PTAB

IPR2022-00239

F5 Networks Inc v. WSOU Investments LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Targeted Content Delivery Based on Video Traffic Analysis
  • Brief Description: The ’940 patent discloses a system and method for delivering targeted content to users. The technology uses deep packet inspection (DPI) to monitor and analyze a user's internet video traffic, extract associated metadata to create a behavioral profile, and then deliver targeted content, such as advertisements, based on that profile.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Ou, Raskin, and Mangione-Smith.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ou (Patent 10,181,135), Raskin (Application # 2008/0172293), and Mangione-Smith (Application # 2008/0189784).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ou discloses the framework of the claimed invention: an intermediary system, managed by an Internet Service Provider (ISP), that uses DPI to monitor user packet traffic (including video and IPTV) to generate behavioral profiles for targeted advertising. However, Ou does not explicitly detail the use of metadata from video streams. Raskin was argued to supply this missing element, as it teaches a system for analyzing "opaque" media files (like video) by extracting and analyzing descriptive metadata to understand the content for advertisement placement. Raskin further teaches organizing this metadata using a predefined taxonomy, which Petitioner asserted corresponds to the claimed "hierarchy of class structure." Mangione-Smith was presented as providing the well-known technical details of the DPI process itself, which Ou describes as "common inspection technology" without elaboration. Mangione-Smith describes static and dynamic inspection of packet headers and payloads to identify content types.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Raskin with Ou to improve Ou’s advertising system. Since multimedia files are "inherently opaque," a POSITA would have recognized that extracting metadata, as taught by Raskin, would provide a far more granular understanding of a user's interests than simply analyzing keywords, thereby enabling more accurate and effective user profiles. A POSITA would have looked to Mangione-Smith to implement the well-known details of the DPI functionality generally described in Ou.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a known data extraction and analysis technique (Raskin's metadata processing) to improve a known targeted advertising system (Ou) using a standard network inspection tool (DPI, as detailed by Mangione-Smith).

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Ou, Raskin, and Mangione-Smith in further view of Oliver.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ou (Patent 10,181,135), Raskin (Application # 2008/0172293), Mangione-Smith (Application # 2008/0189784), and Oliver (Application # 2004/0267948).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporates the teachings of Ou, Raskin, and Mangione-Smith from Ground 1 and adds Oliver to address certain limitations should the Board find them unmet by the primary combination. Specifically, this ground was provided in case the "protocol signature identifier" and "flow sequence of video content" limitations were deemed to require functionality separate from the DPI process. Oliver discloses a network node for an ISP-managed network that includes a "classification element" to label received packets, identify their associated flow, and classify them into queues for routing and prioritization. Petitioner argued that Oliver’s classification element, which examines packet protocols (e.g., RTP, HTTP) to determine traffic class (e.g., video), performs the functions of the claimed "protocol signature identifier" by collecting traffic, comparing it to known protocols, and identifying video flows.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Oliver with the base combination to implement the well-known and beneficial functions of traffic classification and routing in Ou's ISP-managed network. Ou’s system handles various traffic types (e.g., IPTV, VoIP) but does not detail how it classifies or prioritizes them. Oliver provides a known network node architecture specifically designed to add these functions to an ISP network, which would predictably improve quality of service. Oliver explicitly teaches that its node can include adjunct subsystems for "high-touch processing functions, such as deep packet inspection," making its integration with the DPI-based system of Ou straightforward.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involves integrating a standard network traffic classification node (Oliver) into an ISP network (Ou), which is a predictable and common network architecture design.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that a stay is pending in the parallel district court litigation, which remains in its early stages. To avoid overlap, Petitioner stipulated it would not rely on the IPR grounds or prior art references in the district court. Furthermore, the petition challenges all 20 claims of the ’940 patent, whereas the co-pending litigation asserts only a subset of the method claims, making the IPR a more efficient and complete forum for resolving the patentability dispute.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’940 patent as unpatentable.