PTAB

IPR2024-00759

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 ’757 patent describes a method for transferring segmented files from a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device to a web service. The method involves a software module on the device that segments a file, applies user and segment identifiers to each data segment at the application layer, and transfers them sequentially, including a process for resuming transfer after an interruption.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aaltonen and Drescher - Claims 1-26

  • 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 disclosed the foundational method for a segmented file transfer from a mobile device to a server (a "web service") using HTTP. Aaltonen taught breaking content into a plurality of portions ("data segments") based on file size and network connectivity, and using identifiers to manage the upload. However, Petitioner contended Aaltonen’s acknowledgement system was general. Drescher was argued to supplement Aaltonen by teaching a more robust system for transferring large files in "chunks" using HTTP PUT requests, where the server sends an HTTP response for each chunk, explicitly acknowledging its successful receipt. Drescher also taught including user-identifying information (e.g., username/password) in transfer messages to manage permissions, satisfying the ’757 patent’s user identifier limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve Aaltonen's system. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Drescher's per-segment HTTP response acknowledgements into Aaltonen’s segmented transfer protocol to create a more reliable system that could better detect service interruptions and manage device storage by deleting successfully transferred segments. Furthermore, a POSITA would integrate Drescher’s user identification method to enhance the security of Aaltonen’s system, a known and desirable feature.
    • Expectation of Success: Because both Aaltonen and Drescher described segmented data transfer protocols implemented using the standard and compatible HTTP protocol, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining their teachings without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Takahashi, Na, and Lind - Claims 1-26

  • 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 this combination rendered all claims obvious, presenting the argument in two steps (Ground 2A: Takahashi and Na; Ground 2B: adding Lind). Takahashi disclosed a mobile phone that divides image data into predetermined sizes and sequentially transmits the segments to a server using HTTP requests. Na was argued to provide the necessary detail missing from Takahashi regarding the HTTP protocol, teaching a sophisticated method for controlling media uploads. Specifically, Na disclosed segmenting media data, transmitting segments in request messages, receiving response messages for verification, and, crucially, a detailed process for resuming an upload after an interruption (e.g., a closed connection) by querying the server for the last successfully received segment. Lind was cited for the sole purpose of explicitly teaching that mobile phones of the era commonly included Bluetooth capability, thus satisfying the "Bluetooth enabled mobile device" preamble limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Takahashi and Na to improve the reliability of Takahashi’s basic upload system. Recognizing that Takahashi’s system could suffer from communication failures, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Na’s detailed teachings on interruption handling and upload resumption to make the system more robust and efficient. This would prevent having to restart the entire upload after a network error. A POSITA would then be further motivated to implement this improved system on a Bluetooth-enabled device, as taught by Lind, because Bluetooth was a conventional and expected feature on mobile phones used for connecting to accessories, making its inclusion a matter of applying a known technology for its intended purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: The technologies were highly compatible. Takahashi and Na both described systems for uploading data from a mobile phone to a server using the standard HTTP protocol. Adding Bluetooth functionality as disclosed by Lind was a common and straightforward modification for mobile devices at the time. Therefore, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining these elements.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The Petitioner presented a stipulation that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, in the parallel district court litigation. Petitioner asserted that under the USPTO's Interim Guidance on Fintiv, such a stipulation weighs strongly against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-26 of the ’757 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.