Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC

Petition

Petition summary

Invalidity analysis

Prosecution analysis

Examiner search

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00765](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765)
- Patent #: [8738740](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8738740)
- Filed: March 20, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Amazon.com, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-com-inc), Amazon.com Services LLC, [Amazon Web Services, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-web-services-inc) and [Audible, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/audible-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Audio Pod IP, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/audio-pod-ip-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 12-17

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Method and System for Providing Audio Programs
- Brief Description: The [’740](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1001) patent relates to systems for bookmarking a position within an audio stream that is segmented into a plurality of smaller digital audio files. The system uses a descriptor file to index and order the separate audio files, allowing a media player to select the correct file for playback based on a bookmark's time offset and then download it if not locally resident.

## 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](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) (European Patent Publication No. EP 1463258 A1), [DTB](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1003) (SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DIGITAL TALKING BOOK (2002)), and [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006) (Content Delivery Network Architecture for Mobile Streaming Service Enabled by SMIL Modification (2003)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Lindahl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) taught the core functionality of independent claim 12, including a system for playing segmented audiobooks from a server, determining a playback position and time offset, creating a bookmark with that offset, checking if a required audio file is resident on a client device, and downloading the file if it is not. Petitioner contended that while [Lindahl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) disclosed the need for an "administrative interaction" to manage the segmented files, it did not explicitly detail a descriptor file. The Digital Talking Book ([DTB](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1003)) standard and [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006) were introduced to supply this missing element, as both disclosed using a Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) file as a descriptor file to index and order a plurality of media files for sequential playback.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because [Lindahl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) expressly stated its invention was "adapted for use with the DAISY audio book standard," a standard directly related to [DTB](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1003). A POSITA would therefore look to the [DTB](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1003) standard to implement [Lindahl](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004)’s system, finding the use of a SMIL file to manage segmented audio. [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006) further confirmed the benefits of using SMIL files for this purpose. The combination was presented as the application of a known indexing technique (SMIL files) to improve a known system ([Lindahl's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) segmented audio playback).
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the systems was a predictable integration of standard technologies. [Lindahl’s](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1004) explicit reference to the related standard provided a direct roadmap for the combination.

#### 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](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033) (Patent 5,922,045), [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006), [Bulterman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1007) (SMIL 2.0, INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA FOR WEB AND MOBILE DEVICES (2004)), and [Fredrickson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1034) (Patent 8,224,964).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that [Hanson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033) disclosed a system for rendering a segmented audio stream, including determining a position and time offset, creating a bookmark, and using the bookmark to resume playback. However, Petitioner argued [Hanson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033) did not explicitly teach using a descriptor file or checking a client cache before downloading. [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006) and [Bulterman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1007) were cited to teach using a SMIL file as a descriptor to index and manage segmented content. [Fredrickson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1034) was introduced to teach a "client cache assistant" that checks for the local existence of a file before retrieving it from a server, fulfilling the requirements of claim limitations 12[g] and 12[h].
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Hanson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033) with [Yoshimura](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1006) and [Bulterman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1007) to provide a concrete, standard-based implementation (SMIL) for managing the "discrete blocks" of audio described in [Hanson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033). This addresses the known problem of efficiently indexing segmented media. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate [Fredrickson's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1034) client-side caching method into [Hanson’s](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033) system to improve performance and reduce network latency, a well-known and desirable optimization for any client-server content delivery system.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success would be expected as the combination involved applying conventional, well-understood techniques (SMIL-based indexing, client-side caching) to an existing system ([Hanson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1033)) to achieve their well-known benefits in a predictable manner.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted that claim 15 is obvious over the combinations in Ground 1 and Ground 2 with the further addition of [Sull](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1005) (Application # 2002/0069218). [Sull](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1005) was argued to teach subtracting a predetermined value from a bookmark's time offset (a "rewind" feature to refresh a user's memory), rendering the specific offset calculation of claim 15 obvious. Petitioner also argued claims 14-17 were obvious over the Ground 2A combination plus [Sull](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1005).

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on *Fintiv* factors is inappropriate. Petitioner contended that a stay in the parallel district court litigation is likely, no trial date is set, and the parties have invested very little in the litigation, with significant work like discovery and claim construction yet to occur. Therefore, the PTAB proceeding would be more efficient.
- Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) is not appropriate because the prior art references and specific invalidity arguments presented in the petition have not been previously considered by the USPTO.
- The petition is one of two concurrently filed against the [’740](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1001) patent, with each petition challenging a different independent claim and its dependents based on different prior art, which Petitioner asserted is necessary due to the distinct subject matter of the claims.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 12-17 of the [’740](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00765/doc/1001) patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Amazon targets audio bookmarking patent: Lindahl & DTB prior art cited for claims 12-17 as obvious over using SMIL files to manage audio segments.

IPR2025-00765

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC