PTAB

IPR2024-00917

fuboTV Media Inc v. DISH Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus, System, and Method For Adaptive-Rate Shifting of Streaming Content
  • Brief Description: The ’156 patent relates to adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content, such as video, over a network. The technology involves a server that stores multiple copies of a content file encoded at different bit rates as sets of "streamlets," which a client device requests and plays back, repeatedly generating a network performance factor to shift between quality levels and ensure continuous streaming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Leaning.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (International Publication No. WO 2002/049343).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Leaning teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Leaning discloses a client-server system for delivering video over a network, where a server stores multiple versions of a recording at different compression rates. This content is partitioned into a sequence of "sub-files" (the claimed "streamlets"). A client terminal's player program requests these sub-files sequentially and makes "successive determinations" based on network performance factors like "measured rate" and buffer status to shift playback quality to a higher or lower data rate. Petitioner asserted that Leaning's disclosure of using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over the internet implies the use of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections and HTTP GET requests, as a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood these as the standard, inherent components for implementing Leaning’s described file requests. Leaning further teaches adapting its quality-shifting determinations to select the highest quality copy of the video determined to be sustainable.
    • Motivation to Combine (or Modify): This is a single-reference ground. However, Petitioner argued that to the extent Leaning is found not to explicitly teach HTTP GET requests, a POSITA would have been motivated to use them. The motivation stems from GET requests being a well-known, reliable, and predictable solution—indeed, the only standard one—for requesting files from a web server as described by Leaning, thus ensuring the system's goal of continuous playback.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Leaning's system using HTTP and TCP because they were universally known and standard protocols for reliable web-based data delivery at the time.

Ground 2: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Leaning in view of Ala-Honkola.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (WO 2002/049343) and Ala-Honkola (Application # 2003/0055995).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this ground as an alternative in the event Leaning is found deficient in its teachings of specific network protocols. Ala-Honkola, an adaptive streaming reference, explicitly teaches a client making HTTP GET requests over one or "several TCP connections" to switch between different bitrate copies of a video based on changing bandwidth. Petitioner argued that combining Ala-Honkola's explicit disclosures with Leaning's framework would supply any missing limitations, such as establishing multiple TCP connections as recited in claim 2 and using HTTP GET requests to select streamlets as required by independent claims 1 and 13.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ala-Honkola's explicit teachings on TCP and HTTP GET methods with Leaning's adaptive streaming system to improve reliability and predictability. The motivation was to implement the file request function central to Leaning's system using a proven, standard internet protocol (taught by Ala-Honkola) rather than a proprietary or less-defined method, thereby ensuring robust performance.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a strong expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a standard communication protocol from Ala-Honkola to a known system architecture in the same technical field from Leaning. This would predictably result in the reliable delivery of media files without altering the fundamental adaptive-shifting principles of either reference.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d).
  • Fintiv: Petitioner asserted that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not applicable because no trial date is scheduled in the related district court litigations.
  • General Plastic / Valve: Petitioner argued against denial for serial petitioning, stating they are not the "same party" as a prior petitioner (Aylo) that challenged the ’156 patent, nor do they possess a "significant relationship" with Aylo. Petitioner claimed it was unaware of the Leaning reference until Aylo filed its petition and that its own petition does not present "roadmapping" concerns.
  • §325(d): Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary reference, Leaning, is new, non-cumulative art that was not cited on the face of the ’156 patent or considered during prosecution. Petitioner argued this new art therefore presents a substantially different challenge than what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously reviewed.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,757,156 as unpatentable.