Hulu, LLC et al. v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Petition

Petition summary

Invalidity analysis

Prosecution analysis

Examiner search

- Case Number: [IPR2025-00082](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082)
- Patent #: [10,986,403](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10986403)
- Filed: November 1, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [Hulu, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/hulu-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Piranha Media Distribution, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/piranha-media-distribution-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23

- Title: System and Method for Adaptive Selection and Sequencing of Advertisements in Media Content
- Brief Description: The ’403 patent discloses systems and methods for dynamically managing advertisements within digital media streams. The purported inventive concept is to adaptively select and re-sequence advertisements in real-time in response to user playback controls, such as skipping or fast-forwarding, to ensure advertisement delivery.

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Eldering-I and Eldering-II - Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23 are obvious over Eldering-I in view of Eldering-II.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) (Application # 2002/0083439), [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) (Application # 2003/0149975).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) discloses the core components of the challenged claims, including a subscriber system with an "ad scheduler" (the claimed "intersplicer") that dynamically re-schedules advertisements based on changes in "viewing parameters" like user identity or channel selection. [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) teaches creating an initial ad schedule and then modifying it in real-time. However, Petitioner contended [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) does not explicitly disclose user inputs like skipping or fast-forwarding as triggers for this re-sequencing. [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) was argued to supply this missing element by teaching a video-on-demand (VOD) system where users can perform VCR-like functions (skip, fast-forward) and, in response, the system can disable such functions or display an alternative advertisement.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005)'s user navigation features with [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004)'s dynamic ad-scheduling system to enhance user experience and system flexibility. Petitioner asserted that user inputs like skipping or fast-forwarding inherently change the "viewing parameters" that [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) already uses to trigger ad rescheduling (e.g., by changing the program content being viewed). Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension of [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004)'s own logic to use these user inputs from [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) as an additional trigger for rescheduling advertisements.
  - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involves a simple substitution of one known input trigger (e.g., a channel change in [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004)) for another known input trigger (e.g., a skip command from [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005)) to activate a known function (ad rescheduling), leading to predictable results. The shared inventor and cross-citation between the references further support this.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Eldering-I, Eldering-II, and Crow - Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over the combination of Eldering-I, Eldering-II, and Crow.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) (Application # 2002/0083439), [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) (Application # 2003/0149975), and [Crow](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1006) (Patent 6,262,724).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground builds upon the combination of [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) and [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) to address dependent claims 2 and 15, which add limitations for a graphical user interface with a "time bar" for navigation. Petitioner argued that while the primary combination teaches the functional aspects of skipping content, it does not explicitly disclose a time bar. [Crow](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1006) was introduced to teach this specific UI element, as it discloses a user interface for media processing that includes a draggable time bar allowing a user to skip to a specific point in the media.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate [Crow](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1006)'s time bar into the Eldering-I/Eldering-II system because it was a conventional and intuitive method for implementing the skip and fast-forward functionalities. Adding a time bar would make the system more user-friendly and efficient, which is a simple design choice to implement a known function.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Eldering-I, Eldering-II, and Kocher - Claim 13 is obvious over the combination of Eldering-I, Eldering-II, and Kocher.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004) (Application # 2002/0083439), [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005) (Application # 2003/0149975), and [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007) (Application # 2002/0141582).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground targets dependent claim 13, which recites a "media file decryptor" configured to limit access to non-volatile memory after decryption. Building on the base combination, Petitioner introduced [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007) to supply this teaching. [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007) relates to securing digital content against piracy and explicitly discloses a media player with a "bulk decryption module" and secure, non-volatile storage for maintaining state between playings, thereby limiting access to decrypted content.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to add [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007)'s decryption and secure memory access features to the Eldering-I/Eldering-II system to protect the copyrighted media content being delivered. Since the primary combination involves distributing and recording media, incorporating well-known digital rights management (DRM) functionalities as taught by [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007) would have been an obvious and necessary step to prevent piracy.

- **"intersplicer":** This term was central to the dispute.
  - **Petitioner's Proposed Construction:** "software that selects advertising content and controls insertion and conveyance of advertising content in media content."
  - **Argument:** Petitioner argued that this construction is consistent with the claim language and the specification. Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner’s proposed construction in related litigation improperly imported extraneous limitations from the specification, such as requiring the intersplicer to be "digital rights management software" that allows for "free, unlimited viewing." Petitioner pointed to diagrams in the ’403 patent (e.g., Fig. 5B) to show the "intersplicer" is a specific module for ad scheduling, distinct from other components that might handle DRM or service levels.

- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
  - **Fintiv:** Denial under §314(a) was argued to be unwarranted because the parallel district court litigation had been dismissed with prejudice and was pending appeal, reducing concerns about duplicative efforts and inconsistent results.
  - **Advanced Bionics:** Denial under §325(d) was argued to be unwarranted because none of the primary prior art references asserted in the petition ([Eldering-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1004), [Eldering-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1005), [Crow](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1006), [Kocher](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00082/doc/1007)) were cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’403 patent.

- Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 of the ’403 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Hulu challenges dynamic ad insertion patent: 21 claims are obvious over Eldering prior art for re-sequencing ads after user skip/fast-forward actions.

IPR2025-00082

Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC