PTAB

IPR2019-01241

Google LLC v. Virentem Ventures LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Rendering System with Variable Rate Presentation
  • Brief Description: The ’903 patent relates to a digital rendering system with variable rate presentation capabilities. It discloses methods for managing and converting between different time measurements within a media stream, specifically a "presentation time" (the actual time elapsed during playback) and a "data time" (the content's duration if played at a default or normal rate).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nelson - Claims 1-4, 12-14, and 22 are obvious over Nelson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nelson (Patent 5,719,786).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nelson discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Nelson teaches a Digital Video Management System (DVMS) that processes and presents time-based media streams using a "stream interpreter" module for synchronization. Petitioner contended that Nelson’s “common reference time base,” obtained from a reference clock, corresponds to the ’903 patent’s “presentation time parameter,” representing elapsed real time. Furthermore, Nelson’s calculated time value—derived from multiplying a count of consumed presentation units by their fixed duration—corresponds to the ’903 patent’s “data time parameter,” representing the content’s duration at a default rate. Nelson’s stream interpreter compares these two values to determine when to release the next media unit for presentation, thereby mapping directly onto the method steps of claim 1.
    • Key Aspects: The argument rested on the direct functional equivalence between the timing parameters and comparison logic in Nelson’s DVMS and the specific method steps recited in the challenged claims of the ’903 patent. Petitioner asserted that Nelson’s system inherently performs the claimed method of maintaining and providing these distinct time values to a component (the stream interpreter) for rendering control.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nelson in view of DeMoney - Claims 7 and 17 are obvious over Nelson in view of DeMoney.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nelson (Patent 5,719,786) and DeMoney (Patent 6,065,050).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 7 and 17, which require calculating the data time by multiplying an actual rendition period by an actual presentation rate for each media element. Petitioner argued that while Nelson’s primary embodiment assumes a fixed duration for presentation units, it also acknowledges that durations can vary and playback rates can change. DeMoney was presented as a solution to this known problem, as it explicitly teaches managing video streams at different playback rates (e.g., fast-forward) by using a "presentation rate scale factor" to convert a "compressed presentation timestamp value" into a normal presentation time.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), seeking to improve upon Nelson's system to more accurately handle variable-rate playback and non-uniform presentation unit durations, would have been motivated to incorporate DeMoney's teachings. DeMoney provides a direct, known mathematical method for normalizing time values from streams playing at non-default rates. A POSITA would combine DeMoney’s scaling technique with Nelson’s synchronization framework to create a more robust system that calculates data time based on actual, rather than assumed, parameters as claimed.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a well-understood mathematical algorithm from DeMoney to solve a recognized problem in a known system (Nelson). The integration was portrayed as a predictable implementation of simple arithmetic to enhance system accuracy.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several key terms should be construed according to their express definitions provided in the ’903 patent specification, which it asserted acts as a dictionary for these terms.
  • “temporal sequence presentation data”: Petitioner proposed a lengthy, multi-part construction taken directly from the specification, defining the data by its characteristics, such as its association with rendering, inclusion of elements with a "Rendition Type," and association with a "Data Time" and "Rendition Period."
  • “rendering system”: Similarly, Petitioner proposed construing this term based on its detailed definition in the specification, which describes a system that processes the defined data in an ordered sequence where each element takes a finite time to process.
  • “current time”: Petitioner proposed construing this term to mean "the current position in time of the temporal sequence presentation data being displayed and rendered," based on explicit language in the patent’s description.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not discretionarily deny institution. It disclosed that it was concurrently filing a second IPR petition against the ’903 patent that relied on different prior art (Omoigui) and presented distinct invalidity theories. Petitioner also noted that the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages, with formal claim construction yet to occur, thereby minimizing concerns of duplicative efforts and allowing the Board to provide guidance on the patent's validity.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7, 12-14, 17, and 22 of the ’903 patent as unpatentable.