PTAB

IPR2017-01133

Twitter Inc v. VidStream LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Content Creation and Distribution System
  • Brief Description: The ’506 patent describes a system for creating and distributing user-generated video content. The system involves a server providing instructions to a client device, which causes the device to capture video in accordance with predetermined constraints, such as a specific video length, suitable for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lahti, Conway, and Novak - Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 are obvious over Lahti in view of Conway and Novak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti (a 2006 SPIE publication titled “A Mobile Phone-based Context-aware Video Management Application”), Conway (Application # 2009/0157697), and Novak (Application # 2002/0104099).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Lahti was asserted to disclose the foundational client-server system, where a server provides a mobile application (MobiCon) to a client device (a camera phone) for capturing, formatting, and uploading video. Lahti’s system also included transcoding the video on the server and transferring it to a separate streaming server for distribution. Conway was cited for its teaching of imposing server-defined constraints on user-created clips, specifically a "maximum allowable clip length" provided by a "Clip Rules Server." Novak was relied upon for disclosing the context of scheduling user-generated video clips into specific "time slots" for distribution via a linear, broadcast-style television channel. The combination allegedly taught a system where video is captured on a mobile device using a server-provided application (Lahti), subject to a server-defined maximum length (Conway), for inclusion in a scheduled television broadcast (Novak).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lahti and Conway because they are in the same field and address complementary concepts. Implementing Conway's server-defined length constraint into Lahti's system was presented as a simple modification to preserve server bandwidth and storage. A POSITA would combine this system with Novak’s teachings to apply the user-generated content model to the familiar and structured format of a broadcast television schedule, thereby increasing user engagement and providing a clear distribution framework.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining the references would involve straightforward programming and additions to the server-side software disclosed by Lahti. This modification would not require undue experimentation and would predictably result in a more efficient system for managing user-generated content for scheduled distribution.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lahti, Novak, and Current TV - Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 are obvious over Lahti in view of Novak and the Current TV references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lahti, Novak, and the Current TV references (archived webpages from www.currenttv.com, including “Current TV mobile” and “Current TV FAQ” from 2006-2007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Lahti and Novak for the same core teachings as in Ground 1. The Current TV references were substituted for Conway to provide the teaching of server-defined video length constraints. Petitioner argued that Current TV was an interactive television channel that disclosed a real-world, practical application where viewers were invited to submit their own video content for inclusion in the broadcast programming. The Current TV FAQ page explicitly taught constraints on the length of submitted videos, stating that most submissions should be between one and seven minutes. Thus, the combination of Lahti's technical system for mobile video submission, Novak's scheduling of content into broadcast time slots, and Current TV's real-world implementation of length-constrained user submissions for television broadcast allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Lahti with the Current TV references and Novak was framed as applying a known technical solution (Lahti) to a commercially successful and established model (Current TV). A POSITA would have been motivated to create a system like Lahti’s to facilitate user submissions for a programming platform like Current TV, which provided a clear use case and even monetary incentives for content creators. Combining these with Novak’s teachings on scheduling would be a natural step to organize the submitted content for a linear broadcast format, which Current TV already employed.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these teachings would have yielded predictable results, as it involved implementing a known type of mobile content submission system (Lahti) for a well-understood purpose (user-generated television programming, as shown by Current TV and Novak).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Predetermined constraints" (all claims): Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly 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 broad construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the prior art’s general teachings of setting parameters like format and resolution met this limitation.
  • "Video length predefined at the server system in accordance with a time slot in a linear television programming broadcast" (all claims): Petitioner proposed this should be construed as “computer instructions provided by a server computing device to a client computing device that identify a video length suitable for including video into a traditional television program or broadcast.” This construction was key to linking Conway's "maximum allowable clip length" and Novak's "time slots" to the claim language, which was added during prosecution to secure the patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, 23-26, 29, and 30 as unpatentable.