ARRIS Solutions Inc v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: This petition is substantively identical to a petition filed in IPR2018-01331.
• Patent #: 8,867,610
• Filed: February 27, 2019
• Petitioner(s): ARRIS Solutions, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 6, 8-14, 16, and 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 balancing compression speed and compression ratio to accelerate data storage and retrieval. The system monitors system throughput and selects from a plurality of available compression algorithms to optimize performance and eliminate data bottlenecks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 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 discloses all limitations of independent claims 1 (method) and 9 (apparatus). Vishwanath’s system for delivering multimedia content determines parameters of the requested data (e.g., data type such as audio or video) and the available "speed or bandwidth of the transmission medium" (i.e., throughput). Based on these factors, it selects an appropriate compression algorithm from a plurality of available options, including LZ, MPEG1, MPEG2, and H.263, and then compresses the data. Petitioner asserted that these disclosed algorithms are inherently "asymmetric," which was the key limitation added during prosecution to overcome a rejection over this same reference.
  • Key Aspects: A central contention was that the patent examiner previously allowed the claims based on the flawed assumption that Vishwanath did not disclose "asymmetric" algorithms. Petitioner argued this was incorrect, as the ’610 patent itself identifies algorithms like LZ as asymmetric, and Vishwanath explicitly teaches using LZ.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 14 over Vishwanath in view of Ishii

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vishwanath (Patent 6,216,157) and Ishii (Patent 5,675,789).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that claim 14, which depends from claim 9, was obvious by modifying Vishwanath with teachings from Ishii. Claim 14 adds the limitation of selecting a compression algorithm based on the "frequency of access" of a data block. Petitioner argued Ishii directly teaches this, disclosing a system that selects compression methods based on a file’s access frequency (i.e., number of reads), such as using algorithms with faster decompression for more frequently accessed files.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to improve Vishwanath’s client-server system with Ishii’s more advanced data storage and management techniques. The combination would reduce latency and improve resource efficiency by tailoring compression not only to bandwidth and data type (per Vishwanath) but also to how frequently files are accessed (per Ishii).
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references address adaptive compression for data transfer and are highly complementary. Integrating Ishii's access-frequency logic into Vishwanath's controller would be a predictable modification to optimize system performance.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 2, 8, 10-13, and 18 over Vishwanath in view of Kalra

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

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground argued that various dependent claims were obvious by combining Vishwanath with Kalra. Kalra teaches an adaptive retrieval system that accounts for varying client capabilities and network conditions. It discloses storing compressed data in memory (addressing claims 2 and 10), retrieving data based on client CPU utilization by testing decoding time (addressing claims 8 and 18), and dynamically adjusting data streams based on periodically updated network bandwidth to maintain quality (addressing claims 11-13).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to enhance Vishwanath’s system with Kalra's more sophisticated methods for managing data quality in response to real-time changes in both bandwidth and client CPU capabilities. This would create a more robust and efficient content delivery system, which is a shared goal of both references.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be highly probable, as both patents aim to deliver content to clients with varying resources and suggest using MPEG compression. A POSITA would have understood how to implement Kalra's server-side logic for storing and selecting layered data streams within Vishwanath's existing framework to achieve predictable improvements.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 are obvious over Vishwanath alone under §103, arguing that even if Vishwanath were found not to explicitly teach asymmetric algorithms, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to use them to achieve the reference's stated goals.

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 the patent’s incorporation by reference of the ’024 patent and previous constructions agreed to by the Patent Owner's predecessor in interest in related litigation.
• "parameter": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "any recognizable data token or descriptor," consistent with a definition adopted in related litigation. This broad construction allows data characteristics like "data type" (e.g., audio, video), which are disclosed in the prior art, to satisfy the claim limitation.
• "compression algorithms being asymmetric": Petitioner argued this term means "an algorithm where compression of data and decompression of that compressed data take different amounts of time." This construction was critical to the invalidity case, as it establishes that well-known algorithms like LZ and MPEG (disclosed in the prior art) are "asymmetric," directly undermining the examiner's basis for allowance.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. The core reason provided was that the Examiner's original consideration of the primary prior art reference, Vishwanath, was materially flawed. Petitioner contended that the Examiner allowed the claims based on the erroneous conclusion that Vishwanath did not disclose an "asymmetric" compression algorithm. The petition asserted it presented new arguments and evidence, including the expert declaration of Dr. Scott Acton, to correct this error and show that Vishwanath does disclose algorithms that are asymmetric.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18 of Patent 8,867,610 as unpatentable.