PTAB

IPR2019-00421

MindGeek USA Inc v. University Of Southern California

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus Management of Multimedia Assets
  • Brief Description: The ’060 patent discloses a system for managing multimedia assets that uses generalized interfaces between its core components (e.g., browser, index server, archive server, tertiary storage). The purported innovation was to create an open, vendor-neutral architecture to overcome the limitations of prior monolithic systems that were restricted to a single hardware platform and difficult to upgrade.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chiu (Patent 6,181,336).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chiu, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 15. Chiu teaches a method for interfacing components in a multimedia system using an open architecture that supports a diverse variety of development tools from different vendors. Specifically, Chiu discloses a "class library (API)" that serves as a generalized protocol for interfacing components, including commands to access multimedia data stored in a "Vault" repository. The system in Chiu further supports associating multimedia data with a catalogue via attributes and keywords, invoking search requests based on those keywords, returning a set of matching assets, and invoking requests to retrieve and transmit the underlying multimedia data, thereby mapping to all steps of claim 1.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that Chiu's disclosure of an API as an "interface between multimedia production tools and the Vault" directly reads on the "generalized protocol" limitation of claim 1 and explicitly meets the "application programming interface" limitation of claim 2.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chiu (Patent 6,181,336) and Ferrel (Patent 5,907,837).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Chiu provides the foundational system for all challenged claims, teaching an open-architecture multimedia management system with cataloging, indexing, and distribution capabilities. Ferrel, also uncited during prosecution, was argued to supply additional, well-known features that render the claims obvious. Specifically, Ferrel teaches an information retrieval system that improves search performance through features like a "search cache" for storing previous queries and results. Ferrel also discloses "segment elements" (search objects that define a query) and "catalogue elements" (the content identifiers and properties returned), which Petitioner mapped to the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Chiu’s architecture with Ferrel’s specific search and caching mechanisms allegedly discloses all limitations of claims 1-18.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine the teachings of Chiu and Ferrel because they are from the same field of endeavor and address overlapping problems in multimedia data retrieval. A POSITA implementing Chiu’s system would combine it with Ferrel’s improved query techniques, such as query caching, to enhance search speed and efficiency, which were known and desirable goals. The significant conceptual overlap between the two references would have prompted a POSITA to integrate Ferrel's methods into Chiu's framework.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying known search optimization techniques (from Ferrel) to a known type of multimedia management architecture (from Chiu) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that for the purposes of the inter partes review (IPR), all claim terms of the ’060 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA. Petitioner explicitly stated that no specific claim constructions were necessary to resolve the unpatentability grounds presented.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’060 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.