PTAB

IPR2024-00046

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 ’680 patent discloses a system for adaptive multi-bitrate streaming of content over the internet. The technology involves encoding a video into multiple streams (e.g., low, medium, and high quality), segmenting each stream into a plurality of "streamlets," and allowing a client device to request specific streamlets from different quality streams based on network conditions to ensure smooth playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ogdon and Allen - Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-19, 21-25, 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 content streaming claimed in the ’680 patent. Ogdon disclosed a "client-pull" system where a client node requests sequential segments of a video presentation from webservers, dynamically switching between different quality versions of those segments based on network transmission characteristics. However, Ogdon did not explicitly disclose encoding the content into the claimed three distinct quality levels (low, medium, high). Petitioner asserted that Allen remedied this by teaching it was well-known to encode video into at least three quality levels for multi-bitrate streaming, providing specific examples such as low (56 kbps), medium (300 kbps), and high (600 kbps) quality streams. The combination of Ogdon’s adaptive segment-switching architecture with Allen’s explicit three-tier quality encoding allegedly rendered the limitations of the independent claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ogdon and Allen to improve Ogdon's system. Providing three distinct quality levels, as taught by Allen, would better enable Ogdon’s system to serve client nodes across a wider variety of network bandwidths, which was a stated goal of Ogdon.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as both references address client-server based streaming systems. Implementing additional encoding levels was a known and straightforward technique in the art to enhance streaming performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 - Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-19, 21-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Allen and 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).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that to the extent the combination of Ogdon and Allen was found deficient, SMIL 2.0 supplied the missing elements. Specifically, Petitioner argued that SMIL 2.0 explicitly taught ensuring that corresponding segments ("streamlets") across different quality levels have the same, equal duration to allow for seamless playback when switching between them. SMIL 2.0 used attributes like dur="5s" within a <switch> element to define alternative media elements of fixed, identical duration. Furthermore, if the term "virtual timeline" is construed as a "playlist of entire content files," Petitioner argued that SMIL 2.0 taught this concept by using the <seq> element to create playlists of sequential, complete video files.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of SMIL 2.0 into the Ogdon/Allen system to solve a known problem. Ensuring corresponding segments have equal duration is critical for providing a seamless user experience and preventing playback interruptions when switching quality levels, which would be a predictable improvement to Ogdon’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because all three references are drawn to the same field of client-server media streaming. Applying a known standard like SMIL 2.0 to define segment durations and create playlists would have been a straightforward modification for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • virtual timeline: Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed as "a playlist of entire content files." This construction was based on patent disclosure describing the timeline as a file defining a playlist for a user, similar to a broadcast schedule of entire shows. This construction is central to the argument that SMIL 2.0 teaches this limitation if Ogdon is deemed insufficient.
  • streamlet: Petitioner noted that in a related ITC investigation, the term was construed as "any sized portion of the content file." Petitioner argued its unpatentability grounds hold even under this construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) / Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weighed against discretionary denial. It was asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set and no significant milestones like claim construction having occurred. Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation if the IPR is instituted.
  • §325(d) / Advanced Bionics Factors: Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was unwarranted because the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and the specific invalidity arguments were never presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’680 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-19, 21-25, and 27-29 of the ’680 patent as unpatentable.