PTAB

IPR2026-00052

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia Guides Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method, System, and Non-Transitory Computer Readable Medium for Providing Media Streams
  • Brief Description: The ’705 patent describes a method and system for an "intelligent streaming server" that improves the delivery of media streams. The server receives and maintains multiple media streams in separate buffers, identifies key frames within those streams, and upon receiving a connection request (e.g., a channel change), provides a key frame to the client device to initiate playback quickly and without distortion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are obvious over Mao in view of Liu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mao (Patent 6,728,965) and Liu (Patent 8,630,306).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mao, which is directed to rapidly changing channels in a digital video system, discloses the core elements of the challenged claims. Mao's broadband digital terminal (BDT) acts as a streaming server that receives multiple video streams from a video source (a media aggregation server), maintains each stream in a separate FIFO buffer, and identifies I-frames (key frames) as GOP start points. Upon receiving a channel change request, Mao’s BDT waits for the next I-frame of the requested channel before transmitting, thereby avoiding sending initial predictive frames. Petitioner contended that Liu, which describes an IPTV architecture, provides further detail on implementing a server-based system (a "video hub office") and a "channel buffer device" that buffers the latest I-frames for each channel to reduce latency. The combination of Mao's fundamental system with Liu's explicit server-based architecture and buffering details allegedly renders the claimed invention obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mao and Liu to solve the well-known problem of minimizing channel change delay. A POSITA would be motivated to implement Mao's rapid channel change system using Liu's more detailed server architecture and per-channel I-frame buffering strategy to further reduce transmission delays by storing streams closer to the user and ensuring the most recent I-frames are readily available.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as both references address the same technical problem using compatible, well-understood video streaming components (e.g., servers, buffers, I-frames, GOPs). Implementing Liu's buffering strategy within Mao's system was presented as a predictable integration of known technologies to achieve improved performance.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are obvious over Sherer in view of Wu-771.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sherer (Patent 7,904,581) and Wu-771 (Patent 7,965,771).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Sherer discloses a method for servicing channel change requests where a server system ingests digital video content, and a stream buffer stores up to one Group of Pictures (GOP) worth of each stream. Upon a channel change request, the server provides the buffered frames for the new channel starting with the first buffered I-frame (key frame). Petitioner argued that Wu-771 teaches a video acceleration module that improves on this by using separate, fixed buffers for each multicast stream that store a "fixed number of GOP's." The combination, therefore, teaches receiving multiple media streams, storing them in a plurality of buffers allocated on a per-GOP basis, and identifying key frames to service a channel change request.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Sherer's system with Wu-771's more advanced buffering technique to further enhance performance. Wu-771 explicitly teaches that buffering more GOPs (and thus more I-frames) allows a decoder to sync and display a picture faster. A POSITA would therefore incorporate Wu-771's multi-GOP buffering into Sherer’s system to ensure that the most recent I-frames are always stored and available, thereby further reducing channel change latency, a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because both references aim to speed up channel changes in digital video networks using compatible buffering techniques. Applying Wu-771's teaching of using separate, multi-GOP client buffers to Sherer's single-GOP buffering system was argued to be a straightforward and predictable design choice for improving a known system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are obvious over Mao alone, arguing Mao’s disclosure of using multiple buffers (one for each video channel) and storing at least one GOP per channel inherently meets the claim limitations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "wherein a plurality of buffers at the streaming server are allocated on a per group of pictures (GOP) basis" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term means "the streaming server allocates one or more different buffers for each group of pictures (GOP)." This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that prior art teaching buffering on a per-channel basis meets the limitation, as each channel's buffer would contain GOPs.
  • "identifying a next available key frame associated with the second media stream" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this means "identifying, by the streaming server, by decoding or partially decoding the frame, a next available key frame associated with the second media stream." This construction supports mapping prior art that describes decompressing or multiplexing a stream to meet the "identifying" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 of the ’705 patent as unpatentable.