PTAB

IPR2024-00757

TikTok Inc v. Cellspin Soft Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content
  • Brief Description: The ’336 patent describes a method for a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device to publish large multimedia files to web services. The method involves a client application that partitions the content into multiple data segments, generates and applies unique segment and user identifiers to each, and transfers them sequentially to a publishing service that reassembles the content.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Aaltonen in view of Drescher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aaltonen (Application # 2005/0209927) and Drescher (WO 2008/028508).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aaltonen taught a system for uploading content from a mobile device in segments using HTTP. Drescher was argued to teach an enhanced HTTP-like protocol ("ParHTTP") for transferring large files that included using server responses to acknowledge receipt of each data "chunk" and adding user identifiers to each transfer request for authentication. Petitioner asserted that the combination of Aaltonen's foundational system with Drescher's teachings on acknowledgements and user identifiers met the key limitations of independent claim 1, including segmenting data, applying user and segment identifiers, receiving synchronization messages, and resuming interrupted transfers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references to make predictable improvements to Aaltonen's system. Drescher's per-segment acknowledgements would provide a reliable mechanism for tracking successful transfers, managing device storage, and detecting interruptions. Adding Drescher's user identifiers would enhance the security of Aaltonen’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that since both systems used HTTP-based protocols for segmented data transfer, they were technically compatible. A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining them to achieve a more robust and secure file upload system.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Takahashi and Na (Ground 2A), and further in view of Lind (Ground 2B).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Takahashi (Japanese Application # 2005-303511), Na (Application # 2006/0129631), and Lind (WO 2005/109781).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Takahashi disclosed a basic method for a mobile phone to segment image data and upload it sequentially using HTTP, waiting for a server response after each segment. Na was argued to teach a more detailed and robust method for resuming interrupted HTTP uploads by having the client query the server for the last successfully received segment before continuing. Petitioner alleged that combining Takahashi’s basic upload framework with Na’s sophisticated interruption recovery protocol met all limitations of claims 1-5. For Ground 2B, Lind was cited to explicitly teach that implementing this system on a "Bluetooth enabled mobile device" was obvious, as Lind described Bluetooth as a common feature for mobile phones.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Na’s advanced interruption and resumption capabilities into Takahashi's simpler system to improve its reliability and efficiency, addressing a known problem in mobile communications. The further motivation to incorporate Bluetooth (Lind) was presented as a simple design choice to provide a common, desirable feature for a mobile phone, enabling it to connect with widely available accessories.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that the combination was predictable and would have been successful. The primary combination involved improving one HTTP-based upload system (Takahashi) with compatible features from another (Na). The further addition of standard Bluetooth functionality (Lind) was a routine modification for mobile devices of that era, requiring no undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner presented a stipulation agreeing not to pursue in the parallel district court litigation the same grounds raised in the petition, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised, upon institution. Citing the USPTO's Interim Guidance, Petitioner contended this stipulation resolves the primary concerns underlying Fintiv and warrants institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of Patent 8,756,336 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.