PTAB

IPR2018-01169

Hulu LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Compression and Decompression
  • Brief Description: The ’535 patent describes a system and method for compressing and decompressing data based on the throughput of a system. The invention purports to remediate data "bottlenecks" by selecting different compression algorithms (e.g., symmetric or asymmetric) for different data blocks based on "access profiles."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over Imai in view of Ishii.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Imai (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305) and Ishii (Patent 5,675,789).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Imai and Ishii renders all challenged claims obvious. Independent claim 1 recites a method of determining a parameter of an audio/video data block, selecting an "access profile," and compressing the data using an "asymmetric" algorithm based on that profile. Petitioner asserted Imai teaches a system for encoding audio/video data that selects from a plurality of encoders (including known asymmetric algorithms like MPEG and ATRAC) based on data content and client processing capabilities. Ishii teaches a file compression processor that selects a suitable compression method based on the "access frequency" and "type of the file" to improve storage utilization. Specifically, Ishii teaches selecting a method with a shorter decompression time for frequently accessed files and a higher compression ratio for less frequently accessed files. Petitioner contended that Ishii's use of "access frequency" and "file type" to select a compression method constitutes determining a parameter and selecting an "access profile" as recited in the claims.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Imai and Ishii because both relate to data compression systems that select from multiple algorithms to optimize performance. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Ishii's selection criterion (access frequency) into Imai's system to create an improved, more robust system with more complete selection criteria. This was presented as a predictable combination of prior art elements from the same field to achieve a predictable improvement.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because it merely involved applying an additional, known selection criterion (Ishii's access frequency) to an existing system (Imai's) that was already designed to use multiple criteria for algorithm selection.

    • Key Aspects: Petitioner noted that Imai was not cited or considered during the prosecution of the ’535 patent. While Ishii was listed in a voluminous Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), Petitioner argued the Examiner demonstrated no consideration of its teachings. The arguments for dependent claims built upon the combination's core teachings. For example, claim 6's limitation of "storing" the compressed data was argued to be taught by both Ishii (which records compressed files to disk) and an embodiment in Imai (Fig. 16) that stores multiple compressed versions of data to simplify server processing. Claim 7's limitations of retrieving and transmitting the stored data were mapped to Imai's disclosure of a "read-out unit" and transmission over a network like the Internet.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "asymmetric compressors" / "compressors using asymmetric data compression": Petitioner proposed this term means "a compression algorithm in which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly." This construction was based on the ’535 patent’s specification and was crucial for arguing that algorithms disclosed in Imai (e.g., MPEG, ATRAC) and Ishii (e.g., Lempel-Ziv) meet the "asymmetric" limitation of the claims.
  • "data block": Petitioner proposed this term means "a unit of data comprising more than one bit." This construction was argued to be consistent with the claim language and specification, and necessary to show that Imai's "units of frame" and Ishii's "files" satisfy the "data block" limitation.
  • "access profile": Petitioner proposed this term means "information regarding the number or frequency of reads or writes." This construction was central to the obviousness argument, as it allowed Petitioner to frame Ishii's teaching of selecting compression based on "access frequency" as the selection of an "access profile" required by the claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. The petition asserted it was the first challenge to claims 1-14 of the ’535 patent. At the time of filing, no patent owner preliminary response or institution decision had been filed in any proceeding challenging the patent. Petitioner stated it was unaware of any reason the Board would be unable to issue a timely final written decision, thereby satisfying the factors under General Plastic.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 8,934,535 as unpatentable.