PTAB

IPR2019-00390

Google LLC v. Cypress Lake Software Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Coordinating Playing of Media Streams
  • Brief Description: The ’558 patent discloses methods and systems for managing media playback on computer systems to prevent interference when multiple media players attempt to play simultaneously. The invention uses "presentation focus information" to coordinate which media player is permitted to access a presentation device (e.g., a display or speakers) at any given time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are obvious over Marano in view of Murray.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Marano (Application # 2010/0138780A1) and Murray (Application # 2009/0228897A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Marano discloses a flexible system where a primary computing device can run multiple software applications ("resources") and direct their output to various presentation devices, including its own native display and multiple external displays. Petitioner contended that Marano’s system allows any resource to be mapped to any combination of displays, thus teaching the claimed environment of multiple players and multiple presentation devices. However, Marano only briefly mentions prioritizing resources competing for the same display area. Murray, in contrast, directly addresses the well-known problem of interference from multiple media players attempting to play simultaneously. Murray teaches a coordination system where each media player is assigned a "priority" to determine playback rights. A user interaction with one player gives it the highest priority, causing other players on the same device to pause. Petitioner asserted that Murray’s priority system is conceptually identical to the "presentation focus information" claimed in the ’558 patent. The combination of Marano's multi-device framework with Murray's priority-based conflict resolution system renders the challenged claims obvious. The "window management service" in Marano would be the logical component to implement Murray’s coordination logic.
    • Motivation to Combine (for 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Marano and Murray to solve a predictable problem. Marano’s system, which allows for the simultaneous execution of multiple applications (which could be media players), would inevitably create the potential for the exact audio/video interference that Murray was designed to prevent. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Murray’s established technique for media player coordination into Marano’s multi-output system to enhance its functionality and prevent undesirable interference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as the underlying technologies—including GUI-based operating systems, media players, and inter-process communication—were well-understood and predictable at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for adopting claim constructions from a co-pending district court litigation for key terms central to its obviousness grounds.
  • "presentation focus": This term was construed as "an attribute associated with a media player, directly and/or indirectly, indicating whether the media player is allowed to access one or more presentation devices for playing one or more corresponding media streams; an attribute for restricting and coordinating access to an output device by one or more applications."
  • "presentation focus information": This term was construed as "data that identifies one or more media players and whether the media players have presentation focus."
  • Petitioner noted that while the claim phrase "instructions to...[carry out a function]" could be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, for the purposes of the petition it adopted the district court's finding that the terms were not indefinite.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 and 12-13 of the ’558 patent as unpatentable.