Netflix Inc v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01630
• Patent #: 9,769,477
• Filed: September 24, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Netflix, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
• Challenged Claims: 7, 8, 15-19, 23, 24, 28-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Compression and Decompression
• Brief Description: The ’477 patent is directed to systems and methods for dynamically selecting data compression encoders based on the measured or expected throughput of a communications channel. The technology aims to solve system bottlenecks by switching between different compression algorithms to balance compression ratio and execution speed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 15-19, 28, and 29 are obvious over Imai in view of Pauls.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Imai (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305) and Pauls (European Patent Application Publication No. EP0905939A2).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Imai taught a system that selects a compression encoder from a plurality of different asymmetric encoders (e.g., MPEG, ATRAC) based on the determined throughput of a transmission channel. Pauls allegedly disclosed an adaptive communication system that selects from various transcoders, including asymmetric video encoders like H.263 and MPEG, based on network characteristics such as available bandwidth. The combination was asserted to teach a system that selects an asymmetric video/image data encoder based on channel throughput. For dependent claims, Petitioner contended that Imai’s teaching of adding a header ID to coded data and Pauls' teaching of adding "data type indicator-control information" met the limitation of a "descriptor" that indicates the selected encoder.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Imai and Pauls because both addressed the same problem of encoding data for transmission over a network. While Imai focused on audio, it expressly stated its applicability to video signals. A POSITA implementing Imai’s system for video would have logically looked to a reference like Pauls, which provided extensive teachings on selecting among various video transcoders, to enable video compression.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, given the similarities in their systems and the well-understood nature of audio and video compression technologies at the time.

Ground 2: Claims 7 and 23 are obvious over Imai and Pauls in view of Dawson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Imai, Pauls, and Dawson (Patent 5,553,160).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Imai and Pauls by adding Dawson to address the limitation of selecting a compression encoder based on the resolution of the data blocks. Petitioner asserted that while Imai and Pauls taught encoder selection based on throughput and data type, Dawson explicitly taught a system that dynamically selected between different compression algorithms (e.g., lossless LZW and lossy JPEG) based on input image characteristics, including the image resolution (determined by multiplying screen resolution by color resolution).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of all three references to create a more robust and optimized compression system. Incorporating Dawson’s criterion of using image resolution would have been a known and logical parameter to add to the selection logic of the Imai/Pauls system, leading to more intelligent encoder choices. The combination involved integrating known selection criteria into a known type of system for a predictable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as it involved applying an additional, well-known selection parameter (resolution) to improve the performance of a data compression system.

Ground 3: Claims 8 and 24 are obvious over Imai and Pauls in view of Lai.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Imai, Pauls, and Lai (Patent 6,407,680).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Lai to the Imai/Pauls combination to address the limitation of selecting an encoder based on the data transmission rate of the input data blocks. Petitioner argued that Lai taught a media transcoding system that selected one of a plurality of transcoders based on "source type" and "destination type." The "source type" was defined to include the "bit-rate of the media content," which, particularly in the context of live audio or video feeds also taught by Lai, corresponded to the data transmission rate.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Lai's teachings to the Imai/Pauls system to further optimize the encoder selection process. Adding the input data bit-rate as a selection criterion would improve the system's ability to handle diverse media types and network conditions, thereby enhancing the real-time streaming performance described in all three references.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining Lai's teachings on using input bit-rate for encoder selection with the throughput-based system of Imai and Pauls was a straightforward engineering choice that would predictably improve the system's efficiency and adaptability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "asymmetric data compression encoder[s]": Petitioner proposed this term meant "an encoder(s) configured to utilize a compression algorithm in which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly." This construction was based on an express definition for the underlying algorithm provided in the ’477 patent specification.
• "data blocks": Petitioner proposed this term meant "a unit of data comprising more than one bit." The rationale was that a single bit cannot be compressed, and the patent consistently used the term to refer to a unit of data subject to compression.
• "video or image data profile": Petitioner proposed this term meant "information used to determine which compression algorithm should be used for a video or image data type." This was based on the specification’s description of "data profiles" as maps that associate data types with preferred compression algorithms.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 7, 8, 15-19, 23, 24, and 28-29 of the ’477 patent as unpatentable.