VideoAmp Inc v. Nielsen Co US LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00556
• Patent #: 11,871,058
• 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 ’058 patent discloses methods for determining media viewing duration by obtaining tuning data from media presentation devices like set-top boxes. The system uses data from a subset of households where actual viewership is known to create a model that can then predict viewership duration for other households where only tuning data is available.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Pecjak and Mirisola - Claims 1-8 and 12-21 are obvious over Pecjak in view of Mirisola.

• 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 disclosed the core method of the challenged claims. Pecjak taught a system that collected household-level tuning data from set-top boxes and used it to project person-level viewership. It created a "demographic attribution model" using data from a first subset of households (panelists with known viewing habits) to estimate viewing durations for a second subset (non-panelist households with unknown habits). Petitioner asserted this mapped to claim limitations requiring obtaining tuning data, using first and second subsets of environments, generating a model relating tuning duration to presentation duration, and determining an expected presentation duration. Mirisola was argued to supply the limitations related to using media output device power status (on/off durations) to refine the data. Mirisola disclosed collecting power status from televisions via an HDMI connection to determine if the display was actually on, thereby adjusting for "inaccurate tuning session data" where a set-top box might be on but the television is off.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Pecjak and Mirisola to improve the accuracy of Pecjak’s viewership projection model. By incorporating Mirisola’s technique of monitoring television power status, the system could filter out inaccurate tuning data, leading to more reliable viewership metrics and, consequently, more effective advertising and content rating systems.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. Both references operate in the same technical field of television viewership analytics, use analogous components (set-top boxes, televisions), and share the goal of accurately modeling viewership. Applying Mirisola’s known data verification technique (power status monitoring) to Pecjak’s known modeling system would be a predictable improvement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar - Claims 9-11 and 22-23 are obvious over Pecjak and Mirisola, with or without Shankar.

• 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 built upon the combination of Pecjak and Mirisola to address dependent claims 9-11 and 22-23, which added a requirement to first determine that the number of tuning sessions available to build the model is "at least a threshold number." Petitioner argued that Shankar explicitly taught this concept. Shankar disclosed using a "threshold value" for sample sizes to determine which probability calculation technique to apply for television exposure probabilities. It taught that if the number of households in a sample is above the threshold, a more accurate technique can be used, ensuring the model's projections have "acceptable accuracy." This directly mapped to the claimed step of verifying a threshold number of data points before proceeding with the determination.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Shankar's teachings to enhance the statistical reliability of the viewership model from the Pecjak-Mirisola combination. It was a well-understood principle that the accuracy of statistical projections depends on having a sufficiently large sample size. Shankar provided an explicit method for implementing this principle in the same field, which would improve the accuracy of the resulting viewership data.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as predictable. Applying a known statistical validation technique (ensuring minimum sample size as taught by Shankar) to a viewership modeling system (Pecjak-Mirisola) to improve its accuracy was a straightforward application of known principles to achieve a predictable result.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was not merited. It was asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in a nascent stage, with no case schedule issued, no claim construction conducted, and no substantive actions on invalidity having occurred. Given the long median time to trial in the district court, Petitioner contended that the IPR would resolve patentability issues far more efficiently and that factors weighing investment in the parallel case and overlap of issues strongly favored institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable.