PTAB

IPR2022-01433

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 ’636 patent describes systems and methods for delivering streaming media, such as live or pre-recorded audio and video, over the Internet. The technology involves a client-pull system where a server stores media as data elements with serial identifiers, receives requests for specific elements from user systems, and sends the requested elements in response.

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 (a 1998 IBM journal article titled "Bamba-Audio and Video Streaming Over the Internet").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek teaches every limitation of challenged claims 1-12. Carmel was asserted to disclose the foundational system: a server that receives a live media stream, divides it into sequentially indexed "slices" (media data elements), stores them, and sends them to clients upon request over the Internet using HTTP. Carmel also teaches sending data at a rate equal to or faster than the playback rate. Feig was argued to supplement Carmel by teaching a client-pull system where the client browser makes a series of requests for sequenced media segments using URLs. This method provides explicit client-side control without requiring the server to maintain a record of the last element sent, a key limitation. Willebeek was introduced to explicitly teach that HTTP, the protocol used in Carmel, relies on TCP/IP as its underlying transport protocol, which inherently transmits data as fast as the network connection allows. This combination was argued to render the independent claims (1, 5, 9) obvious. The dependent claims were also addressed, with Carmel teaching sequential identifiers (claims 2, 6, 10) and the combination of Carmel and Willebeek teaching the use of a reliable protocol like TCP (claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve upon a known streaming system. A POSITA starting with Carmel's system would look to the solutions in Feig and Willebeek to enhance client-side control, improve data transmission efficiency, and ensure reliable playback with minimal dropouts. The combination represents the predictable use of known techniques to improve a similar system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as they all address common problems in the well-understood field of internet media streaming and rely on standard, interoperable protocols like HTTP and TCP/IP.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that challenged claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meanings, consistent with prior proceedings before the PTAB and the Federal Circuit involving related patents.
  • A key term, "rate" in the phrase "a data rate more rapid than the playback rate," was argued to be governed by a prior Federal Circuit construction for a related patent, defining it as "the rate at which each requested data element is transmitted from the server to the user computer," not the overall rate of the stream.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d), presenting a detailed analysis of the Fintiv factors for the parallel district court litigation.
  • The core arguments against denial were that the petition's merits are compelling, as the Board previously found Carmel discloses similar claim elements in a related case. Petitioner also noted its intent to seek a stay in the district court, that the court's trial date is unreliable and close to the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline, and that minimal investment had occurred in the parallel case.
  • Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the asserted prior art (Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek) was not substantively considered by the examiner during prosecution, weighing heavily against denial under §325(d).

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’636 patent as unpatentable.