PTAB

IPR2025-00350

Stingray Group Inc v. Hernandez Mondragon Edwin

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2025-00350
  • Patent #: 10,524,002
  • Filed: December 20, 2024
  • Petitioner(s): Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon
  • Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Media Streaming from a Cloud-Based System
  • Brief Description: The ’002 patent discloses a method and system for obtaining multimedia content from a cloud-based source (e.g., a website), assembling that content into a media stream, and providing the stream to a content provider (e.g., a cable operator) for broadcast. The core of the invention involves rendering a web page, generating a temporal sequence of screen captures of the dynamic page, and assembling those captures into a final media stream.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Avellan - Claims 1-6 and 13 are obvious over Avellan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avellan (Patent 8,954,600).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Avellan discloses all limitations of the independent method claims (1, 4, 13). Avellan teaches a gateway platform that receives user requests for web content (including live streaming television feeds), obtains the content from sources like the internet, and uses a remote virtual browser to render the web page. Crucially, Avellan’s gateway server "continuously captures images of the web page" to handle dynamic content like video, thereby generating a temporal sequence of screen captures. This captured data is then compressed into a video format and broadcast to users. Petitioner asserted that limitations added during prosecution, such as rendering a web page and generating screen captures, are explicitly taught by Avellan.
    • Motivation for Modification: For limitations not explicitly taught, such as rendering in "multiple threads" (claim 1h) and using HLS/RTSP streaming protocols (claim 1g), Petitioner contended these would be obvious modifications. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to use multithreading, a well-known technique referenced in Avellan via Java, to speed up the rendering process. Similarly, a POSITA would use standard, widely-known protocols like HLS and RTSP to efficiently deliver the "live streaming television feeds" that Avellan aims to broadcast.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying these standard, well-understood technologies to Avellan’s system to achieve predictable benefits of increased speed and interoperability.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Combination - Claims 1-6 and 13 are obvious over Avellan in view of Ma and Fain.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Avellan (Patent 8,954,600), Ma (Application # 2014/0150019), and Fain ("Java Programming 24-Hour Trainer").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Avellan for the base system, as in Ground 1. It supplemented Avellan with Ma to teach the use of specific streaming protocols and two-way control messages, and with Fain to explicitly teach multithreading. Ma discloses an over-the-top (OTT) media system that uses HLS and HTTP playlists (m3u8 files) for streaming and MPEG-TS segments with ID3 tags for interactive advertisement insertion, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "MPEG two way control messages." Fain is a Java programming textbook that explicitly teaches implementing multiple threads to run in parallel, a concept Petitioner argued is a natural implementation of Avellan’s disclosure that its processes "may be performed in parallel."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Avellan with Ma to implement standardized streaming protocols (HLS) for the live content Avellan describes, thereby improving interoperability and performance. The motivation to combine Avellan with Fain was strong because Avellan already references performing steps in parallel and the use of Java, making Fain's explicit teaching of multithreading an obvious implementation detail for efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as the combination involves integrating known, compatible technologies (HLS streaming, Java multithreading) into a system (Avellan) for their conventional purposes.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Wannamaker - Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are anticipated by Wannamaker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wannamaker (Application # 2004/0031052).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wannamaker discloses a "middleware solution" for cable TV operators that anticipates every element of the independent system claim 7. Wannamaker’s "application server" was argued to be the claimed "multicast server," which generates and outputs parameters (e.g., Mediacast signaling protocol objects) via MPEG. Its "content processor" was argued to be the claimed "caching server," which is communicatively coupled and configured to store these parameters. Wannamaker explicitly discloses rendering web content, including animated images (like GIFs) as a temporal sequence of separate frames, and assembling them into an MPEG video stream for delivery to set-top boxes. Finally, Wannamaker’s system was argued to have a "monitoring system" with extensive "fault tolerance" features, including failover support and redundant components, to maintain generation of video and audio files. Dependent claims 8 (load balancing), 9 (broadband network), 11 (audio MPEG files with metadata), and 12 (two-way interaction) were also allegedly disclosed.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 10 based on Wannamaker in view of Avellan.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a) or §325(d). The primary references relied upon—Avellan, Fain, and Wannamaker—were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’002 patent. Furthermore, the related district court litigation is in its early stages, and Petitioner stated its intent to seek a stay of that litigation pending the outcome of this IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’002 patent as unpatentable.