PTAB

IPR2023-01239

Peloton Interactive Inc v. NEC Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Content Distribution System with Dynamic Code Rate Adjustment
  • Brief Description: The ’101 patent discloses a distribution system for streaming media that determines and adjusts the content's code rate based on two temporal factors: the remaining time before a scheduled reproduction start time and the available reproduction time based on data stored in the reception device's buffer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chou - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-23, 25-29 are obvious over Chou.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chou (Application # US 2006/0143678).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Chou teaches a system for controlling the coding bit rate of streaming media to manage client buffer duration and prevent underflow. Chou's system transmits content from a server to a client at one of several available code rates while the client stores the data in a buffer for playback. Petitioner argued that Chou’s disclosure of determining the code rate based on a "playback deadline" and "buffer duration" meets the limitations of independent claim 1, which requires determining the code rate based on "remaining time before reproduction start time" and "available reproduction time." The dependent claims were argued to be obvious for similar reasons, as Chou teaches adjusting the code rate down when buffer duration falls below a target level (claim 2) and adjusting on a frame-by-frame basis (claim 4).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Chou in view of Wang - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-23, 25-29 are obvious over Chou in view of Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chou (Application # US 2006/0143678) and Wang (Patent 5,867,230).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chou teaches the fundamental adaptive streaming system. To the extent Chou is found deficient, Wang was asserted to supply the teaching of determining a code rate based on the claimed temporal factors. Wang discloses adjusting the transmission rate to maintain receiver buffer fullness, which is calculated using the "remaining playout duration in time" (mapping to the claimed "available reproduction time") and the time difference between the current moment and a packet’s scheduled playout time (mapping to the claimed "remaining time").
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Chou and Wang as they both address the same well-known problem of preventing buffer underflow in streaming systems. Petitioner contended that incorporating Wang’s more precise, time-based buffer measurement techniques into Chou's system would be a predictable way to improve its performance and achieve more stable stream quality, which was a primary goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because both references describe familiar client-server streaming architectures. Applying Wang’s measurement methods to Chou's rate control logic represents a combination of known elements to achieve the predictable result of improved buffer management.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chou in view of Nobuyoshi - Claims 5, 7, and 15 are obvious over Chou in view of Nobuyoshi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chou (Application # US 2006/0143678) and Nobuyoshi (Japanese Publication # JP2007-013705).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addresses claims requiring synchronous playback across multiple devices. Petitioner asserted that Chou provides the base adaptive streaming system, while Nobuyoshi—admitted as "Background Art" in the ’101 patent—teaches synchronizing playback across multiple mobile terminals. Nobuyoshi explicitly describes a second device joining an ongoing stream and synchronizing its playback position with a first device, which Petitioner argued directly maps to the limitations of claim 7.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Nobuyoshi's known synchronization capabilities into Chou's adaptive streaming system to provide a better user experience in multi-device environments. Petitioner asserted this would be a simple combination of a known solution (synchronization) with Chou's system to enhance its functionality in a desirable and commercially relevant way, especially since the ’101 patent acknowledges that such multi-device systems were known.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Chou is disclosed as being operable in distributed computing environments with multiple remote computers. This makes Chou’s system an ideal platform for implementing the multi-device synchronization features taught by Nobuyoshi, ensuring the teachings would fit together neatly.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and the Fintiv factors. Denial under §325(d) was argued to be improper because the primary references, Chou and Wang, were not before the Examiner during prosecution. Regarding Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage, with a trial date set for March 2025, well after a Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue. Petitioner also stated its intent to file a Sotera stipulation, promising not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if IPR is instituted, which weighs heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-23, 25-29 of Patent 8,752,101 as unpatentable.