PTAB

IPR2024-01054

Roku Inc v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Media Measurement System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’768 patent discloses a system for identifying media content from captured audio samples. The method involves generating a "raw play stream" of content identifications and then "scrubbing" this stream by analyzing patterns in the data to correct errors or fill in missing information, thereby creating a "clean play stream."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 14 are obvious over Herley682 and Seet.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herley682 (Application # 2004/0260682) and Seet (Application # 2005/0193016).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Herley682 teaches the core system of the independent claims, including capturing audio data from broadcast signals, generating fingerprints (audio representations), querying an electronic database with these fingerprints, and storing the results (both matched and unmatched) in an object database. This stored list of results, including content identifiers and timestamps, constitutes the claimed "raw play stream." However, Herley682 only discloses manual review for correcting its unmatched "unknown objects." Seet was alleged to supply the missing "scrubbing" element by teaching a method to automatically infer identifications for unmatched samples by analyzing the temporal sequence of surrounding, correctly identified samples. This inference based on an expected pattern corresponds directly to the claimed scrubbing process.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Seet's automated data imputation technique with Herley682's media identification system. The motivation would be to automate the manual correction process disclosed in Herley682, which would be faster, more efficient, and increase data reliability—a stated goal of Herley682. Both references are in the same field of endeavor, making the combination logical and intuitive.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The references describe similar fingerprinting and database technologies, and applying a known data correction technique (Seet) to a known data collection system (Herley682) would predictably result in an improved, automated system.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are obvious over Herley682, Seet, and Herley864.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herley682 (Application # 2004/0260682), Seet (Application # 2005/0193016), and Herley864 (Patent 7,333,864).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Herley864 to the primary combination to address limitations in dependent claims, specifically the use of "audience data" during scrubbing (claim 4). Petitioner asserted that Herley864 teaches limiting media searches by music genre to improve efficiency. Since a user's preferred genre is a form of "audience data," a POSA would have found it obvious to modify the Herley682/Seet system to use this data. Herley682 already teaches prioritizing searches based on the broadcast channel; Herley864's teaching of prioritizing by genre was presented as an obvious, analogous extension to further speed the search for unknown objects.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Herley864 with the Herley682/Seet combination to further improve the system's search speed and efficiency, a universally desired goal in database querying. The fact that Herley682 and Herley864 share an inventor was argued to strengthen this motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as it involves applying a known search optimization technique (filtering by genre) to an existing search process to achieve the predictable benefit of increased speed.

Ground 3: Claims 7 and 15 are obvious over Herley682, Seet, and Wang060.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herley682 (Application # 2004/0260682), Seet (Application # 2005/0193016), and Wang060 (Application # 2002/0083060).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was directed specifically to claims 7 and 15, which require that the audio data representations include a "plurality of signal landmarks." While Herley682 taught using "fingerprints," it did not specify the method of their creation. Petitioner argued that Wang060 explicitly teaches a well-known method of audio recognition that computes "landmarks" (features at specific timepoints) and generates fingerprints based on those landmarks.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing the general fingerprinting system of Herley682/Seet would have been motivated to use a known, effective technique for creating those fingerprints. Wang060's landmarking method represented a straightforward and available design choice for implementing the system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected success, as Wang060 describes its landmarking processes as being known in the art. Implementing these known techniques into the analogous fingerprint-based system of Herley682/Seet would have been a matter of applying known methods to yield predictable results.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors by asserting its commitment to file a Sotera stipulation. This stipulation would prevent Petitioner from pursuing the same grounds, or any grounds that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR, in the parallel district court litigation if the IPR is instituted.
  • Petitioner also argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate. It contended that the core prior art references and combinations (specifically Herley682, Seet, and Herley864) were never presented to or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’768 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,510,768 as unpatentable.