PTAB

IPR2024-00902

fuboTV Media Inc v. DISH Technologies LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus, System, and Method For Multi-Bitrate Content Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’138 patent relates to multi-bitrate, adaptive-rate content streaming systems. The technology involves encoding a video into multiple quality streams (e.g., low, medium, high), segmenting each stream into "streamlets" of corresponding duration, and allowing a client device to request these streamlets from different quality levels based on network conditions to ensure smooth playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ogdon and Allen - Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Allen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137) and Allen (International Publication No. WO 2002/075482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ogdon teaches the foundational architecture for an adaptive streaming system. Ogdon discloses distributing a video presentation over the internet by segmenting it into a series of "elements" or "segments," with multiple "versions" of each segment available at different quality levels. A client node requests the appropriate version based on network characteristics. Petitioner asserted that Allen, which describes multi-bitrate streaming as well-known, supplies the explicit teaching of encoding a video into at least three distinct quality streams (low, medium, and high) at specific bitrates, such as a high-quality stream at 600 kbps. For the limitation requiring corresponding streamlets to have the same duration, Petitioner contended that Ogdon’s disclosure that alternative segments serve as "replacements" and have "approximately the same presentation duration" would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to understand that equal durations are necessary for seamless switching.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Allen's explicit multi-level encoding scheme with Ogdon's adaptive streaming system to improve performance. This combination would better accommodate the wide variety of network bandwidths experienced by different users, which was a stated goal of Ogdon's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a well-known encoding technique (taught by Allen) to a known type of streaming system (taught by Ogdon) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 - Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137), Allen (International Publication No. WO 2002/075482), and SMIL 2.0 (a W3C standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that to the extent Ogdon and Allen are found insufficient, the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) 2.0 standard provides express teachings for any allegedly missing limitations. Petitioner asserted that SMIL 2.0 explicitly teaches using a dur="5s" attribute to assign equal, fixed playback durations to alternative media elements, directly addressing the "same first duration" limitation of claim 1. Furthermore, SMIL 2.0 teaches using a <seq> element to create a sequential playlist of entire content files, which Petitioner argued directly teaches the "virtual timeline" limitation, especially under its proposed claim construction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing an adaptive streaming system like Ogdon's would combine it with the standardized and well-documented methods from SMIL 2.0 to implement features like equal segment durations and content playlists. Using an established standard would ensure predictable, reliable performance and seamless playback when switching between quality levels, a known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because incorporating standardized elements from SMIL 2.0 into a compatible client-server streaming architecture like Ogdon's would have been a straightforward implementation to achieve desired functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "virtual timeline" should be construed as "a playlist of entire content files." This construction was based on the ’138 patent’s description of Quantum Media Extension (QMX) files that "describe an entire content file" and define a broadcast schedule. This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that SMIL 2.0’s playlist functionality renders certain claims obvious.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate for several reasons.
    • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Denial under Fintiv is not warranted because there was no trial date scheduled in the parallel district court litigation.
    • Serial Petitions (General Plastic Factors): This is not a serial petition, as Petitioner has not previously challenged the ’138 patent.
    • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics Framework): The primary references (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) are new, noncumulative prior art that were not substantively considered during prosecution. Petitioner highlighted that the Board had already instituted review on identical grounds and art in a related case (IPR2024-00044), demonstrating the merits of the petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, 22-25, and 27-29 of the ’138 patent as unpatentable.