Twitter Inc v. VidStream LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01131
• Patent #: 8,464,304
• Filed: March 24, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Twitter, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): YOUTOO Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-17, 19-26, and 28-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
• Brief Description: The ’304 patent discloses systems and methods for users to create digital content, such as video on a client device (e.g., a mobile phone), according to constraints provided by a server. The server then receives the content, transcodes it into formats suitable for distribution, and makes it available for broadcast, including on linear television.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 14-16, 26, and 28 are obvious over Lahti in view of Current TV

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti (a 2006 SPIE publication titled "A Mobile Phone-based Context-aware Video Management Application"), Current TV mobile (a 2006 webpage), and Current TV FAQ (a 2007 webpage).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lahti taught the core claimed system. Lahti described a mobile phone application ("MobiCon") that receives instructions from a server, allows a user to capture video according to specified parameters (e.g., 15 frames per second, H.263 format), and uploads it to a server. The server in Lahti then automatically transcodes the video into various formats (including H.264) for distribution to different devices. The Current TV references were argued to supply the missing element of a linear television programming broadcast. Current TV was a television channel that solicited user-generated video submissions from mobile phones for inclusion in its programming, teaching the imposition of constraints like video length.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to apply the technical system of Lahti to the real-world, commercial application taught by Current TV. Current TV provided a known outlet and monetary incentive for user-generated content, making it an obvious application for a system like Lahti’s. The combination involved using known technologies for their intended purposes to achieve predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings, as it involved applying a known video capture-and-upload system (Lahti) to a known content distribution platform (Current TV).

Ground 2: Claims 17 and 19-21 are obvious over Lahti in view of Chen and the Admitted Art

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti, Chen (Patent 8,819,719), and Admitted Art from the ’304 patent.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring the capture of "high definition video" and the transmission of video data "during the continuous recording segment." Petitioner asserted that Lahti taught the base system for capturing video on a mobile device according to predetermined constraints. The ’304 patent itself admitted that capturing high-definition video on consumer equipment was well-known at the time of filing ("Admitted Art"). Chen taught a system for real-time video commenting, which disclosed streaming video data from a client device to a server as it was being captured.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Chen's real-time streaming capability with Lahti's system to enhance efficiency and provide users with more flexibility, particularly when fast network connections were available. Applying this to high-definition video was an obvious modification, as the Admitted Art established that HD capture was a standard feature of consumer devices. This combination represented a mere substitution of one known video format (HD) for another and the application of a known data transmission method (streaming) to an existing system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because combining these elements involved applying known techniques (streaming, HD capture) to a conventional mobile video system to gain expected benefits in performance and capability.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, and 9 are anticipated by Lahti

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti.

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this as an alternative to Ground 1, arguing Lahti alone disclosed every element of claims 1, 4, and 9. The central argument hinged on the interpretation of claim 1's "wherein" clause, which requires transcoding into a format "appropriate for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast." Petitioner contended this language does not require the video to actually be included in a broadcast, only that the format itself be suitable. Since Lahti taught transcoding video into H.264, and Petitioner argued H.264 was a well-known and appropriate format for television broadcasts, Lahti inherently taught this limitation without any need for the Current TV references. All other limitations of claims 1, 4, and 9 were also allegedly taught by Lahti's MobiCon system as detailed in Ground 1.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Claims 11-13, 29, and 30 were challenged as obvious over the Lahti/Current TV combination when further combined with Washington (Application # 2008/0235200), which taught automated review to identify inappropriate content, and Franken (Application # 2009/0012965), which taught a user interface for manual review of flagged content. Claims 22-25 were challenged as obvious over Lahti, the Current TV references, and the Admitted Art, arguing the combination taught capturing and formatting high-definition video for broadcast submission.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Predetermined constraints": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "parameters, rules, or restrictions provided to ensure compliance and compatibility with system requirements or goals, including but not limited to video length, video format type, video image resolution, video transmission bit rate, etc." This construction was central to mapping prior art parameters (e.g., frame rate in Lahti) to the claims.
• "Buffered on the client computing device using scripts": For claim 5, Petitioner proposed this phrase means "temporarily storing data in memory of the client computing device using a computer program, software application, or other unit of computer code." This was used to argue that Lahti’s disclosure of temporary storage on a mobile device before upload met the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-17, 19-26, and 28-30 of the ’304 patent as unpatentable.