Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00796
• Patent #: 7,386,871
• Filed: April 22, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Rovi Guides, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3-15, 19-22, 34-35, 37-49, 53-56

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Program Guide System with Real-Time Data Sources
• Brief Description: The ’871 patent relates to methods for using an interactive television program guide (ITPG) that supplements standard program listings data with real-time data, such as live sports scores or news updates. The purported innovation is centered on receiving both data types and storing them together in a single database maintained by the ITPG on user television equipment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Schein - Claims 1, 3, 7-13, 15, 19, 34-35, 37, 41-47, 49, and 53 are anticipated by Schein under 35 U.S.C. §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schein (WO 1997/013368).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schein discloses every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Schein describes an "interactive television schedule system" (an ITPG) that receives and displays both television schedule data and real-time data (e.g., "Current Game Statistics," "Sports Scores," "Headline News") from internet sources. Petitioner asserted that Schein teaches storing all data needed for the guide—including program listings and real-time data accessed via a cable modem—in a local database (e.g., memory 214 or TV database 248) that is maintained by the ITPG software through periodic updates. This local database on user equipment, which holds both data types, was argued to directly read on the core limitations of the challenged claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Schein and Stautner - Claims 1, 3-13, 15, 19-20, 34-35, 37-47, 49, and 53-54 are obvious over Schein in view of Stautner under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schein (WO 1997/013368) and Stautner (Patent 6,172,677).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Schein is found not to explicitly teach certain elements, such as storing "constantly updated" real-time data in the same database as program listings, Stautner supplied these teachings. Stautner, a highly analogous reference describing an "integrated content guide," discloses a system that obtains "constantly updated" content like sports scores and stores information from diverse sources in a single, local database. This integration provides a "single coherent and informative controlling front end" for the user.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Stautner's data integration and updating techniques with Schein's ITPG. Both references address the same problem of providing users with diverse, up-to-date information through a program guide. A POSITA would combine them to improve Schein's system by incorporating Stautner’s more explicit teachings on frequent updates and data consolidation, yielding the predictable result of a more responsive and user-friendly guide.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. The modification would involve routine programming to integrate Stautner’s method of linking to real-time data (e.g., via on-screen icons) and storing it in Schein's existing database architecture, which was a predictable and straightforward task.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges against specific dependent claims, primarily by adding a third reference to the Schein/Stautner combination. These included combinations with Deis (Patent 6,430,548) for teachings on separating data into different databases to optimize storage, Kwoh (WO 1997/018675) for displaying scores of completed sporting events, and Coleman (Patent 5,844,620) for purging old data from memory to manage finite storage space.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "real-time data": Petitioner argued the patentee acted as its own lexicographer, defining the term in the specification as "data that is communicated essentially in real time," which accommodates update delays ranging from "several seconds to several minutes." This construction is broader than a strict technical definition and was central to Petitioner's argument that information described as "current," "updated," or "hourly" in the prior art met this claim limitation.
• "program guide maintains a database": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean "the program guide takes steps to keep the database up to date." This construction, focused on the function of maintaining data currency (e.g., by storing new data or deleting old data), was used to argue that prior art systems that performed periodic updates or other data management functions satisfied this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the petition raised new and non-cumulative arguments based on art not previously considered by the USPTO. Petitioner asserted that the primary reference, Schein (WO 1997/013368), was not considered during original prosecution or a subsequent ex parte reexamination. It was contended that while other patents including the name "Schein" were of record, they were materially different and lacked the key disclosures present in the asserted reference. Likewise, the secondary references (Stautner, Kwoh, Coleman, and Deis) were either not previously cited or were not substantively applied in a rejection, rendering the petition's grounds substantially different from any arguments previously before the Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-15, 19-22, 34-35, 37-49, and 53-56 of Patent 7,386,871 as unpatentable.