PTAB

IPR2018-01090

Hulu LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Compression Based on System Throughput
  • Brief Description: The ’610 patent discloses systems and methods for adaptive data compression. The technology aims to remediate system bottlenecks and increase storage/retrieval bandwidth by selecting and applying different compression algorithms to a data block based on the measured or expected throughput of a communication channel.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-18 are obvious over Imai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Imai (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the Imai reference, which was not considered during the patent's original prosecution, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Imai discloses a comprehensive system for transmitting digital audio and video that adaptively selects a compression method based on both data characteristics and network conditions. Petitioner asserted that the primary limitation added to secure allowance of the ’610 patent claims—the use of an "asymmetric" algorithm—was not novel and was, in fact, a feature of the algorithms disclosed in Imai's system. The petition contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement the system described in Imai, which directly maps to the challenged claims.
    • Prior Art Mapping:
      • Independent Claims 1 (method) and 9 (apparatus): Petitioner mapped each element of the independent claims to specific teachings in Imai.
        • Determining a parameter: Imai's system determines a parameter of a data block by analyzing its content. For example, it examines audio data portions to identify "a level of the voice" relative to "a level of the instrument sounds" and selects a coding method suitable for each.
        • Selecting an algorithm based on parameter and throughput: Imai's "selection instructing unit" selects a compression algorithm based on both the determined data parameter and the "throughput of a communication channel." Imai teaches a detailed process for deriving the network's "transmission rate B (bps)" by timing the transmission and receipt of data packets, and then selecting a coding method with a bit rate corresponding to that detected rate.
        • Asymmetric algorithm: The claims require at least one algorithm to be asymmetric. Petitioner argued this is met because Imai's plurality of available coding methods includes MPEG layers 1-3 and ATRAC/ATRAC 2. Petitioner's expert declared that a POSITA would recognize these as classic examples of asymmetric algorithms, which use complex, slow compression to enable simple, fast decompression, a feature advantageous for consumer devices.
        • Compressing the data: Imai's system then compresses the data block using the selected algorithm. For the corresponding apparatus claim 9, Petitioner argued Imai's CPU functions as the claimed "controller" and its overall server architecture constitutes the "data compression system."
      • Dependent Claims: The petition also addressed key dependent claims.
        • For claims 2 and 10 (storing the data), Petitioner cited an embodiment in Imai's FIG. 16 where data is pre-compressed using various encoders and the results are stored on the server. This "compress and store" approach improves efficiency by eliminating the need to encode data in real time for every user request.
        • For claims 8 and 18 (retrieving based on CPU utilization), Petitioner argued Imai teaches setting an "encoding schedule" based on the "processing ability" of the client, which is determined in part by assessing the client's CPU utilization via system information or by processing dummy data packets.
        • For claims 12 and 13 (retrieving different data portions based on changing throughput), Petitioner pointed to Imai's teaching that the encoding schedule changes dynamically as the network's transmission rate fluctuates over time, thus causing the system to retrieve data compressed with different algorithms to adapt.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation was inherent in Imai's own disclosure. Imai's stated goal was to enable real-time reproduction of streamed data by adapting to changing network conditions, providing a clear reason for a POSITA to implement its combined features.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as Imai describes a complete and functional system with detailed embodiments for achieving adaptive data compression and transmission.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for specific constructions of two key terms based on definitions and examples in the ’610 patent’s specification.
  • "asymmetric compression algorithm": Proposed construction was "a compression algorithm in which the execution time for compression and decompression differ significantly." This construction was critical to Petitioner's argument that prior art algorithms like MPEG and ATRAC, disclosed in Imai, met this claim limitation.
  • "data block": Proposed construction was "a unit of data comprising more than one bit." This broad construction was supported by the specification's context that compression requires a unit of data large enough to be reduced in size.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-18 of the ’610 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.