PTAB

IPR2017-01131

Twitter, Inc. v. VidStream LLC

Log In

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 is directed to systems and methods for creating and sharing web content, particularly user-generated video. The system involves a client device capturing video under predetermined constraints provided by a server, which then transcodes the video for distribution, potentially for inclusion in linear television programming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti (a 2006 SPIE publication on a mobile video management application) and the Current TV References (“Current TV mobile” and “Current TV FAQ” webpages from 2006-2007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lahti, which describes the MobiCon mobile application, teaches most limitations of independent claims 1 and 26. Lahti discloses a client-server system where a mobile phone (client device) runs an application to capture video according to specified constraints (e.g., 176x144 pixels at 15 fps) and uploads it to a server. The Lahti server then automatically transcodes the video into different formats (e.g., H.264, MPEG-4) for distribution. The Current TV References were cited to teach the final limitation: transcoding into a format "appropriate for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast." Current TV was an interactive TV channel that solicited and broadcast user-submitted videos, making formats like H.264 (taught by Lahti) appropriate for this purpose.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the MobiCon system from Lahti with the broadcast application of Current TV because Current TV provided a practical and monetizable outlet for the type of user-generated content created with a system like Lahti's. A POSITA would seek to make the user-generated videos from Lahti compatible with Current TV's broadcast requirements.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these teachings would yield predictable results. Applying known video formats like H.264 (disclosed by Lahti) to a known application like broadcast television (disclosed by Current TV) was a straightforward implementation with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lahti, Current TV, Washington, and Franken - Claims 11-13, 29, and 30 are obvious over Lahti and the Current TV References in view of Washington and Franken.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti, the Current TV References, Washington (Application # 2008/0235200), and Franken (Application # 2009/0012965).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon Ground 1 by adding references to teach limitations related to content moderation. Claim 11 requires an "automated review" to identify "potentially inappropriate content." Washington was cited for its disclosure of a system that automatically processes and flags submitted content (e.g., pornographic, explicit) for remedial action without human intervention. Claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 add limitations related to a manual review interface. Franken was cited for its disclosure of an administrative interface that allows a human reviewer to manually inspect flagged content, view it, and decide whether to approve it for distribution.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA building the system of Lahti and Current TV would be motivated to incorporate the automated filtering from Washington to manage the influx of user-generated content and ensure compliance with community standards, a problem inherent to such platforms. It would be further obvious to add the manual review interface from Franken as a common-sense tool to handle content flagged by Washington's automated system, preventing both the broadcast of inappropriate content and the improper rejection of acceptable content.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating automated content filtering and a manual review dashboard are well-known, modular improvements to any user-generated content system, and a POSITA would expect to successfully implement them.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lahti, Chen, and Admitted Art - 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 specification.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenges claims requiring the capture of "high definition video" and transmitting it "during the continuous recording segment." The "Admitted Art" (statements in the ’304 patent that "high definition video" was well-known) was cited to show it would be obvious to apply Lahti's system to HD video. Chen was cited for teaching the transmission of video to a server in real-time as it is being recorded ("streamed to content server 104"). This combination allegedly teaches all limitations of claim 17, which is a non-transitory computer storage medium claim mirroring the method of claim 1 but adding the HD and real-time transmission elements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine these references to improve Lahti's system. Incorporating HD capture (per Admitted Art) was a natural evolution of video technology. Incorporating real-time streaming (per Chen) would offer enhanced efficiency and flexibility over Lahti's store-and-forward method, especially when fast network connections are available.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying known HD formats and standard data transmission methods like streaming to a video upload system were routine design choices with predictable outcomes.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted an obviousness challenge based on Lahti, Current TV, and the Admitted Art (Ground 5) and an anticipation challenge against claims 1, 4, and 9 based solely on Lahti (Ground 6), arguing that Lahti's disclosure of transcoding to H.264 inherently meets the "appropriate for television broadcast" limitation without needing the Current TV references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Predetermined constraints": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of this term 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 Lahti's disclosure of specific recording formats (e.g., 176x144 pixels, 15 fps) to the claim language.
  • "Transcoding": Petitioner proposed the plain and ordinary meaning, "converting from one video format to another," to encompass the server-side format conversions disclosed in the prior art.
  • "Buffered on the client computing device using scripts": Petitioner proposed this means "temporarily storing data in memory of the client computing device using a computer program, software application, or other unit of computer code." This construction was used to argue that Lahti's temporary storage of video before upload, a necessity for packet-switched networks, met this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the 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.