PTAB

IPR2022-01430

Amazon.com Inc v. WAG Acquisition LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Streaming Media Delivery System
  • Brief Description: The ’824 patent describes a client-pull system for delivering streaming media over the Internet. The system involves a server storing pre-recorded, digitally encoded media elements which are requested by user systems using serial identifiers; the server then sends the specified elements in response, aiming to provide continuous transmission without buffering delays.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Carmel in view of Feig and Willebeek.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carmel (Patent 6,389,473), Feig (Patent 6,175,862), and Willebeek (M. H. Willebeek-LeMair et al., Bamba-Audio and Video Streaming Over the Internet, IBM J. RES. DEVELOP. (1998)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek renders all challenged claims obvious.
      • Carmel was presented as the primary reference, teaching a client-pull streaming system where a server sends pre-recorded media to clients over the Internet. Carmel discloses breaking media into a sequence of numbered "slices" (media data elements with serial identifiers) stored on a server. Clients request specific slices, giving them control over playback and obviating the need for the server to track the last-sent element. Carmel also teaches sending data at a rate equal to or faster than the playback rate to avoid buffering.
      • Feig was argued to supplement Carmel by teaching a method to simulate a streaming server using a standard web server. It discloses partitioning video into sequenced segments identified by URLs, which the client browser requests sequentially. Petitioner contended this reinforces the use of serial identifiers and client-side control for requesting media elements. Feig also provides an example where a one-minute video segment is delivered in 30 seconds, explicitly teaching a data connection rate more rapid than the playback rate.
      • Willebeek was used to establish the context of the underlying network protocols. It teaches that HTTP, the protocol used by Carmel and Feig, runs on TCP/IP, which is a reliable transport protocol that inherently moves data "as fast as TCP/IP can move it." This was argued to teach the limitation of sending data at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection allows.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references as they all address improving media streaming over the Internet. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Feig's explicit URL-based segment requests into Carmel’s system to enhance client-side control and playback precision. Furthermore, a POSITA would have understood from Willebeek that implementing Carmel’s HTTP-based system would inherently use TCP to transmit data as fast as the connection allows, thus ensuring minimal lag and satisfying a key objective of the ’824 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involves applying known techniques (Feig's client-side requesting, Willebeek's description of TCP/IP behavior) to a known system (Carmel) to achieve predictable results, namely a more robust and efficient streaming service.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner submitted that claim terms should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with constructions adopted by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit in prior proceedings involving related patents.
  • Specifically, Petitioner noted the Federal Circuit’s construction of "rate" in a related patent as "the rate at which each requested data element is transmitted from the server to the user computer," and the PTAB's construction of "playback rate" as "a rate at which the data is encoded for playback to a user." These constructions were asserted to support the argument that Carmel teaches sending data at a rate more rapid than the playback rate.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d) would be inappropriate.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner contended the merits of the petition are compelling, citing a prior PTAB decision (IPR2016-01238) that found Carmel discloses several similar claim limitations. Petitioner also argued that the trial date in the parallel district court litigation is unreliable and falls close to the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD), and that investment in the court case has been minimal, weighing against denial.
  • §325(d) Factors: Petitioner argued that the Examiner did not substantively consider the asserted prior art during prosecution. Feig was not cited at all, while Carmel and Willebeek were cited in lengthy Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) with hundreds of other references, indicating they were not meaningfully evaluated. Therefore, the petition raises issues that are materially different from those considered during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’824 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.