PTAB

IPR2025-00765

Amazon.com Inc v. Audio Pod IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Bookmarking a Virtual Audio Stream
  • Brief Description: The ’740 patent discloses a system for bookmarking a playback position within an audio stream that is stored as a plurality of smaller, separate digital audio files. The system uses a "descriptor file" to manage the ordering of these separate files and to select the correct file for playback based on a bookmark's time offset.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lindahl, DTB, and Yoshimura - Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are obvious over Lindahl in view of DTB and Yoshimura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindahl (European Patent Publication No. EP 1463258 A1), DTB (ANSI/NISO Z39.86-2002 standard), and Yoshimura (a 2003 journal article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lindahl taught the core elements of independent claim 12, including a system for playing segmented audiobooks, determining a playback position and time offset, creating a bookmark with that offset, and using the bookmark to resume playback. Lindahl also disclosed checking if an audio file is resident on a client device and downloading it if not. Petitioner contended that Lindahl lacked a specific disclosure for a "descriptor file" to order the plurality of audio files. DTB and Yoshimura were argued to supply this missing element, as both disclosed using Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) files as descriptor files to index, order, and manage segmented media files.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of DTB and Yoshimura with Lindahl’s system to provide a concrete mechanism for Lindahl’s vague "administrative interaction" required to manage its segmented audio files. Petitioner asserted this combination was a predictable application of a known technique (using SMIL files) to improve a known system (Lindahl’s). Further motivation was provided by Lindahl’s own disclosure that its invention is "adapted for use with the DAISY audio book standard," which is a standard that includes DTB.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because implementing a standard, well-understood SMIL file structure within Lindahl's system was a routine design choice for managing segmented media.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hanson, Yoshimura, Bulterman, and Fredrickson - Claims 12-13 are obvious over Hanson in view of Yoshimura, Bulterman, and Fredrickson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,922,045), Yoshimura (a 2003 journal article), Bulterman (a 2004 textbook on SMIL 2.0), and Fredrickson (Patent 8,224,964).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hanson served as the primary reference, disclosing a system for rendering a segmented audio stream, determining a user's position and time offset, creating a bookmark, and resuming playback from the bookmarked position. To supply the "descriptor file" limitation, Petitioner cited Yoshimura and Bulterman, which both taught using SMIL files to order and manage segmented audio files. To supply the limitations of determining if a file is resident on the computer before downloading (claim 12[g]-[h]), Petitioner cited Fredrickson, which taught a client-side "cache assistant" that checks a local cache for a requested document before retrieving it from a server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hanson with Yoshimura/Bulterman because using a SMIL file was a well-known and advantageous method for indexing the segmented audio "blocks" described in Hanson. This combination would predictably solve bandwidth and file management issues. Similarly, a POSITA would be motivated to add Fredrickson's client-side cache check to Hanson’s system to improve efficiency and reduce latency, which was a common and predictable optimization for any client-server system that retrieves content.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in these combinations because they involved applying known, standard techniques (SMIL files for indexing, local cache checks for efficiency) to a known type of system (segmented audio delivery) to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Ground 1B argued claim 15 is obvious over the Ground 1A references and Sull (Application # 2002/0069218), which taught offsetting a bookmark by subtracting a predetermined value to "refresh the user's memory." Ground 2B argued claims 14-17 are obvious over the Ground 2A references and Sull for similar reasons.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition was filed early in a parallel district court proceeding where no trial date was set, and minimal investment had occurred. Petitioner contended that a stay of the litigation was likely. Petitioner also stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it would not pursue any invalidity ground in the district court that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition.
  • Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the prior art references and arguments presented in the petition were not previously considered by the USPTO during prosecution and are not cumulative of the prior art of record.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 12-17 of the ’740 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.