Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v. Razdog Holdings LLC

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00308](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308)
- Patent #: [10,334,068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10334068)
- Filed: December 23, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [Twitch Interactive, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/twitch-interactive-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Razdog Holdings LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/razdog-holdings-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 1

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. [10,334,068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10334068)
- Brief Description: The [’068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1001) patent relates to a cloud-based computer system that aggregates content data and applications from multiple, pre-selected sources. The system presents this content on a single master web-page, allowing a user to scroll through it and providing analytics based on user interaction to target information.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Darnell and Kim - Claim 1 is obvious over Darnell in view of Kim.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) (Application # 2008/0086484), [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005) (Application # 2007/0016609).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) discloses the core framework of the challenged claim. [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) teaches a "content feed aggregation system" with a server system (master server) that retrieves content feeds (e.g., RSS) from multiple host sources, aggregates them, and provides them to a remote client computer over a network. This system includes a web-based user interface with a scroll bar for navigating the aggregated content. Petitioner asserted that [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004)'s system meets the limitations of a cloud-based system with a master server, a master application for organizing content from pre-selected sources, and streaming content to a remote device. [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005) was argued to supply the missing analytics and tool feature limitations. [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005) discloses analyzing a feed’s content for its "traits" (e.g., links, text, photos) and organizing content based on user "usage history," which Petitioner contended is equivalent to collecting analytics.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) and [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005) because both address the problem of efficiently presenting aggregated content from multiple sources. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005)’s method of analyzing content "traits" and organizing content based on usage history into [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004)’s system to improve the relevance and organization of the content presented to the user. Petitioner noted that [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005) was cited during the prosecution of [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004), indicating its relevance.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because applying [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005)'s known technique of trait-oriented organization to [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004)'s aggregation system was a straightforward application of conventional methods to yield the predictable result of a more organized user interface.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Dasgupta and Darnell - Claim 1 is obvious over Dasgupta in view of Darnell.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006) (Patent 8,640,052), [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) (Application # 2008/0086484).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006), as the primary reference, teaches a media content access system that provides a graphical user interface (GUI) with a grid of channel icons (e.g., HBO, Discovery) from multiple media providers. This system comprises a delivery subsystem (master server) that streams content to an access subsystem (remote computer device) and allows a user to scroll through channels and advertisements. Petitioner argued this discloses a cloud-based system that streams content from multiple sources to a remote device for display on a master web-page. [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) was argued to supply the limitations related to a "remote tool box feature application" that allows user customization. [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004)'s disclosure of creating user-defined filters, labels, and feed subscriptions was mapped to the claim's requirement for a tool that allows code to be written or selected to control how content is displayed.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would combine [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006) and [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) as they both solve the problem of aggregating content on a server and streaming it to a client device. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004)'s more advanced user customization and feed subscription methods into [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006)’s media guide to allow users to better organize, configure, and secure their content sources, which was a known method for improving user experience.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006)'s system is described as using "any technologies suitable for accessing media content," and [Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004) provides a known, functional technique for user-controlled content selection and organization that would predictably enhance [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006)'s system.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner stated it applied the meanings for key terms as they are "ascribed" in the specification of the [’068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1001) patent itself. For example, Petitioner relied on the patent's explicit definition of "master server" as a "dedicated server for supporting a master program and user interface" and "content data" as "data or information that is stored remotely on servers." These intrinsic definitions were used to map the prior art to the claim limitations without proposing constructions that deviate from the specification.

## 6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under *Fintiv* is inappropriate. The parallel district court trial is scheduled for June 1, 2026, which is well after the expected Final Written Decision (FWD) in this inter partes review (IPR). Furthermore, the litigation is in its early stages, with no claim construction orders issued or significant investment by the court.
- Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) is inapplicable. The grounds in the petition rely on three prior art references ([Darnell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1004), [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1005), and [Dasgupta](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1006)), none of which were before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the original prosecution of the [’068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00308/doc/1001) patent.

## 7. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1 of Patent [10,334,068](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10334068) as unpatentable under §103.

Twitch targets single-page content aggregation patent: claim 1 challenged as obvious over Darnell & Kim prior art combining feeds with analytics.

IPR2025-00308

Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Razdog Holdings LLC