Google LLC v. Virentem Ventures LLC

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 8,566,885
• Filed: June 21, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Virentem Ventures, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 11, and 13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method for Controlling Presentation Rates of Broadcast Multi-Media
• Brief Description: The ’885 patent discloses a method and apparatus for controlling the presentation rate of streaming broadcast media. The invention addresses non-deterministic delays by using "guidance information" containing "insistence information" to control playback rates at a client device via "time-scale modification."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 11, and 13 by Logan under pre-AIA §102

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Logan (Patent 7,055,166).
• Core Argument:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Logan, which discloses systems for monitoring and personalizing broadcast programming, anticipates all limitations of the challenged claims. Logan’s system receives a "broadcast programming signal" (claimed "broadcast information") at a client device, separate from the broadcaster. Logan’s "marking signal," which can be embedded in or sent separately from the broadcast, functions as the claimed "guidance information" by providing data to personalize the user's viewing experience, such as by enabling or disabling the skipping of commercials. Petitioner asserted that Logan’s "blocking signal" (a type of marking signal) that prevents a user from skipping a commercial is a form of "insistence information" that specifies the importance of the presentation rate. The ability to fast-forward or skip content disclosed in Logan inherently requires "time-scale modification."
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Logan’s disclosure of marking signals that prevent skipping certain content (e.g., commercials) directly teaches the "guidance information" used to "regulate presentation" for "predetermined portions" of the broadcast, as required by dependent claims 11 and 13.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 11, and 13 over Logan in view of De Lang

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Logan (Patent 7,055,166) and De Lang (WO 1997/03521).
• Core Argument:
  • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent Logan is found not to explicitly disclose guidance information with specific presentation rates, Petitioner argued De Lang supplies this teaching. De Lang discloses a video-on-demand system where a user’s available playback functions (e.g., play, stop, fast display at 3x or 7x speed) depend on a payment tier. De Lang transmits "operating data" to the user station defining these available playback modes.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Logan and De Lang to improve the personalization of Logan's system. Logan provides for content-based filtering (e.g., commercials), while De Lang provides a framework for offering tiered levels of playback control. A POSA would integrate De Lang’s explicit, tiered presentation rate options into Logan’s "marking signal" to provide users with more granular control over their viewing experience, creating a predictable and beneficial improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a straightforward integration of known elements. Since Logan’s marking signal already carries data to the user device to control playback, modifying it to include explicit presentation rate data from De Lang would be a simple implementation yielding predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 11, and 13 over Logan in view of Bhadkamkar

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Logan (Patent 7,055,166) and Bhadkamkar (Patent 5,893,062).

• Core Argument:

  • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent Logan is found not to explicitly teach "time-scale modification" (TSM), Petitioner argued Bhadkamkar remedies this deficiency. Bhadkamkar is directed to varying the display rate of audio-visual work and explicitly discloses conventional TSM techniques, such as deleting or repeating audio samples and video frames to speed up or slow down playback.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Bhadkamkar's TSM techniques with Logan's system to make Logan’s playback features, such as fast-forward, functional. Logan describes the high-level goal of personalized playback control, while Bhadkamkar provides the known, underlying technology to achieve it. Implementing Bhadkamkar’s methods would be a necessary and obvious step to enable the playback rate modification described in Logan.
  • Expectation of Success: Because TSM was a well-known technique for modifying playback rates at the time, a POSA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Bhadkamkar's teachings to implement the fast-forward and skipping functionalities of Logan’s system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1, 11, and 13 are also obvious over Logan alone as an alternative to anticipation. Furthermore, Petitioner argued the claims are obvious over the three-way combination of Logan, De Lang, and Bhadkamkar, where De Lang supplies explicit presentation rates and Bhadkamkar supplies the TSM techniques to effectuate them within Logan’s personalized broadcast framework.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Guidance Information": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "information broadcast in conjunction with an audio or audio-visual work from a broadcast server to restrict, or direct, playback rates at a client device." This construction was central to mapping Logan's "marking signal" to the claims.
• "Time-Scale Modification": Petitioner argued for a construction of "playback rate modification." This broad interpretation was used to argue that Logan’s disclosure of functions like fast-forwarding inherently teaches this limitation, even without using the exact phrase.
• "Broadcast Information": Petitioner argued for the plain and ordinary meaning: "information received from a broadcaster." This construction provides the basic context for the infringement theory.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 11, and 13 of Patent 8,566,885 as unpatentable based on each of the asserted grounds.