PTAB

IPR2021-00115

Facebook Inc v. Voxer IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Telecommunication and Multimedia Management Method and Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’270 patent describes a communication system that supports asynchronous voice and video messaging. The technology allows users to transmit real-time communications to an intermediate server, which can then deliver the message to a recipient without first establishing a direct end-to-end connection between the sender and receiver.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 34, 36-38, 40, 43-44, 47, and 55 over Mangal

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mangal (Patent 6,865,398).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mangal, which discloses a system for initiating real-time media sessions like push-to-talk (PTT) and push-to-view (PTV), teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claims 34 and 55 require a method where a server receives an identifier for a recipient, ascertains the recipient's network location, receives and stores the video communication from a sender, and delivers it—all without first establishing an end-to-end connection. Petitioner contended that Mangal's system, designed to reduce call setup latency, explicitly discloses this architecture. In Mangal, a sending device transmits media to a communication server immediately upon user request; the server buffers (stores) this media while separately locating the recipient and establishing a connection to deliver the media.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 34, 36-38, 40-41, 43-44, 47, 49, 51, and 55 over Mangal in view of Atarius

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mangal (Patent 6,865,398) and Atarius (WO 2006/121550).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that if Mangal's "buffering" is not considered sufficient for the "storing" limitation, combining it with Atarius renders the claims obvious. Atarius discloses a system for archiving real-time communication sessions (including video) for later retrieval and playback. This combination, Petitioner argued, explicitly teaches a more persistent form of storing than mere buffering. Furthermore, Atarius supplied limitations for dependent claims not fully addressed by Mangal alone. Specifically, Atarius taught rendering communications in a "time-shifted mode" (claim 41) and encrypting session data for security (claim 49).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Mangal with Atarius to add the valuable feature of archiving communications for later review. Petitioner argued both references are in the same field of real-time wireless media delivery and use a central server infrastructure, making the combination logical. The goal would be to leverage Mangal's low-latency session initiation while providing the benefits of Atarius's archival and time-shifting capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as adding archiving and encryption features to a communication server was a well-known and predictable modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 48 over Mangal in view of Kalaboukis

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mangal (Patent 6,865,398) and Kalaboukis (Patent 9,762,861).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claim 48, which depends from claim 34 and adds the limitation of "trans-coding the video communication." While Mangal's system delivers video, it does not explicitly teach transcoding. Kalaboukis was introduced because it directly addresses this by disclosing a system that adapts a live video stream "so that each user may receive a streaming video signal in a convenient format." This includes reducing resolution for less powerful devices or enhancing it for more powerful ones, which inherently requires transcoding.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to integrate Kalaboukis's transcoding functionality into Mangal's system to solve the common problem of delivering video to multiple recipients using devices with different capabilities. Both systems are designed to deliver real-time media to multiple users and would face the same technical challenge of device heterogeneity.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining the references would have involved applying a known technique (transcoding) to an existing system (Mangal) to improve its functionality, yielding predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 48 based on the three-way combination of Mangal, Kalaboukis, and Atarius, relying on similar combination rationales.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d).
  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with fact discovery just beginning and no claim construction order or firm trial date issued. It was argued that a Final Written Decision in the IPR would likely issue before a trial would occur.
  • §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial would be improper because the petition raised new arguments based on prior art that was not substantively considered during prosecution. The primary references, Mangal and Atarius, were not before the Examiner. While Kalaboukis was listed in an Information Disclosure Statement, it was never discussed or applied by the Examiner.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 34, 36-38, 40-41, 43-44, 47-49, 51, and 55 of the ’270 patent as unpatentable.