PTAB

IPR2024-01371

Cisco Systems Inc v. Scale Video Coding LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Network Management for Multicast Video Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’372 patent relates to a network management system designed to handle packet loss and network congestion in multicast networks. The system utilizes software-implemented routers that selectively forward data packets based on assigned priority levels, enabling clients on congested links to receive a thinned but uncorrupted data stream without requiring a reduction in the overall transmission rate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Shao-028 - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 are obvious over Shao-028.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shao-028 (Patent 7,093,028).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shao-028 discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, Shao-028 teaches a "video transmission agent" (VTA) that can be implemented as "a component of the router or gateway." Petitioner asserted this VTA corresponds to the claimed "video router" and "scalable video coding router." Shao-028's VTA router receives layered video data streams (using MPEG-4 encoding with base and enhancement layers), identifies network congestion ("bandwidth-limited conditions") by monitoring network needs, forwards the base layer to multiple receivers, and selectively forwards enhancement layers by dropping lower-priority packets. Petitioner contended that Shao-028 also discloses using a "part number" in data packets to reconstruct the bitstream, which corresponds to the claimed "sequence number," and a "network header" identifying transmission priority, which corresponds to the claimed "layer identifier."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, Petitioner’s argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement the VTA's functionality directly within a router, as Shao-028 expressly suggests this arrangement.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the VTA as a component of a router because Shao-028 describes the VTA performing various router-like functions, such as intercepting requests and adapting data bitstreams.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Shao-028 and Shao-423 - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 are obvious over Shao-028 in view of Shao-423.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shao-028 (Patent 7,093,028) and Shao-423 (Application # 2001/0047423).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, specifically addressing the "layer identifier" limitation. To the extent Shao-028 is deemed not to teach this element, Petitioner argued Shao-423 explicitly discloses a "layer identifier" (a 3-bit "Layer ID" field) as part of an exemplary IPv6 header's "flow label field." The combination of Shao-028’s scalable video transmission system with Shao-423’s explicit layer identifier in the packet header would render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the references for several reasons. Both are analogous art from the same inventor, address the same technical problem of enhancing Quality of Service (QoS) for video streams over IP networks, and use the same core technologies (MPEG-4, IPv6). A POSITA would recognize that Shao-028’s system requires a mechanism to identify layers for proper decoding and would naturally look to a related reference like Shao-423 for an implementation. Furthermore, the efficiency benefits of using a flow label for packet classification, as taught by Shao-423, would provide a strong motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination would involve a simple substitution of known elements. Modifying Shao-028's IPv6 header to include the flow label field from Shao-423 is a predictable modification that would not change the fundamental operation of the video transmission scheme but would predictably improve its efficiency.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary prior art references, Shao-028 and Shao-423, were not cited or considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’372 patent.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors. It asserted that the petition's merits are particularly strong (Factor 6), investment in the parallel district court litigation has been minimal (Factor 3), and that it will file a Sotera stipulation to prevent duplicative arguments, strongly favoring institution (Factor 4). Other factors, such as the potential for a stay and the proximity of the trial date, were presented as neutral.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 of Patent 11,019,372 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.