PTAB

IPR2024-00760

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 ’260 patent describes a method for a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device to publish multimedia content to websites. The method involves a client application on the device partitioning large files into multiple data segments, tagging them with segment and user identifiers at the application layer, and transferring them to a publishing service that reassembles and publishes the content.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aaltonen and Drescher - Claims 1-18 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 discloses the core method of the challenged claims: a mobile device (“sender”) with a software module (“content manager”) that uploads content to a web service (“recipient”) by breaking the content into a plurality of portions (“data segments”) using HTTP techniques. Aaltonen further discloses recovering from upload interruptions. Petitioner asserted that Drescher, which discloses sending large files as “chunks” using a similar HTTP PUT technique, supplies the limitations of using HTTP responses to acknowledge receipt of each data segment and including party-identifying information in the transfer. For example, Drescher’s server sends an “HTTP Response” indicating the progress of an upload, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed “reply message.” Drescher also discloses communicating identities between the client and server, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed “user identifier.”
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Aaltonen and Drescher for several reasons. First, a POSITA would incorporate Drescher’s use of HTTP responses to acknowledge each data block into Aaltonen’s system to improve reliability, allowing the sender to confirm receipt and safely delete stored segments. Second, adding Drescher’s party-identifying information to Aaltonen’s HTTP messages would improve the security of the data transfer by allowing the recipient to verify the sender’s permission to upload.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable and yielded a reasonable expectation of success because both Aaltonen and Drescher disclose segmented data transfer protocols implemented using the compatible and well-understood HTTP protocol to solve the common problem of reliably transferring large files.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Takahashi, Na, and Lind - Claims 1-18 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 argued that Takahashi discloses a mobile phone that divides image data into predetermined sizes (“segmented file transfer”) and sequentially transmits the divided data to an image storage server (“web service”) via HTTP requests. Takahashi also discloses including user and segment identifiers with the data. Petitioner asserted that Na provides a more detailed disclosure of the HTTP mechanics for segmented uploads, including robust procedures for recovering from interruptions like a closed connection. Na teaches querying a server for the amount of data successfully received and resuming the upload from that point. For Ground 2B, Petitioner argued Lind teaches that adding Bluetooth connectivity to mobile phones was a common and well-known feature, satisfying the “Bluetooth enabled mobile device” preamble limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Takahashi and Na to enhance the reliability of Takahashi’s system. While Takahashi discloses segmented HTTP uploads, it lacks detail on handling common mobile communication problems. A POSITA would incorporate Na’s detailed teachings on using HTTP requests and responses to manage interruptions and resume failed uploads, thereby improving the efficiency and robustness of Takahashi’s system. A POSITA would further be motivated to add Lind’s teachings to provide the Takahashi-Na mobile phone with Bluetooth functionality, a common and expected feature for mobile devices at the time, to allow communication with wireless accessories.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a high expectation of success as Takahashi and Na use the same underlying technology (HTTP) for the same purpose (segmented mobile data uploads), making their teachings compatible. The further modification to add Bluetooth functionality as taught by Lind was a routine and predictable implementation for a mobile phone.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the PTAB should not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. Petitioner noted its intent to file a stipulation in the parallel district court litigation ([CellSpin Soft, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cellspin-soft-inc) v. [ByteDance, Ltd.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/bytedance-ltd), Case No. 2:23-cv-496, E.D. Tex.). This stipulation would prevent Petitioner from pursuing the same grounds, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR, in the district court. Petitioner asserted that under the USPTO’s Interim Guidance, such a stipulation weighs strongly against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’260 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.