PTAB

IPR2024-00044

Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus, System, and Method for Multi-Bitrate Content Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’138 patent discloses a system for adaptive-rate streaming of video content. The system encodes a video into a plurality of streams at different bitrates (e.g., low, medium, high quality), segments each stream into "streamlets," and allows an end-user station to request and switch between streamlets from different quality streams based on network conditions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ogdon and Allen - Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Allen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137) and Allen (International Publication No. WO 2002/075482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ogdon taught the core system for adaptive-rate streaming, including a server storing multiple versions of a video presentation at different quality levels, which are segmented for sequential client requests based on network performance. However, Ogdon did not explicitly teach encoding into three distinct low, medium, and high quality streams. Petitioner asserted that Allen supplied this teaching, disclosing that encoding video into at least three quality levels (e.g., 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps) was well-known in the art. Ogdon also taught that corresponding segments in different versions have "approximately the same presentation duration" and serve as replacements for one another, which Petitioner contended disclosed the "same first duration" limitation of independent claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Allen's well-known multi-bitrate encoding scheme with Ogdon's adaptive streaming system to better achieve Ogdon's stated goal of serving clients with a wide variety of network bandwidths. Providing distinct low, medium, and high quality streams as taught by Allen was a known and logical way to enhance Ogdon's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references addressed client-server streaming systems, and applying a known encoding technique (Allen) to an adaptive streaming framework (Ogdon) was a straightforward modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 - Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Ogdon and Allen in view of SMIL 2.0.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137), Allen (WO 2002/075482), and SMIL 2.0 (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language 2.0 standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this ground to the extent Ogdon and Allen were deemed insufficient to teach certain limitations. Specifically, SMIL 2.0 was argued to explicitly teach creating corresponding media elements of equal, fixed duration. For example, SMIL 2.0 used a <switch> element to define alternative media elements at different quality levels and an attribute like dur="5s" to ensure each alternative had an identical playback duration. This provided a clear teaching for the "same first duration" limitation for corresponding streamlets. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that if Ogdon's "scripts" were not considered a "virtual timeline" in the form of a playlist of entire content files, SMIL 2.0's <seq> element explicitly taught creating such playlists.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of the SMIL 2.0 standard into the Ogdon/Allen system to ensure seamless playback when switching between quality streams. Using equal, fixed durations for alternative segments, as taught by SMIL 2.0, was a known method to create a perfect replacement and prevent viewing disruptions. Similarly, using SMIL 2.0's playlist functionality was a standard way to schedule presentations for clients.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as implementing features from a well-defined standard like SMIL 2.0 into a similar client-server streaming system was a predictable and straightforward modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "streamlet": Petitioner acknowledged that in a related ITC investigation, the term was construed as "any sized portion of the content file" and proceeded with its arguments under that construction for the purposes of the petition.
  • "virtual timeline": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed as "a playlist of entire content files." This construction was argued to be critical for claims 9-12 and 18-20 and was supported by SMIL 2.0's teaching of creating playlists of entire video files.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors favored institution. It was asserted that the parallel district court litigations were in their earliest stages, with no trial date set, discovery, or claim construction completed. Petitioner also stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation.
  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics Factors): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was unwarranted because the specific prior art references and arguments presented in the petition (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’138 patent. Therefore, the Office had not previously been presented with the same or substantially the same art or arguments.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 of the ’138 patent as unpatentable.