PTAB

IPR2025-01037

Intel Corp v. General Video LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Transmitting 2D and 3D Video Data Over Standard Interfaces
  • Brief Description: The ’786 patent relates to a system for transmitting 2D and 3D video over a standard display interface, such as HDMI. The invention purports to utilize the 48-bit data carrying capacity available under the HDMI 1.3 standard to transmit separate 24-bit left-eye and 24-bit right-eye image data for stereoscopic 3D display without modifying the standard interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 12-17, 19, and 21 are obvious over Tu, Suzuki, and Lida.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tu (Application # 2008/0134237), Suzuki (Application # 2007/0296859), and Lida (Application # 2008/0187028).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of Tu, Suzuki, and Lida rendered the challenged claims obvious. Tu was cited for its general disclosure of a system transmitting video data from a source device (e.g., DVD player) to a display device over a standard HDMI interface but lacked specific implementation details for 3D video. Suzuki was argued to supply these missing details by teaching the use of the excess data capacity in the HDMI 1.3 standard (48 bits per pixel) to transmit stereoscopic 3D video. Specifically, Suzuki disclosed multiplexing 24-bit left-eye and 24-bit right-eye data into a single 48-bit stream, mirroring the core concept of the ’786 patent. Suzuki also taught sending signaling information to the display device to indicate the operating mode (2D or 3D) and the data configuration. Finally, Lida was introduced to teach a specific, standard-compliant method for sending this signaling information. While Suzuki suggested using the DDC line, Lida disclosed transmitting such video-characterizing data within "InfoFrames" during the video stream's blanking periods, a method Petitioner argued was a well-known and efficient implementation under the HDMI standard.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Suzuki's detailed 2D/3D transmission method with Tu's general HDMI system to achieve the predictable benefit of adding 3D capability to a known system. This would enhance the user experience and maintain interoperability with other standard HDMI devices. The motivation to further incorporate Lida's teachings stemmed from the desire for a more efficient and robust implementation. A POSITA would recognize that using InfoFrames, as taught by Lida, was the intended and standardized method for transmitting signaling data over HDMI, freeing up the DDC channel for other communications and improving overall system design. This combination was presented as a simple substitution of one known signaling method (DDC line) for another (InfoFrames) to achieve a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a high expectation of success because all three references operate within the same field of HDMI technology and rely on its established standards. The proposed combination involved implementing known techniques (3D data multiplexing, standardized signaling) on a known device type (HDMI source/sink) to yield the predictable result of transmitting 3D video over a standard interface. Since the combination did not require modifying the underlying HDMI standard, a POSITA would have easily been able to integrate the teachings using off-the-shelf hardware and known engineering principles.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • To preempt a potential discretionary denial under §314(a) based on parallel district court litigation, Petitioner provided a Sotera stipulation. Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR proceeding is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court case any invalidity grounds that were raised or could have reasonably been raised in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 12-17, 19, and 21 of the ’786 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.