PTAB

IPR2026-00047

Amazon Web Services Inc v. Touchmusic Entertainment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Real-Time Music Distribution Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’128 patent discloses a music distribution system comprising a plurality of regional networks. Each network includes a "distribution center" with a library of music tracks for local users, and a central "control center" handles requests for music not found in a regional library by sourcing it from another region.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yurt and Logan - Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17 are obvious over Yurt in view of Logan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yurt (Patent 5,132,992) and Logan (Patent 5,732,216).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yurt discloses the core architecture of the challenged claims. Yurt teaches a system for distributing digital audio/video information over cable or satellite networks from multiple regional "transmission systems" to user "reception systems." Each transmission system functions as a claimed "distribution center," containing its own "compressed data library" of files. Crucially, Yurt discloses a central "remote order processing and item database" that functions as the claimed "central controller." This central database coordinates the system, manages lists of available titles across all libraries, and facilitates "inter-library transfers" when a requested file is not available in a local library, thereby routing files between the regional transmission systems.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Yurt with Logan to implement enhanced user data tracking. Yurt teaches tracking basic information like item popularity to optimize storage but lacks detail on implementing comprehensive user data logging. Logan explicitly teaches a system that maintains a "user data and usage log database" to record user preferences, demographics, and request history for purposes such as billing and adapting content offerings based on actual usage. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Logan's known data logging techniques into Yurt’s system to improve it in a predictable way, such as for billing or to better track popular files for more efficient distribution—a goal already stated in Yurt.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Yurt and Logan describe systems built on compatible, conventional technologies like cable/satellite networks and general-purpose computer components. Integrating Logan’s method of logging user request data into Yurt’s existing database and control structure would have been a straightforward application of known database management principles to achieve a predictable improvement.

    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the central controller limitation, a key feature distinguished during prosecution, is directly taught by Yurt’s remote order processing database, which uses "dispatching control software" to coordinate network traffic and direct the transfer of files between different regional libraries when an item is unavailable locally. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Logan’s teachings on using "cable modem and satellite links" for bidirectional communication would have made it obvious to implement Yurt’s network interfaces with both input and output capabilities for receiving requests and transmitting data. Further, Logan’s disclosure of using logged data for "subscriber and advertiser billing" and "market analysis processing" directly suggests the motivation for claim 14’s limitation of using recorded request information for marketing and billing.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17 of the ’128 patent as unpatentable.