PTAB

IPR2024-00354

LG Electronics Inc v. Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Service System in an Intelligent Television
  • Brief Description: The ’805 patent describes a data service system for an intelligent television (TV). The system is configured to receive media, content, and associated metadata from a plurality of different "subservices" (e.g., video-on-demand (VOD), electronic program guide (EPG), media services), organize the received data into a predefined, uniform format, and provide the organized data to various content provider modules on the TV.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Melnychenko and Chen - Claims 1, 10, and 17 are obvious over Melnychenko in view of Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Melnychenko (Application # 2013/0263184) and Chen (Application # 2007/0226268).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Melnychenko disclosed an interactive media guidance application for a TV that receives content and metadata from various sources (VOD, EPG, Internet), corresponding to the ’805 patent’s claimed "plurality of subservices." However, Melnychenko acknowledged that metadata arrives in a "variety of...formats" without detailing how to process them uniformly. Chen was argued to supply this missing element by teaching a method for managing metadata from multiple media types by organizing it into tables that comply with a predefined "uniform format," where each table has the same fields regardless of the content type.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Melnychenko's system would have been motivated to find a method for handling the different metadata formats to ensure efficient storage and retrieval. Petitioner asserted that Chen provided a known solution to this exact problem, and its teachings on creating a uniform format would simplify user interface design and enable efficient cross-retrieval of data, providing a clear reason for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that since both references operated in the same field of TV media guidance and addressed complementary problems, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The integration was described as applying a known data organization technique (Chen) to a known media aggregation system (Melnychenko) to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Melnychenko, Chen, Kim, and Lee-1 - Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, and 16-18 are obvious over Melnychenko in view of Chen, Kim, and Lee-1.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Melnychenko (Application # 2013/0263184), Chen (Application # 2007/0226268), Kim (Application # 2012/0054794), and Lee-1 (Patent 9,008,190).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Melnychenko and Chen. Petitioner introduced Kim to teach improving the user interface by using a "home screen" with classifiable "card objects" to represent different content sources, such as an EPG, media browser, and media scanner. This addressed limitations in dependent claims related to specific "content provider modules." Lee-1, which was incorporated by reference in Kim, was cited for its teachings on a "thumbnail generator" used to create thumbnail images for display in such card-based interfaces, satisfying limitations related to a "thumbnail engine."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to improve the user experience of the base Melnychenko/Chen system. Kim provided a known technique for creating a more intuitive graphical interface for navigating diverse content types. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s card-based home screen to enhance usability. The inclusion of Lee-1's thumbnail generation teachings was presented as a necessary and obvious implementation detail for realizing Kim’s visual interface.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was predictable, as the combination involved integrating well-understood UI enhancements (Kim's card objects and Lee-1's thumbnails) into a media aggregation and data organization system. These were described as routine modifications a POSITA would make to improve a product.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for the remaining dependent claims by adding further references to the Ground 2 combination. These included adding Lee-2 (Patent 9,398,339) for personalized favorite channel lists (claims 4, 13); Ferren (Patent 8,893,184) for storing metadata in an SQLite database (claim 5); and Choi (Application # 2013/0057764) for providing a real-time view of connected media sources (claims 6-8, 14, 15).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no claim terms required express construction. However, it was noted that the specification of the ’805 patent provides a definition for the phrase "one or more of A, B, and C" to mean any of the elements alone or in any combination, a construction Petitioner relied upon for claims 1, 3, 10, 12, and 17.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. It asserted that the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages and that no motion to stay had been filed. Crucially, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in district court the specific grounds asserted in the petition, or any other grounds that could have been reasonably raised.
  • Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) was not warranted because the prior art and arguments presented were not cumulative to those considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’805 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’805 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.