PTAB

IPR2025-00348

WebGroup Czech Republic As v. DISH Technologies LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Adaptive-Rate Streaming of Content
Brief Description: The ’772 patent discloses a method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming video. The system involves a server storing multiple copies of a video encoded at different bit rates and a client-side media player that repeatedly generates network performance factors to determine and request the highest quality video version that can be sustainably streamed.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (International Publication No. WO 2002/049343).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Leaning, which was not considered during prosecution, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Leaning discloses a method for delivering video over the internet where a server stores two or more versions of the content at different compression rates. The content is partitioned into a sequence of "sub-files," with each version stored as a separate set of these files. A client-side "player program" independently requests sequential sub-files and automatically switches between the different rate versions by requesting sub-files from a different set. The player program repeatedly assesses network characteristics by generating a "measured rate" and "Buffer Low Percentage" to determine whether to shift to a higher or lower quality stream to ensure continuous playback, ultimately selecting the highest quality version deemed sustainable.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that during the original prosecution, the PTAB reversed an Examiner's rejection because the cited art failed to teach that "different copies of the video are stored as multiple files." Petitioner asserted that Leaning explicitly teaches this missing element, overcoming the key issue that led to the patent’s allowance.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (WO 2002/049343) and Gamble (Application # US 2004/0093420).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that the additional limitations of claims 2 and 9, which require requesting "sub-parts" of files over different TCP connections and reassembling them, are taught by Gamble. Leaning provides the foundational adaptive streaming system using a plurality of TCP connections (inherent in its use of HTTP 1.0). Gamble was cited to explicitly teach a client application that requests and receives multiple sub-parts of stream files over parallel TCP connections from a server and then reassembles the ordered segments into a data file.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Leaning and Gamble to improve streaming performance and reliability. Using Gamble’s parallel connection technique with Leaning’s system would increase throughput by overcoming the bandwidth bottleneck of a single TCP connection and provide robustness if one connection fails.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the TCP protocol inherently supports multiple connections, and using parallel connections to retrieve parts of a single file was a well-known technique for improving data transfer speed and reliability, as exemplified by Gamble.

Petitioner submitted that for institution purposes, no specific constructions are necessary as the terms can be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
However, Petitioner acknowledged claim constructions from a related International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation involving family members of the ’772 patent and argued that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under those constructions.
Specifically, Petitioner argued that Leaning’s teaching of requesting sequentially numbered sub-files (e.g., 000000.bin, 000001.bin) meets the "time index" limitation as it was interpreted in the ITC proceeding, where a sequential number corresponding to playback order was found sufficient.

Petitioner argued extensively that discretionary denial under either 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d) is unwarranted.
Fintiv Factors: Petitioner asserted that denial under Fintiv is inappropriate because there is no trial date scheduled in the parallel district court litigation.
General Plastic/Serial Petitions: Petitioner contended that serial petition concerns do not apply. This is the first IPR filed by these Petitioners against the ’772 patent. While other parties have filed IPRs, Petitioners asserted they have no significant relationship with them. They also argued this petition is not an improper "roadmap" based on a Patent Owner response, as it presents identical positions to an already-instituted IPR (IPR2024-0919) and Petitioners were unaware of the Leaning reference before that IPR was filed.
Advanced Bionics Framework: Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the petition relies on Leaning, a reference that is not cumulative to the art considered during prosecution. Petitioner asserted Leaning teaches the critical "multiple files" limitation that the original examiner could not find in the prior art of record, and its consideration was not evidenced in the file history.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of Patent 8,868,772 as unpatentable.