925) and Bradford (an HTML5 textbook).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nassiri disclosed the core architecture of the challenged claims, including a video hosting server system that provides executable instructions for a video recorder. Nassiri’s system allows a user to follow an embedded link on a webpage to utilize the video recorder, which can be embedded in the webpage using an HTML iframe. The system receives a request to display the recorder, captures video using controls (e.g., start/stop buttons), transmits the video as a stream while it is being recorded, and stores the resulting video file. Petitioner asserted that Bradford, a standard HTML reference book, supplied the missing element of using a link to specifically target an iframe within the same displayed webpage. Bradford taught using the name attribute of an iframe so that a hyperlink with a corresponding target attribute could load new content directly into that iframe without reloading the entire page.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings for predictable reasons of efficiency and improved user experience. Nassiri taught embedding a video recorder in an iframe, and Bradford taught a well-known HTML technique for loading content into a specific iframe using a link. A POSITA would apply Bradford’s technique to Nassiri’s system to ensure the video recorder only loads when a user explicitly clicks the link, thereby conserving server resources and reducing page load times, which are known goals in web development.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a standard, well-documented HTML feature (targeted iframes from Bradford) to a web-based video system (Nassiri) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nassiri, Bradford, and Tosh.o - Claims 9 and 12 are obvious over Nassiri and Bradford in view of Tosh.o.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nassiri (Application # 2012/0254925), Bradford (an HTML5 textbook), and Tosh.o (a New York Times article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Nassiri and Bradford. Petitioner argued that Tosh.o, an article describing the television show Tosh.0, taught the practice of selecting and broadcasting user-submitted viral internet videos as part of a traditional, linear television program. Nassiri disclosed that its system could display videos on a "set top box" and select videos for display based on popularity metrics like the number of "likes."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to broaden the distribution of popular user-submitted videos from Nassiri’s system, would be motivated by Tosh.o to include those videos in a linear television program. Since Nassiri already taught using a set-top box, it would be a simple and obvious step to use that hardware to display the most popular videos on a traditional television broadcast, thereby reaching a wider audience as demonstrated by the success of the Tosh.0 show.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Nassiri, Bradford, and Zhu - Claims 13-19 are obvious over Nassiri and Bradford in view of Zhu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nassiri (Application # 2012/0254925), Bradford (an HTML5 textbook), and Zhu (Application # 2010/0180330).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also incorporated the base combination of Nassiri and Bradford. Petitioner argued that Nassiri’s system comprised at least two distinct computing systems: an "enterprise computing system" (hosting the primary webpage) and a "video host computing system" (providing the recorder). Zhu taught using well-known technologies like network interfaces and Application Program Interfaces (APIs) to facilitate efficient and standardized communication between separate server systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA implementing Nassiri’s architecture of two distinct server systems would naturally and obviously use the standard tools described in Zhu to manage communication between them. Using standard network interfaces and APIs is a fundamental technique for ensuring interoperability and efficient data exchange between different software and hardware systems, making it an obvious choice for integrating the components of Nassiri’s system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 10 over Nassiri, Bradford, and Lerman (Application # 2006/0259588), arguing Lerman taught providing video editing tools within a browser plug-in, which a POSITA would integrate into Nassiri's system to allow users to edit submitted videos.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "linear television program" (Claim 9): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "traditional television programming." This construction was based on a patent incorporated by reference in the ’997 patent and was critical to mapping the Tosh.o reference, which described a conventional broadcast television show.
  • "web-based content delivery package" (Claim 8): As the patent did not define this term, Petitioner argued, based on claim structure and context, that it should be construed as "a container for displayable content, such as a webpage." This broad construction was important for applying prior art webpage teachings to the limitations of claim 8.
  • "user submission[s]" / "user-generated content" (Claims 13, 17, 19): Petitioner proposed these terms include user-generated video content, consistent with the patent’s disclosure of users uploading "crowd-sourced video." This construction was foundational to the arguments for claims 13-19.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’997 patent as unpatentable.