PTAB

IPR2025-00468

WebGroup Czech Republic As v. DISH Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Adaptive-Rate Content Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’680 patent discloses systems and methods for adaptive multi-bitrate streaming of content. The technology involves a server storing content segments, called "streamlets," at different bitrates, allowing a client device to select and request appropriate streamlets based on network conditions to ensure smooth playback.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Leaning - Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-29 are obvious over Leaning

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (Patent 7,447,791).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Leaning taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Leaning disclosed an adaptive streaming system where content is divided into a sequence of "sub-files" (the claimed "streamlets") stored in separate directories corresponding to different quality levels (e.g., low, medium, high). A client terminal requests these sub-files sequentially and can switch between quality levels by requesting the next sub-file from a different directory based on network assessments. Petitioner asserted that Leaning’s "index file" and "menu.htm" files, which list available data rates and recordings, met the "virtual timeline" limitation. Leaning also taught that corresponding sub-files across different bitrates represent the same temporal portion of the content and have the same duration.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference. For the limitation requiring a bitrate of at least 600 kbps, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Leaning’s examples used low bitrates for audio, but it expressly taught applying the system to video. A POSITA would have been motivated to use higher, conventional bitrates for video (such as those supported by the H.261 codec mentioned in Leaning) to provide an acceptable user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying higher bitrates for video, as it was a simple and known modification to use standard video codecs to provide better quality when bandwidth allowed.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Leaning and Leighton - Claim 7 is obvious over Leaning in view of Leighton

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (Patent 7,447,791), Leighton (Patent 6,553,413).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 7, which added the limitation of "a plurality of web servers located at different locations across the internet." While Leaning taught a single-server system, Leighton disclosed a distributed network architecture (a content delivery network or CDN) that used multiple servers in different geographic locations to serve content to users from the closest server, thereby improving delivery speed and reliability.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Leighton’s multi-server CDN architecture with Leaning’s adaptive streaming system to improve performance. The motivation was to reduce latency and minimize delays for the user, a well-understood goal in the field of internet content delivery.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a reasonable expectation of success because both Leaning and Leighton addressed improving client-server content delivery over the internet, and integrating a known CDN architecture with a known streaming protocol was a straightforward engineering choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Leaning and Reme - Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-29 are obvious over Leaning in view of Reme

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Leaning (Patent 7,447,791), Reme (WO 2004/030310).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground provided an alternative argument for the limitation requiring at least one stream encoded at 600 kbps or higher. Leaning provided the foundational adaptive streaming system. Reme was introduced for its explicit teaching of encoding video content at a wide range of quality levels, including high-bitrate versions such as 5 Mbps (5,000 kbps), to accommodate clients with different network conditions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Reme's teaching of using high-bitrate encodings with Leaning's system to offer a more robust adaptive streaming service. This would allow users with high-bandwidth connections to enjoy a higher-quality viewing experience, a clear and desirable goal for any streaming service.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success, as the combination involved applying a known range of encoding bitrates (from Reme) to an existing adaptive streaming framework (from Leaning), which was a simple and predictable modification.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-29 based on Leaning in view of SMIL 2.0, arguing SMIL 2.0 explicitly taught using markup language to create a "virtual timeline" that defines a playlist of content files.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "virtual timeline": Petitioner argued that while no formal construction was necessary, the term should be understood by its ordinary meaning, which, according to the ’680 patent’s specification, is "a playlist of entire content files." This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Leaning's "menu.htm" and "index file" met the limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no discovery conducted, and a motion to dismiss pending. Petitioner contended that the Board’s Final Written Decision would issue long before a district court trial. Further, Petitioner argued the petition presented compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO or any court, weighing heavily in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 and 14-29 of the ’680 patent as unpatentable.