Sling TV LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01331
• Patent #: 8,867,610
• Filed: July 3, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media, L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C.
• Patent Owner(s): Realtime Data LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 6, 8-14, 16, 18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution
• Brief Description: The ’610 patent discloses a system for accelerating data storage and retrieval by balancing compression speed against compression ratio. The system monitors parameters such as data type and communication channel throughput to dynamically select an appropriate compression algorithm from a plurality of available algorithms.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Vishwanath - Claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 are anticipated by Vishwanath under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vishwanath (Patent 6,216,157).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vishwanath, which describes a system for adaptively delivering multimedia content in a client-server environment, taught every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Vishwanath’s “adaptive-transmission transducer” functions as the claimed controller, selecting an “appropriate compression algorithm” based on determined parameters. These parameters include the data type (e.g., audio, video, text) and the available “bandwidth” of the transmission medium, which corresponds to the claimed “throughput of a communication channel.” Petitioner asserted that Vishwanath’s disclosure of using Lempel-Ziv (LZ) and MPEG algorithms meets the limitation requiring at least one available “asymmetric” compression algorithm, a key feature of the claims.
  • Key Aspects: The petition emphasized that while the patent examiner considered Vishwanath during prosecution, the claims were allowed based on the incorrect assumption that Vishwanath failed to disclose an asymmetric compression algorithm. Petitioner contended this was a clear error, as the ’610 patent itself admits that the LZ algorithm, explicitly taught by Vishwanath, is asymmetric.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vishwanath in view of Ishii - Claim 14 is obvious over Vishwanath in view of Ishii under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vishwanath (Patent 6,216,157), Ishii (Patent 5,675,789).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged dependent claim 14, which adds the feature of selecting a compression algorithm based on the “frequency of access” of a data block. Petitioner asserted that Vishwanath provided the base adaptive compression system. Ishii was introduced for its teaching of a file compression system that selects a compression method based not only on data type but also on the “access frequency” (i.e., number of reads) of a file. Ishii’s system categorizes files as having high, medium, or low access frequency relative to other files to optimize performance.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Ishii's access-frequency analysis with Vishwanath's adaptive transmission system to achieve the common goal of reducing latency and improving resource efficiency. A POSITA would have recognized that applying a compression method with a shorter decompression time to more frequently accessed files, as taught by Ishii, would be a logical and advantageous improvement to the Vishwanath system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because both references address adaptive compression for efficient data handling, making their teachings highly compatible. Implementing Ishii’s file access frequency logic into Vishwanath’s controller would have involved conventional programming.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Vishwanath in view of Kalra - Claims 2, 8, 10-13, and 18 are obvious over Vishwanath in view of Kalra under §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vishwanath (Patent 6,216,157), Kalra (Patent 5,953,506).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed various dependent claims related to data storage, CPU-based retrieval, and dynamic bandwidth adaptation. Vishwanath again provided the base system. Kalra was cited for its disclosure of an adaptive retrieval and transmission system that stores compressed data and selects data streams based on dynamically updated network bandwidth and client-side CPU constraints. Kalra teaches storing data in an adaptive server (meeting claim 2 and 10 limitations), retrieving data based on an "actual available network bandwidth" that is periodically updated (meeting claims 11-13), and considering a "CPU constraint" to ensure the client device can decode the data (meeting claims 8 and 18).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to integrate Kalra's more sophisticated retrieval and delivery methods into Vishwanath's system. Both references aim to deliver optimized content to clients with varying capabilities. Combining them would allow the system to adapt not only to initial conditions (as in Vishwanath) but also to real-time changes in network bandwidth and client CPU load (as in Kalra), thereby improving user experience and reducing latency.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining the systems, as their goals and technical foundations were complementary. Integrating Kalra’s server-side storage and bandwidth/CPU-aware retrieval logic into Vishwanath’s architecture would be a predictable way to enhance its performance.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative obviousness challenge (Ground 2) against claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 based solely on Vishwanath, arguing that even if Vishwanath did not explicitly disclose asymmetric algorithms, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to use them to improve decoding performance for frequently accessed media.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "data block": Petitioner argued for the construction "a single unit of data, which may range in size from individual bits through complete files or collection of multiple files." This position was based on constructions agreed to by the Patent Owner’s predecessor in related district court litigation and the disclosures of patents incorporated by reference into the ’610 patent.
• "compression algorithms being asymmetric": Petitioner proposed this term means "an algorithm where compression of data and decompression of that compressed data take different amounts of time." This construction was central to the argument that prior art like Vishwanath, which discloses LZ and MPEG compression, inherently teaches this limitation because those well-known algorithms have more complex encoding than decoding processes.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) would be inappropriate despite the examiner having previously considered the Vishwanath reference. The petition asserted that the examiner’s allowance of the claims was based on a clear error—specifically, the failure to recognize that the Lempel-Ziv (LZ) algorithm disclosed in Vishwanath is an asymmetric algorithm as required by the claims. Petitioner contended that it was presenting new arguments and evidence, including an expert declaration, to correct this error, which warranted institution of the inter partes review (IPR).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18 of the ’610 patent as unpatentable.