PTAB

IPR2024-00903

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 ’554 patent discloses a system for adaptive-rate streaming of live video content. The technology involves encoding a video into multiple streams at different bitrates (e.g., low, medium, high quality), segmenting each stream into a series of corresponding "streamlets," and allowing a client device to request sequential streamlets from the different quality streams based on network conditions to provide a seamless viewing experience.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ogdon and Allen - Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 22-28, and 30 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 taught a system for adaptive-rate streaming of a live video presentation where client nodes request sequential segments from different versions of the presentation based on network transmission characteristics. Ogdon disclosed that corresponding segments across different versions serve as replacements for each other and have "approximately the same presentation duration." To the extent Ogdon did not explicitly teach encoding the video into at least three distinct quality streams (low, medium, high), Petitioner asserted that Allen supplied this teaching by disclosing multi-bitrate streaming at, for example, 56 kbps (low), 300 kbps (medium), and 600 kbps (high). The combination therefore allegedly taught encoding video into multiple quality streams, each comprising corresponding segments that a client could dynamically select and request from web servers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Allen's teaching of multiple specific bitrate streams with Ogdon's adaptive streaming framework. The motivation was to improve Ogdon's system by enabling it to serve a wider variety of client devices with different network bandwidths, which Petitioner contended was a stated goal of Ogdon.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references related to client-server streaming systems, and simply encoding additional copies of video segments at different quality levels was a straightforward and well-known modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 - Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 22-28, and 30 are obvious over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137), Allen (WO 2002/075482), and SMIL 2.0 (a Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to cure any perceived deficiencies in the Ogdon-Allen combination. Petitioner argued that if Ogdon’s teaching of "approximately the same" duration was deemed insufficient to teach the claimed equal duration of corresponding streamlets, SMIL 2.0 explicitly disclosed this feature. SMIL 2.0 taught using a "dur" attribute to set equal, fixed playback durations for alternative media elements within a <switch> tag, ensuring they are perfect replacements. Furthermore, if the "virtual timeline" limitations were not met by Ogdon’s "scripts," SMIL 2.0 taught using a <seq> element to create a playlist of entire content files, directly mapping to Petitioner's proposed construction of the term.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of SMIL 2.0 into the Ogdon/Allen system to ensure that alternative segments had an identical duration. This would simplify the system and guarantee seamless switching for the user, a clear design goal. A POSITA would also use SMIL 2.0's playlist functionality to implement a video presentation schedule, which was a natural extension of Ogdon's system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success, as SMIL 2.0 was a standard designed for client-server based streaming and its features for ensuring equal duration and creating playlists represented a simple, logical modification to the Ogdon system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "virtual timeline": Petitioner argued this term, central to claims 11-14 and 23-25, should be construed as "a playlist of entire content files." This construction was based on the patent's description of Quantum Media Extension (QMX) files that define a broadcast schedule and describe an entire content file. This construction supports Petitioner's argument that Ogdon's "scripts" or, more explicitly, SMIL 2.0's <seq> playlist functionality, met this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner asserted that denial under Fintiv was not applicable because no trial date was scheduled in the parallel district court litigation.
  • Serial Petitions: Petitioner contended that denial under General Plastic was unwarranted because it had not previously filed an inter partes review (IPR) against the ’554 patent and was not significantly related to the other petitioner, Aylo, that had filed earlier IPRs. Petitioner noted its arguments were identical to those in an already-instituted IPR (IPR2024-00045).
  • Same Art or Arguments (§325(d)): Petitioner argued denial was improper because the asserted prior art references—Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0—were new and non-cumulative, as they were not presented to or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’554 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 22-28, and 30 of the ’554 patent as unpatentable.