PTAB

IPR2024-00325

Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Touchstream Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Play Control of Content on a Display Device
  • Brief Description: The ’934 patent discloses systems and methods for controlling media playback by facilitating a connection between a personal computing device (e.g., a mobile phone) and a display device. The system uses a server to translate commands, associate the devices via a unique identifier or synchronization code, and enable the display device to present content using various media players.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Redford and Bartfeld - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Redford in view of Bartfeld.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Redford (Patent 8,660,545) and Bartfeld (Application # 2006/0107299).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Redford discloses the core architecture of the claimed invention: a server-based system where a handheld device sends requests to play user-selected video on an internet-enabled television. Redford’s system involves a server that receives a command from the handheld device, retrieves association information, and sends a URL for the content to the television. However, Petitioner contended that Redford’s method for associating the devices is less explicit than what is claimed. To remedy this, Petitioner introduced Bartfeld, which teaches a system for user-assisted association between a television and a telephony device. Bartfeld explicitly discloses a server generating a unique identifier (a "synchronization code"), displaying it on the television, and a user entering that code into the handheld device to pair them. Petitioner asserted that combining Bartfeld's user-friendly pairing method with Redford's content delivery system renders the claims concerning device association obvious. This combination addresses the limitation of "providing a unique identifier of the computing device to another computing device."
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Redford's content streaming system with Bartfeld's pairing mechanism to improve usability. Redford established the desirability of playing content from a phone on a TV, and Bartfeld provided a known, simple, and accurate solution to the common problem of pairing the correct devices (e.g., ensuring the phone pairs with the basement TV, not the living room TV). The combination represented a predictable improvement to provide more options and a better user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known device association technique (Bartfeld) to a similar server-based media system (Redford). The integration would have required only minor and predictable software or firmware modifications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Redford, Bartfeld, and Gonze - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Redford in view of Bartfeld and Gonze.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Redford (Patent 8,660,545), Bartfeld (Application # 2006/0107299), and Gonze (Application # 2008/0235588).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Redford and Bartfeld combination and introduced Gonze to explicitly address claim limitations requiring support for a "plurality of media playing application types" and selecting the appropriate one. While Redford disclosed multiple content providers (e.g., Netflix, YouTube), which implies different players, Petitioner argued Gonze more directly teaches the claimed functionality. Gonze discloses a system that makes content available from multiple providers and determines the appropriate media player to load based on information from the content file itself (e.g., the file extension). Gonze’s system can cause a locally installed player (e.g., RealPlayer, QuickTime player) to load to handle various media formats. Petitioner argued this teaching supplies the missing elements of receiving a message referencing content associated with a specific media player type and selecting that player from a plurality of available types.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gonze's teachings with the Redford/Bartfeld system to enhance its functionality and commercial appeal. As different content providers often use proprietary media formats (e.g., RealMedia, QuickTime, Windows Media), a system that could automatically select and load the correct player would be a desirable improvement. This would provide users with more content options and a seamless playback experience, which was a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in this combination because integrating logic for media player selection into a content streaming system was a well-understood technique for handling diverse content sources. Adding Gonze's teachings to Redford's television would involve known software modifications within the skill set of a POSITA.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The petition challenged all claims of the ’934 patent, whereas only a subset (17-20) were asserted in the parallel district court litigation. Petitioner further stipulated not to pursue in the district court any ground that utilizes the same combination of prior art references relied upon in an instituted IPR petition. Finally, Petitioner argued that the grounds rely on entirely different prior art than that considered in any previously filed petitions against related patents, presenting compelling unpatentability challenges that merit institution. Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because none of the prior art relied upon in the petition was before the examiner during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’934 patent as unpatentable.