PTAB

IPR2019-01615

Roku Inc v. Universal Electronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Optimized Appliance Control
  • Brief Description: The ’853 patent describes a "universal control engine" (UCE) for controlling a plurality of home entertainment appliances (e.g., televisions, AV receivers, DVD players). The UCE is configured to automatically identify appliances, determine their supported communication protocols (e.g., Infrared (IR), Consumer Electronic Control (CEC)), and use this information to create a listing that maps functions to the appropriate control commands and communication methods.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are obvious over Chardon, in view of the HDMI Specification and Stecyk.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chardon (Application # 2012/0249890), the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) Specification Version 1.3a (Nov. 10, 2006), and Stecyk (Application # 2009/0254500).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references teaches all limitations of the challenged claims.
      • Independent claim 1 recites a UCE that responds to the presence of a target appliance by using the appliance's identity to create a listing of at least two different communication methods (e.g., IR and CEC) for controlling at least two different functions. Petitioner asserted that Chardon discloses a "multi-media gateway" that functions as the claimed UCE. Chardon’s gateway automatically detects connected HDMI appliances by collecting their Extended Display Identification Data (EDID), which serves as the "identity." It then links this EDID to a database of both IR and CEC command codes to control the appliance. This database, Petitioner contended, is the claimed "listing." The HDMI Specification was cited to provide the well-known technical underpinnings that Chardon relies upon, such as the use of EDID, CEC, and Hot Plug Detect (HPD) for device discovery and communication.
      • Petitioner further argued that Stecyk provides additional, explicit disclosure of a "listing." Stecyk describes a Home Theater Network System (HTNS) that uses a "device container list" and a "device interconnect list" to track all connected devices and their corresponding control codes. To the extent the Board might not consider Chardon's "database" a "listing," Stecyk's explicit disclosure would make it obvious.
      • For dependent claim 3 (initiating detection), Chardon’s use of HPD as detailed in the HDMI Specification was argued to meet this limitation. For dependent claim 5 (prompting a user), Petitioner argued that while Chardon suggests user interaction to identify devices, Stecyk explicitly discloses prompting a user with a menu to identify an appliance if it cannot be automatically detected. For dependent claim 7 (interrogating the appliance), Chardon's process of querying a device for its EDID was argued to constitute the claimed interrogation to determine supported communication methods and create the listing.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing Chardon, which describes a system heavily reliant on HDMI protocols, would have been motivated to consult the HDMI Specification to understand and implement its features. If any ambiguity existed regarding Chardon's "database" or its ability to handle unidentifiable devices, a POSITA would have looked to contemporaneous art like Stecyk, which addresses the exact same problems of device management in a home theater, to find solutions like explicit "listings" and user prompts. The combination would be a predictable integration of known solutions to common problems in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Chardon, the HDMI Specification, and Stecyk all operate in the same field of home entertainment system control and use compatible, well-understood technologies (IR, CEC, device discovery). Integrating Stecyk's user-prompting feature into a Chardon-like system would have been a straightforward application of known user interface design principles to solve a predictable problem (failed automatic device identification).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that a key term required construction to properly frame the invalidity analysis. The arguments focused on the phrase from claim 1: "for use in controlling each of at least a first functional operation and a second functional operation of the intended target appliance."
    • Petitioner's Proposed Construction: Petitioner argued this phrase means that the "listing" created by the UCE must contain at least two different communication methods (e.g., IR and CEC), and that each of those methods must be associated with the same two or more functional operations of a single target appliance.
    • Relevance: This construction is critical because it requires the prior art to show a system that creates a redundant control mapping (e.g., both IR and CEC codes are available for "Volume Up" and "Power On"). Petitioner argued Chardon meets this, as it describes using IR as a backup if a CEC command fails, meaning both methods are mapped to the same function.
    • District Court Ruling: Petitioner noted that in a parallel district court litigation involving the ’853 patent, the court largely adopted Petitioner's position, construing the phrase as "for use in controlling the same at least a first functional operation and a second functional operation of the same intended target appliance."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’853 patent as unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.