PTAB

IPR2024-00922

Cisco Systems Inc v. Video Solutions Pte Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Managing the Flow of Time-Sensitive Data Over Packet Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’823 patent discloses a method for managing multiple, time-sensitive data streams, such as in multi-party videoconferencing, transmitted over a common packet network. The technology addresses the problem of simultaneous data peaks (e.g., I-frames in compressed video) from different streams causing network congestion by intentionally applying a controlled delay to certain streams to prevent peak coincidence, without increasing the maximum round-trip delay (RTD) across all connections.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Larson in view of Cai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Larson (Application # 2009/0141800) and Cai (a 2004 journal article titled "IQ-Services: Network-Aware Middleware for Interactive Large-Data Applications").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Larson, teaches the core concept of the ’823 patent: solving the problem of simultaneous I-frame traffic peaks in multi-party videoconferencing by staggering or intentionally delaying the transmission of some video streams to avoid overlap. Larson discloses applying a controlled delay based on the location of data peaks but does not specify the criteria for selecting which streams to delay. The secondary reference, Cai, addresses the well-known problems of delay sensitivity and network heterogeneity in interactive, multi-connection applications. Cai explicitly teaches dynamically determining the Round-Trip Time (RTT) for each connection, identifying the maximum RTT, and then adding a delay to the streams on faster connections (those with RTTs less than the maximum) to synchronize them with the slowest connection. Petitioner asserted that combining Larson’s system of staggering I-frames with Cai’s method of selecting which streams to delay based on maximum RTT renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious. Specifically, the combined teachings disclose delaying a stream with an undelayed RTD less than the maximum RTD to reduce peak coincidence without increasing the overall maximum delay.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement Larson’s I-frame staggering solution, would be motivated to consult known techniques for managing delay in delay-sensitive, multi-party applications. A POSITA would combine Cai's teachings with Larson to provide an intelligent method for selecting which streams to delay. This combination solves the problem of how to apply Larson’s delay without negatively impacting the user experiencing the longest delay, thereby improving overall system performance and homogenizing the user experience across all connections—a known and desirable goal in videoconferencing.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. Both Larson and Cai operate in the same technical field of packet-based, multi-party, delay-sensitive applications like videoconferencing. The proposed combination involves applying a known, standardized technique (RTT measurement and comparison via RTCP, as taught by Cai) to a known system (Larson's) to achieve the predictable results of reduced packet loss, reduced delay variance, and improved user experience.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The co-pending district court litigation is in its early stages, with a Markman hearing not scheduled until August 2024 and a trial date not until February 2025. Petitioner asserted it filed the IPR petition diligently, within seven months of the patent being asserted against it. Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds in the district court litigation, thereby avoiding overlap of issues.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), noting that the prior art references relied upon (Larson and Cai) were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’823 patent. Therefore, the arguments presented in the petition are not cumulative to those previously considered by the USPTO.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’823 patent as unpatentable.