PTAB

IPR2024-00146

Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies LLC

Title: Apparatus, System, and Method for Multi-Bitrate Content Streaming
Brief Description: The ’555 patent relates to a system for adaptive-rate streaming of content, such as live video. The system encodes video into multiple streams at different bitrates, segments them into "streamlets," and allows a client device to request streamlets from the different streams based on network conditions to achieve adaptive playback.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ogdon discloses every element of claims 18 and 19. Ogdon teaches a system for adaptive-rate streaming of live video presentations over the internet, where a video is encoded into different versions (e.g., low-quality graphic slides and high-quality animated video) corresponding to different network requirements. Petitioner asserted these versions are comprised of corresponding segments ("streamlets") that encode the same portion of the video presentation and have "approximately the same presentation duration," which a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand to mean equal durations for the purpose of seamless replacement.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137) and Allen (WO 2002/075482).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Ogdon teaches the core adaptive streaming system where a client requests video segments from different quality versions based on network conditions. To the extent Ogdon does not explicitly disclose three quality levels (low, medium, high) and a specific high bitrate (at least 600 kbps) as recited in the claims, Allen was cited as teaching that it was well-known to encode video at three distinct bitrates (e.g., 56 kbps low, 300 kbps medium, and 600 kbps high) for streaming to users with varying capabilities.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Allen's well-known three-tier bitrate encoding with Ogdon's adaptive streaming system to better serve clients across a wider spectrum of network bandwidths. This combination directly addresses Ogdon's stated goal of adapting content delivery to varying network characteristics.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because both references are in the same field of client-server streaming. Encoding content at an additional, intermediate quality level was a simple and straightforward modification to enhance the functionality of Ogdon's system.

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 incorporates the teachings of Ogdon and Allen from Ground 2. As a fallback argument, if the primary combination is deemed insufficient to teach that corresponding streamlets have equal durations, Petitioner argued SMIL 2.0 provides this teaching. SMIL 2.0, a standard for multimedia presentations, explicitly discloses using elements with a duration attribute (dur) to define alternative media files of equal, fixed duration (e.g., 5 seconds) that can be switched based on system capabilities.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to apply the equal-duration teaching of SMIL 2.0 to the Ogdon/Allen system to simplify implementation and ensure that alternative segments are perfect replacements for one another. This would provide a seamless user experience when switching between quality levels, a known objective in the art.
- Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Ogdon and SMIL 2.0 are both drawn to similar client-server streaming systems that allow clients to choose alternative files. Making segments of equal duration is a simple modification to improve system performance and reliability.

Petitioner acknowledged that an Administrative Law Judge in a related International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding construed "streamlet" as "any sized portion of the content file." Petitioner maintained that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under this construction, while reserving the right to challenge the construction in the future.

Petitioner noted that in a related proceeding, the Patent Owner argued that a "single initial adaptive selection" of a stream quality level is sufficient to meet the claim limitations requiring selection of a higher or lower bitrate version of the streams. Petitioner asserted the Patent Owner should be held to this position, which would broaden the scope of prior art that satisfies these claim elements.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv because the co-pending district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with no claim construction or trial date set. Further, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue in district court any invalidity ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in this inter partes review (IPR) if instituted.
Petitioner also argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the grounds are based on prior art references (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) that were not cited or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’555 patent.

Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-20, and 22-27 as unpatentable.