Apple Inc v. Ericsson Ab

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00618
• Patent #: 9,313,178
• Filed: February 25, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Kevin J. Ma et al.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and System for Secure Over-the-Top Live Video Delivery
• Brief Description: The ’178 patent relates to a system for secure over-the-top (OTT) live video delivery. It discloses a client device that pre-fetches content encryption keys from a licensing server ahead of key rotation boundaries to ensure uninterrupted decryption of a streaming media file.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Core Streaming References - Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-13, and 16-20 are obvious over Peterka in view of Bocharov.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterka (Application # 2002/0172368) and Bocharov (Application # 2010/0235528).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Peterka taught a secure streaming system where media is divided into encrypted segments, and clients use a "pull model" to request content encryption keys before the current keys expire. This client-initiated key request was alleged to be the claimed "media playback request," and the server’s corresponding message containing the key, its identifier (e.g., type, parity bit, sequence number), and expiration time constituted the "playback request response." Bocharov was argued to supply the use of manifest files for retrieving content and managing adaptive bit-rate streaming, thus teaching the claimed step of retrieving content and manifest files from a delivery server. Petitioner further asserted Peterka taught detecting key rotation boundaries by tracking key expiration times and pre-fetching new keys accordingly.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as both addressed similar challenges in media streaming. Bocharov's manifest-based system was a known technique that would complement Peterka's key distribution method to efficiently manage multi-bit-rate streams and improve the system's ability to handle large loads. Furthermore, Bocharov's use of a "stateless protocol" would have been seen as a predictable way to improve the scalability and efficiency of Peterka's stateful system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a well-understood content delivery architecture (Bocharov's manifests) to a known secure streaming framework (Peterka) to achieve the predictable benefits of improved scalability and feature support.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Predictable Segmentation and Key Identification - Claims 7-9, 14-15, and 19 are obvious over Peterka and Bocharov in view of Peterka308 and Chen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterka (Application # 2002/0172368), Bocharov (Application # 2010/0235528), Peterka308 (Application # 2008/0270308), and Chen (European Patent Pub. 1 418 756 A2).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground augmented the primary combination to address claims requiring predictable key identifiers. Petitioner argued that Chen taught several known, predictable methods for segmenting media content, such as using fixed time intervals, a fixed number of packets, or a fixed count of frame markers (e.g., I-frames). Applying any of these methods to the Peterka/Bocharov system would render the progression of content encryption key identifiers predictable, as required by claim 7. Peterka308 was argued to teach using timestamps as key identifiers to derive the correct key for a given segment. These timestamps, when used with Chen's time-based segmentation, would constitute an "expected wall clock time" for applying a key (claim 9) and, when used with Chen's frame-based segmentation, would correspond to a monotonically increasing integer value (claim 8).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to enhance the robustness of the base Peterka/Bocharov system. Chen provided a finite set of predictable, industry-standard options for defining the media segments that Peterka encrypts. Peterka308's use of timestamps as key identifiers offered a more robust and precise method for a client to match pre-fetched keys to their corresponding media segments than Peterka's simple parity bit, especially in a system where keys for multiple future segments could be held simultaneously.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating known segmentation criteria (Chen) and a more robust key identification method (Peterka308) into a streaming system would have been a straightforward design choice with a high likelihood of successfully improving system reliability and predictability.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 5, 10, and 11 by adding Balraj (for prefetching keys a fixed duration before expiration), Kelly (for token-based authentication), and Eisen (for white-box encryption) to the primary combination.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be unwarranted. The argument was based on the fact that none of the prior art references relied upon in the petition were previously cited or applied in a rejection during the original prosecution of the ’178 patent.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’178 patent as unpatentable.