Unified Patents LLC v. Divx

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2021-01476](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476)
- Patent #: [10,326,987](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10326987)
- Filed: September 3, 2021
- Petitioner(s): [Unified Patents, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/unified-patents-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [DivX, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/divx-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 1 and 10

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Method and Device
- Brief Description: The ’987 patent relates to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming. The technology describes a playback device that obtains an index file listing multiple alternative video streams with different bitrates, measures network conditions, and selects or switches between streams to optimize playback quality while preventing buffer underflow.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1: Claims 1 and 10 are obvious over Biderman in view of Gigliotti.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Biderman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1019) (WO 2010/078281) and [Gigliotti](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1020) (Application # 2009/0307367).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Biderman taught the majority of the claimed steps for an ABR system. Biderman disclosed a client device that obtains a "playlist file" (an index file) specifying alternative streams with different bitrates. It further taught selecting an initial stream based on network conditions, requesting segments ("chunks") of that stream, storing them in a buffer, and playing them back. Biderman also disclosed switching to a higher bitrate stream when bandwidth improves. Petitioner asserted that Gigliotti was necessary to teach the final claimed concept of preventing buffer underflow. Gigliotti disclosed a "client side switching" scheme that monitors buffer levels against a "minimum buffer level criterion" (a time-based threshold or "watermark") and selects a stream (e.g., a lower bitrate) to prevent interruptions, thereby satisfying the patent's buffer management limitations.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references to improve Biderman's system. While Biderman aimed for uninterrupted streaming, it lacked Gigliotti's explicit buffer management logic. Petitioner argued that using buffer fill levels to prevent stalls, as taught by Gigliotti, was a known and logical technique to improve the reliability and user experience of an ABR system like the one in Biderman.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining bandwidth measurements with buffer-level monitoring was a conventional and well-understood approach in the field of adaptive streaming to create a more robust system.

#### Ground 2: Claims 1 and 10 are obvious over Sood, Myers, Casalena, Nilsson, and Ma.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Sood](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1005) (Application # 2010/0235472), [Myers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1016) (Patent 8,190,677), [Casalena](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1006) (Patent 9,324,375), [Nilsson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1007) (Application # 2009/0116551), and [Ma](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01476/doc/1008) (WO 2010/111261).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued this combination also taught all limitations of the challenged claims through a step-by-step assembly of known components. Sood, supplemented by the standard implementation details in Myers (describing Microsoft Smooth Streaming), taught obtaining a "manifest" file that serves as a top-level index for alternative streams and their bitrates. The combination of Sood and Casalena taught selecting an initial stream based on a network speed test (an improvement over Sood's default to the lowest bitrate) and later switching to a higher bitrate stream when improved performance is possible. Finally, Nilsson and Ma were introduced to teach the buffer underflow prevention limitations. Nilsson disclosed using buffer level thresholds based on playback duration (e.g., 15 seconds of data), while Ma disclosed a "rate predictive scheme" using buffer occupancy estimates and thresholds to prevent under-running.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine these references as a step-by-step assembly of known solutions to solve common problems in ABR. Sood provided a basic framework. Myers supplied standard implementation details for Sood's manifest file. Casalena provided a known method for optimizing initial stream selection based on available bandwidth. Nilsson and Ma provided established techniques for sophisticated buffer management to prevent stalling, a common problem that a basic system like Sood's would need to address. The motivation was to predictably build a more robust and efficient ABR system.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success would be highly predictable, as the combination represented the integration of standard, well-documented techniques to create a more effective streaming system. Petitioner noted Ma provided precise pseudo-software code needed to implement its teachings, further lowering any barrier to implementation.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial. Under §325(d), denial was argued to be inappropriate because none of the asserted prior art was previously considered during examination.
- Regarding the *Fintiv* factors for discretionary denial based on a parallel litigation (*DivX, LLC v. Hulu, LLC*), Petitioner argued for institution. The core reasons asserted were that the litigation was in a very early stage with a pending motion to stay, the Petitioner is not a party to the litigation or in privity with the defendant, there was no evidence of overlapping arguments, and the merits of the IPR petition were particularly strong.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 10 of Patent 10,326,987 as unpatentable.

Adaptive bitrate streaming patent faces two obviousness grounds. Biderman & Gigliotti prior art cited against claims 1 & 10 on buffer management logic.