VideoAmp Inc v. Nielsen Co US LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00555
• Patent #: 11,856,250
• Filed: January 30, 2025
• Petitioner(s): VideoAmp Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Methods and Apparatus to Determine a Duration of Media Presentation Based on Tuning Session Duration
• Brief Description: The ’250 patent discloses a system for determining media viewing duration for households where direct viewership data is unavailable. The system accesses "tuning session data" (e.g., channel and duration) from a broad population of media devices and "presentation session data" (e.g., actual viewing time) from a smaller subset of panelist households to generate a predictive model, which then estimates viewing duration for the broader population.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pecjak and Mirisola - Claims 1-8, 11-13, and 15-21 are obvious over [Pecjak](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00555/doc/1005) in view of [Mirisola](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00555/doc/1006).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pecjak (Application # 2016/0249098) and Mirisola (Patent 9,204,188).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pecjak discloses the core claimed system: a computing system that accesses tuning data from set-top boxes (STBs) in a larger population and viewing data from a smaller panelist group to create a "demographic attribution model" that projects person-level viewership for households without panelists. This maps directly to the ’250 patent's method of using data from a "first subset" (panelists) to model outcomes for a "second subset" (non-panelists). Petitioner asserted that Mirisola remedies a known deficiency in systems like Pecjak's by teaching the use of display device (e.g., television) power status, often obtained via an HDMI connection, to verify that media was actually presented. This provides the claimed "presentation session data" or "on/off durations" corresponding to a tuning session.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Mirisola’s power-status verification with Pecjak’s modeling system for the predictable purpose of improving data accuracy. Pecjak’s system relies on STB tuning data, which does not guarantee a connected television is powered on. Mirisola provides a known solution to this problem, and incorporating it would increase the reliability of the viewership data used in Pecjak's model, a key concern for advertisers and content providers who use such data.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that success was reasonably expected because both references are analogous art focused on television viewership measurement. The proposed modification involves applying a known technique (checking power status) through a standard, well-known interface (HDMI) to an existing system (Pecjak's), which would predictably yield more accurate viewership data without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar - Claims 9-10, 14, and 22-23 are obvious over Pecjak and Mirisola with or without [Shankar](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00555/doc/1013).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pecjak (Application # 2016/0249098), Mirisola (Patent 9,204,188), and Shankar (Patent 9,185,435).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Pecjak/Mirisola combination by adding Shankar's teaching of using a threshold number to ensure a sufficient sample size before applying statistical analysis. This addresses limitations in claims requiring a determination that the number of available tuning sessions is "at least a threshold number." For instance, Shankar teaches that different, more accurate probability techniques can be used when the number of households in a sample exceeds a threshold. Petitioner argued this directly maps to the claim limitation of determining if a threshold number of data points is met before proceeding with the model-based estimation. For claim 10, which recites a threshold of "five hundred," Petitioner provided evidence that 500 is a commonly recommended sample size for statistical validity in the art.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Shankar’s thresholding concept to ensure the statistical integrity of the viewership model generated by the Pecjak/Mirisola combination. It is a fundamental principle of data modeling that projections are more reliable when based on a sufficiently large data set. Shankar provides a formal method for this data validation step, which would have been a logical and obvious improvement to enhance the accuracy of the combined system's predictions.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involves applying a well-known data validation principle (ensuring minimum sample size) to a data analysis system. All three references are in the analogous art of TV viewership analysis, and the modification would have involved routine programming skill to implement a data count check before executing the projection model.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. It was asserted that the parallel district court proceeding has experienced minimal activity, with no trial schedule issued and a median time to trial exceeding 1,000 days. Petitioner contended that these facts, combined with the robust invalidity grounds presented, mean that the Fintiv factors weigh heavily in favor of instituting the inter partes review (IPR).

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-23 of Patent 11,856,250 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.