PTAB

IPR2020-00648

Netflix Inc v. DivX LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automatic Generation of Top Level Index Files for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’515 patent relates to streaming media systems that automatically generate top level index files for use in adaptive bitrate streaming. The system tailors media delivery to a playback device by considering its specific capabilities and network conditions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pyle and Marusi - Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are obvious over Pyle in view of Marusi under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pyle (Patent 8,782,268) and Marusi (E.P.O. Patent Pub. No. EP2180664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pyle taught a multimedia streaming system that creates manifest files (i.e., top level index files) to inform a client device of the location of different versions of stored content. Pyle’s server filters asset data using various parameters (e.g., device type, network conditions) to provide a manifest file specific to a client device. While Pyle assumed a POSITA would know how to manage this data, Marusi explicitly taught the missing implementation details: storing multiple representations of multimedia content in a database and using a second database to correlate device identifiers with device capabilities to select appropriate content.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Marusi's database teachings with Pyle's streaming system because it represented the use of a known technique (database management) to improve a similar system. Storing and managing multiple representations of content in a database was a well-known, predictable solution for the type of data management inherent in Pyle’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing Marusi’s techniques for organizing and selecting content based on device capabilities would have predictably functioned within Pyle's system, which similarly targets content based on client device parameters.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lewis and Marusi - Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 13 are obvious over Lewis in view of Marusi under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lewis (Application # 2012/0047542) and Marusi (E.P.O. Patent Pub. No. EP2180664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lewis taught a server system that dynamically generates manifest files for adaptive bitrate streaming based on a client's specific capabilities. Lewis’s system used a “rule resolution server” to customize manifest files based on parameters in a client request, such as device identifiers, browser type, and screen resolution. Similar to Pyle, Lewis did not explicitly describe the underlying data storage method. Marusi supplied this teaching by disclosing storing various media representations in a database and using device identifiers to look up capabilities to retrieve a compatible media format.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lewis’s system with Marusi's database teachings for the same reasons as in Ground 1. Applying Marusi's well-known database techniques to manage the multiple content representations and device profiles in Lewis's dynamic generation system was an obvious and predictable way to implement and improve such a system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the references. Marusi’s method of selecting content based on device capabilities would predictably integrate with Lewis’s system, which was explicitly designed to target video content based on those same types of client device parameters.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “Top Level Index File”: Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would understand this term’s plain and ordinary meaning 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 argued to be consistent with the ’515 patent’s specification and necessary for understanding how the prior art manifest files met the claim limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that none of the cited prior art was considered during prosecution, this was the first IPR filed against the ’515 patent, and the related district court litigations were in their infancy with no claim construction briefing completed. Therefore, institution would be an efficient use of the Board’s resources.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’515 patent as unpatentable.