Google LLC v. Ericsson Ab

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00004
• Patent #: 11,122,313
• Filed: October 1, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC and Lenovo (United States) Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Ericsson Ab
• Challenged Claims: 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Secure Distribution of Live Video Content with Encryption Key Rotation
• Brief Description: The ’313 patent discloses a method for securely distributing streaming media content, such as live video, over public networks. The system involves segmenting media content, protecting segments with a rotation of time-limited encryption keys, and having a client device pre-fetch upcoming keys before the current key expires to ensure uninterrupted playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Peterka - Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are obvious over Peterka.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterka (Application # 2002/0172368).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Peterka discloses a secure multimedia distribution system for live media that teaches all key limitations of the challenged claims. Peterka's "pull model" describes clients that track key expiration times and actively request new keys "before the current keys expire so as to avoid service interruptions," which maps to the ’313 patent's core concept of pre-fetching keys prior to a key rotation boundary. Peterka also teaches segmenting content, encrypting each segment with a different key, and providing in-band notifications for key changes. Petitioner contended that implementing manifest files for bit-rate adjustment, a feature disclosed by Peterka, was a conventional and obvious addition for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference. Petitioner argued that all elements were either expressly taught or would have been obvious modifications, such as implementing Peterka’s bit-rate adjustment capabilities using conventional manifest files.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Peterka's system as it describes a complete, functional framework for secure, segmented media streaming with rotating keys.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Peterka and Suzuki - Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are obvious over Peterka in view of Suzuki.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterka (Application # 2002/0172368) and Suzuki (Japanese Application # 2004-166153).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Peterka does not explicitly teach using unique key "identifiers" or obtaining a new key a "fixed duration" before expiration, Suzuki supplies these missing elements. Suzuki discloses a system where a client requests a new key when the "remaining validity time" of the current key reaches a specific setting value, thereby obtaining the next key a fixed duration before expiration. Suzuki also teaches using a "key number" to uniquely identify each key, which corresponds to the claimed "content encryption key identifiers."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Suzuki's specific method for timing key requests with Peterka's broader system to achieve a predictable and reliable implementation. Suzuki's teachings on using key identifiers and remaining validity time provide a concrete solution to realize Peterka's goal of avoiding service interruptions, which would have been a known and desirable improvement to eliminate client-server confirmation delays.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Since both references operate in the same field of secure streaming media and address the common problem of key rotation, a POSITA would expect success in integrating Suzuki's more detailed key management techniques into Peterka's framework.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Peterka and Bocharov - Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are obvious over Peterka in view of Bocharov.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Peterka (Application # 2002/0172368) and Bocharov (Application # 2010/0235528).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses the limitation of "receiving... manifest files from a content delivery server." Petitioner argued that while Peterka teaches streaming content at different quality levels (bit rates), Bocharov explicitly discloses the use of "manifest" files for this purpose. Bocharov teaches embedding manifest files, which contain metadata about fragments including available encodings, within the media stream itself. This provides a mechanism for a client to request fragments in a chosen encoding and switch between bit rates mid-stream.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to implement Peterka's system for quality-adjustable streaming using Bocharov's manifest file technique. This combination provides an effective and conventional solution for enabling clients to manage different bit rates, a benefit Peterka acknowledged. Bocharov's use of manifest files to support tiered-quality purchasing models is directly analogous to Peterka's pay-by-time system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining Bocharov's well-known manifest file approach with Peterka's streaming system was a straightforward integration of a conventional feature to achieve a known benefit, carrying a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are obvious over the three-way combination of Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov. Further, Petitioner asserted that claims 5 and 15 are obvious over Peterka, Bocharov, Peterka308 (Application # 2008/0270308), and Chen (European Application # 1,418,756 A2) to teach predictable key identifiers based on a known progression.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that no basis exists for discretionary denial under §325(d) because the primary prior art references were not considered during the original prosecution.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv is inappropriate because the parallel district court litigation is stayed, and the PTAB has issued guidance stating it no longer discretionarily denies petitions based on parallel ITC proceedings. Therefore, Fintiv factors concerning parallel district court litigation all favor institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 of Patent 11,122,313 as unpatentable.