Netflix Inc v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01817
• Patent #: 9,762,907
• Filed: October 9, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Netflix, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Data Compression Based on Throughput
• Brief Description: The ’907 patent discloses a system and method for compressing data by selecting from multiple available data compression routines. The selection is based on a data parameter related to the actual or expected throughput of a communications system, aiming to solve network "bottlenecks."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pauls - Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are obvious over Pauls.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pauls (European Patent Application Publication No. EP0905939A2).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pauls taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Pauls described a system for "improving data transfer performance" using "adaptive communications formatting," which involves selecting from a plurality of transcoding techniques to compress data. Petitioner mapped Pauls’ "access server" to the claimed "system" and its various transcoding algorithms (e.g., H.263, MPEG, MPEG 2) to the claimed "asymmetric data compression algorithms." Pauls' system analyzed data parameters, such as user identity, which served as a proxy for connection type (wired vs. wireless) and thus related to the expected throughput of the channel. For a system with multiple concurrent users, Pauls’ data selector would select different transcoding routines for different users (e.g., one on a wireless connection, another on a wired one), thereby meeting the claim requirement of selecting two or more routines based on throughput.
  • Key Aspects: Pauls alone allegedly taught the core inventive concept of adaptively selecting compression routines based on network throughput characteristics, rendering the claims obvious.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Pauls in view of Imai - Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are obvious over Pauls in view of Imai.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pauls (European Application # EP0905939A2) and Imai (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H11331305).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Pauls did not explicitly teach selecting multiple routines for a single user based on fluctuating throughput, Imai supplied this teaching. Pauls provided the foundational system for selecting encoders based on data type and connection characteristics. Imai supplemented this by teaching a system that explicitly selected an appropriate encoder from a plurality based on the detected throughput of a network to accommodate real-time changes in bandwidth. Imai described measuring the network transmission rate and selecting a coding method with a bit rate no higher than the detected rate, thereby ensuring real-time playback.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Pauls and Imai because both addressed the same technical problem of encoding data for efficient transmission over a network. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Imai’s more granular, real-time throughput measurement and adaptation techniques into Pauls’ system. This combination would predictably improve Pauls’ ability to handle fluctuating network conditions, making it better suited for real-time communications.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining these known, compatible techniques to improve the performance of a similar system would have yielded predictable results with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pauls, Imai, and Dawson - Claim 5 is obvious over Pauls in view of Imai and Dawson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pauls, Imai, and Dawson (Patent 5,553,160).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targeted claim 5, which required that one of the data parameters used for selection be the "resolution" of the video data. Petitioner argued that the combination of Pauls and Imai established the base system for adaptive compression. Dawson was introduced to supply the specific teaching of using image resolution as a selection criterion. Dawson taught a system that dynamically selected between lossless (LZW) and lossy (JPEG) image compression based on an analysis of the image's properties, including its size and resolution.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Dawson with the Pauls/Imai system to add another layer of optimization to the encoder selection process. Since Dawson taught using resolution to select an encoder in the closely related fields of image compression and personal video conferencing, it would have been a simple and logical step to apply this known technique to the video compression system of Pauls and Imai. This would improve the system’s effectiveness by allowing it to account for an additional, highly relevant characteristic of the video content.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Dawson's resolution-based selection logic to the combined Pauls/Imai video compression system, as video frames are fundamentally a series of images.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "asymmetric data compression algorithm": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a compression algorithm in which the execution time for compression and decompression differ significantly." This construction was based directly on the definition provided in the ’907 patent’s specification.
• "data block": Petitioner proposed a construction of "a unit of data comprising more than one bit." The rationale was that compression, by definition, reduces the amount of data, which is not possible for a single bit of information.
• "video data profile": Petitioner asserted this term, which was not explicitly defined, should be construed as "information used to determine which compression algorithm should be used for a video data type." This interpretation was derived from the patent’s broader discussion of "data profiles" that map data types to preferred compression algorithms.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the General Plastic factors was inappropriate. It contended that this petition was not redundant because the only other IPR petition filed against the ’907 patent (IPR2018-01299) was filed by an unrelated petitioner and relied on different prior art references and unpatentability grounds.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 9,762,907 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.