PTAB

IPR2020-00647

Hulu LLC v. DivX LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Generating Top Level Index Files for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’720 patent relates to streaming media, specifically the automatic generation of top-level index files for use in adaptive bitrate streaming. The system generates a custom index file for a playback device by filtering a list of available media assets based on the device’s specific capabilities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 and 12 are obvious over Pyle in view of Marusi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pyle (Patent 8,782,268) and Marusi (E.P.O. Patent Publication No. EP2180664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pyle taught a system for adaptive bitrate streaming that dynamically composes and generates "manifest files" (equivalent to the claimed "top level index files") optimized for different playback devices. Pyle’s system received requests and selected appropriate media representations based on device characteristics like being a tablet versus a television. While Pyle implicitly required a way to store and retrieve this information, Marusi explicitly disclosed the missing details: using a database to store various multimedia content representations and another database that correlates device identifiers (e.g., model number) with specific device capabilities. The combination, therefore, taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as a means of implementing a well-known technique—using a client device’s capabilities to select appropriately formatted content—to improve a similar device. Pyle taught storing content in multiple representations, and using a database as taught by Marusi to store and manage this data was an extremely common and predictable application of database technology. Implementing Marusi’s database techniques for organizing and selecting content would predictably function within Pyle's dynamic manifest generation system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because detecting device capabilities based on client identifiers was a known and predictable solution in the computing field for supplying information in a format usable by the client device.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 and 12 are obvious over Lewis in view of Marusi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lewis (Application # 2012/0047542) and Marusi (E.P.O. Patent Publication No. EP2180664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lewis disclosed a server system that dynamically generates rule-based, server-side manifest files for adaptive bitrate streaming. Lewis taught receiving a request from a client device that includes device identifiers and using rule sets (e.g., "platform rule set," "resolution rule set") to customize video content and generate a tailored manifest file (e.g., an M3U8 file) for that specific device. Lewis disclosed generating different manifest files referencing different media formats (e.g., Flash video vs. MPEG transport stream) based on the client device platform. As in Ground 1, Marusi supplied the explicit teaching of using a database to link these device identifiers to a list of specific device capabilities to filter and retrieve compatible media formats.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings to improve Lewis's system using the known technique of organizing and selecting from multiple media representations based on a client's specific capabilities. Lewis suggested pre-processing and caching content in different representations, making the use of Marusi's database teachings for storage and management a logical and well-known design choice to improve such a system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known solution (using a database to look up device capabilities) to a known problem (providing content in a format compatible with a requesting device). This represented one of a finite number of predictable solutions, ensuring a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Top Level Index File": Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the context of the ’720 patent to be "a file that describes the location and content of container files containing streams of media (e.g. audio, video, metadata, and subtitles) that can be utilized by the playback device to stream and playback content." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the patent’s specification, which provides examples like Apple’s M3U8 playlists and Microsoft’s SMIL files.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, stating that the petition raised new invalidity grounds based on prior art that was not considered during prosecution. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that institution would be an efficient use of Board resources because this was the only inter partes review (IPR) filed against the ’720 patent, and it was filed by the only two companies accused of infringement. The co-pending district court litigations were asserted to be in their infancy, with limited discovery and no claim construction briefing completed, weighing against a denial under Fintiv.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5 and 12 of Patent 9,270,720 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.