PTAB

IPR2024-00905

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 ’555 patent describes a system for adaptive-rate streaming of media content, such as live video. The technology involves encoding a video file into multiple streams of varying quality (e.g., low, medium, high), segmenting each stream into smaller files called "streamlets," and allowing a client device to request and switch between streamlets from different quality streams based on network conditions to ensure smooth playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 18-19 - Claims 18-19 are anticipated by Ogdon under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (6,161,137).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ogdon discloses every element of claims 18 and 19. Ogdon describes a system for adaptive-rate streaming of a live video presentation over the Internet to client nodes. It teaches encoding the video into multiple "versions" (e.g., a high-quality animated video and a low-quality graphic slides version) corresponding to different network requirements. These versions are composed of sequential "segments" (streamlets) that represent the same portion of the video and have "approximately the same presentation duration," allowing them to be substituted for one another during playback. This directly maps to the claimed system of low and high quality streams composed of streamlets of equal duration.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ogdon and Allen - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-20, and 22-27 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Allen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137) and Allen (WO 2002/075482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ogdon provides the foundational system for adaptive streaming of segmented live video, where clients request content based on network characteristics. While Ogdon teaches at least two quality levels, Allen explicitly teaches the well-known practice of encoding video into at least three quality levels—low (56 kbps), medium (300 kbps), and high (600 kbps)—for streaming to users with varying capabilities. The combination of Ogdon’s adaptive streaming architecture with Allen’s explicit multi-bitrate encoding scheme renders the limitations of the independent claims obvious, including the presence of low, medium, and high quality streams.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Allen’s multi-bitrate encoding with Ogdon’s system to better achieve Ogdon’s stated goal of serving clients with diverse network bandwidths. Providing three or more quality levels, as taught by Allen, was a known and logical way to enhance the granularity and effectiveness of an adaptive streaming system like Ogdon’s.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a standard video encoding technique (Allen) to a known streaming framework (Ogdon) to improve its performance, which would have been a simple and predictable modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-20, and 22-27 are obvious over Ogdon in view of Allen and SMIL 2.0.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ogdon (Patent 6,161,137), Allen (WO 2002/075482), and SMIL 2.0 (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language 2.0, a W3C standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplements Ground 2. To the extent the Ogdon/Allen combination might be viewed as not explicitly teaching that corresponding streamlets have equal durations, Petitioner argued that SMIL 2.0 supplies this missing element. SMIL 2.0, a markup language for multimedia presentations, teaches using a <switch> element to specify alternative media files for different conditions and a <seq> element for sequential playback. Critically, SMIL 2.0 examples show using a dur="5s" attribute to assign a fixed, equal duration to each sequential and alternative media element.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the equal-duration segment concept from SMIL 2.0 into the Ogdon/Allen system to simplify system design and ensure seamless playback. Using segments of varying durations complicates the logic for switching between streams and can cause buffering or jarring transitions for the user. Enforcing equal durations, as taught by SMIL 2.0, was a known and straightforward solution to this problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been a predictable and straightforward modification. Ensuring corresponding video chunks have equal durations is a simple design choice that directly addresses the known challenge of seamless quality switching in adaptive streaming.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that Fintiv factors favor institution because no trial is scheduled in the related district court litigation. Further, it argued that serial petitioning concerns under General Plastic are not at play because Petitioner has not previously challenged the ’555 patent and has no significant relationship with any prior petitioner. Finally, Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the asserted prior art and arguments were not previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-20, and 22-27 of the ’555 patent as unpatentable.