PTAB

IPR2024-01348

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Media Usage Monitoring and Measurement
  • Brief Description: The ’896 patent describes systems and methods for monitoring media consumption. The technology generates a "play stream" from captured video data samples to identify consumed content and deduces a user's "play-altering actions" (e.g., pause, fast-forward) by analyzing timing and content offset data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-13 are obvious over Steuer750 in view of Neumeier

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Steuer750 (Application # 2005/0267750) and Neumeier (Application # 2010/0306808).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Steuer750 discloses all elements of the challenged claims but for a system based on audio data samples instead of video. Steuer750 teaches a media measurement method that generates a play stream from a sequence of submitted data samples, utilizes sample sequence and content offset data to deduce play-altering actions, and generates a measurement report. Petitioner contended that Neumeier remedies the sole deficiency by expressly teaching a content identification system that operates on sampled video pixel data. Neumeier discloses capturing video data samples from a television, matching them against a database to identify content, and determining an offset time for the content.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they address the same technical problem of media content identification. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Neumeier’s known video-based sampling technique into the system of Steuer750 as a predictable design choice to create an alternative or improved media measurement system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it represented a straightforward substitution of one known data-sampling technique (video) for another (audio) to achieve the predictable result of identifying media content.

Ground 2: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Steuer791 in view of Neumeier

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Steuer791 (Patent 8,296,791) and Neumeier (Application # 2010/0306808).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the specification of the ’791 patent is substantively identical to the ’750 application, and its claims likewise disclose the challenged method but for the use of audio data samples. Specifically, claim 1 of Steuer791 was cited as reciting nearly identical limitations to claim 1 of the ’896 patent, including generating a play stream and deducing play-altering actions, but explicitly recites "audio data samples." As in Ground 1, Petitioner asserted Neumeier supplies the teaching of using "video data samples" for content recognition. This combination renders claims 1-13, including claims 6 and 8 which are only challenged under this ground, obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation to combine Steuer791 and Neumeier is identical to that for Ground 1. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of applying Neumeier's video-based approach to the established audio-based measurement framework disclosed in Steuer791.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The expectation of success argument is identical to that of Ground 1. The combination would have been seen as a predictable implementation of known technologies.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Lack of Priority Claim / Effective Filing Date: A central contention of the petition is that the ’896 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of May 27, 2004. Petitioner argued that the entire priority chain, including the ’836 provisional application and subsequent non-provisional applications, lacks written description support as required by 35 U.S.C. §112 for the claimed invention's use of "video data samples." The priority applications were alleged to be overwhelmingly focused on audio-based embodiments, with only a brief, vague, and conclusory paragraph mentioning a video-based system. This alleged break in the priority chain pushes the patent’s effective filing date to either November 24, 2010 (the date of the first application incorporating certain disclosures by reference) or May 3, 2019 (the filing date of the application that issued as the patent). In either scenario, both Steuer750 and Steuer791 qualify as prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Related Litigation (§314(a) / Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial based on parallel district court litigation by stipulating that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue any grounds in that litigation that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Petitioner contended this Sotera stipulation aligns with USPTO guidance advising against denial in such circumstances.
  • Other IPR Petitions (§325(d) / General Plastics): Petitioner asserted that denial based on a previously filed IPR by another party (Roku) is unwarranted. Petitioner argued this is its first IPR against the ’896 patent, making the first General Plastics factor dispositive in favor of institution. Furthermore, it was argued that the prior art asserted in this petition differs from that in the Roku IPR, and the petition was filed before any preliminary response or institution decision in the Roku matter.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 10,572,896 as unpatentable.