PTAB

IPR2020-00995

Unified Patents LLC v. B On Demand LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: On-Demand Distribution of Digital Works
  • Brief Description: The ’880 patent discloses a system for distributing digital content, such as music or video files, over a communications network. The system’s purported innovation is a "blanket authorization" model that allows a customer to access a group of files for a defined period, independent of the individual files themselves, to solve alleged problems with prior art systems that required physical media or metered access for each specific work.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Schmeidler, Jaisimha, and Wiser - Claims 1-10, 13-22, and 25-34 are obvious over Schmeidler in view of Jaisimha and Wiser.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schmeidler (Patent 6,763,370), Jaisimha (Patent 6,487,663), and Wiser (Patent 6,385,596).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Schmeidler, Jaisimha, and Wiser teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
      • Schmeidler was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a system for the secure, on-demand delivery of content to subscribers. Petitioner asserted Schmeidler taught a client-server system with a virtual storefront server presenting a catalog of multimedia titles (e.g., movies, audio clips) over a network. Schmeidler’s system supported various purchase types, including a "Package Subscription" offering unlimited access to multiple titles for a limited time, which corresponds to the ’880 patent’s "blanket authorization." Access was controlled by a Conditional Access Server (CAS) that provided authorization tokens and activators for encrypted content, which was streamed or retrieved in blocks ("briqs") and cached in the client's main memory during play. Petitioner contended this base system taught the core elements of independent claims 1, 13, and 25, including the on-demand distribution network, a catalog of selectable works, and an authorization that enables access to multiple files and expires after a predetermined period.
      • Jaisimha was introduced to supply the "software player" limitation. Petitioner argued that while Schmeidler’s client software "executes" titles, a POSITA might not consider it a conventional "software player." Jaisimha explicitly taught that it was common to embed media rendering software (a player) as a plug-in within a web browser to play streamed media content. This addresses the claim limitation requiring a "software player" for playing the received data files.
      • Wiser was added to explicitly teach "musical recordings." Petitioner argued that Schmeidler’s disclosure of "audio clips" already met this limitation, but to the extent it did not, Wiser cured any deficiency. Wiser disclosed a system specifically for distributing music files to customers over a network. Petitioner asserted this made it obvious to offer musical recordings as one of the content types in Schmeidler’s system.
    • Motivation to Combine:
      • A POSITA would combine Jaisimha’s embedded media player with Schmeidler’s web-based distribution system to improve the system’s functionality and provide a conventional, user-friendly method for media playback. This was a known technique for enhancing web-based services and regulating user access to content (e.g., discouraging permanent storage).
      • A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Wiser’s teaching of distributing music files into the Schmeidler/Jaisimha framework to broaden the available content offerings. Because music files were one of the most popular media types distributed online at the time, adding them would make the service more commercially appealing to consumers.
    • Expectation of Success:
      • Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a media player plug-in with a web browser was a common, well-understood, and predictable integration. Modifying Schmeidler’s software to recognize an embedded player would involve only ordinary engineering effort.
      • Likewise, adding music files (Wiser) to a system already configured to distribute other types of audio clips (Schmeidler) would be straightforward, as the underlying architecture for distributing audio files is functionally identical.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-10, 13-22, and 25-34 of the ’880 patent as unpatentable.