Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 2, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 2, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Twitter, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’304 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Youtoo Technologies,
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. Institution of an
`inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented
`in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the information
`presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–
`26, and 28–30 of the ’304 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’304 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Youtoo Technologies, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
`cv-00764-N (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’304 Patent
`The ʼ304 patent is directed to computer methods and systems for
`receiving and distributing user-generated video content. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a content creation and distribution system (CCDS)
`202. Id. at 13:61–62. System 200 can include several servers connected to
`one or more communications network(s) 204. Id. at 13:61–66. CCDS 202
`includes a plurality of servers 206, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, and 218. CCDS
`202 communicates with a television distribution system 220, that can include
`a network operations center for a television network and/or uplink facility
`from which a television network feed is distributed to carriers 228 that
`provide television services. Id. at 14:18–22. A user having a mobile device
`230 capable of capturing SD or HD video or a computing device 232 having
`a video camera 234 can connect to the communications network(s) 204 and
`interface with CCDS 202. Id. at 14:30–36. Web hosting server 206
`provides one or more web pages through which users can access services
`provided by CCDS 202. Id. at 14:36–38. Web hosting server 206 can host a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`registration web page that allows users to register with the CCDS 202 and a
`HD recorder web page that provides users with access to a thin client
`application (or web application) that supports video capture. Id. at 14:38–
`42. Web hosting server 206 also can allow fat client applications to be
`downloaded and installed on mobile device 230 or computing device 232.
`Id. at 14:44–46.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30 of
`the ’304 patent. Claims 1, 17, 22, and 26 are independent claims. Claim 1,
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1. A method performed by data processing apparatus, the
`method comprising:
`receiving video data from a client computing device at a
`server system, wherein the video data is captured using a
`camera connected to the client computing device in accordance
`with instructions executed on the client computing device,
`wherein the instructions are provided to the client computing
`device by the server system and cause the video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints and the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the
`instructions;
`automatically transcoding the video data, using a server
`included in the server system, into at least one different format
`based on at least one of user credentials associated with a user
`of the client computing device or attributes associated with the
`video data, wherein at least one format of the transcoded video
`data defines a video file in a format appropriate for inclusion in
`a linear television programming broadcast; and
`uploading the transcoded video data to a distribution
`server for distribution.
`
`Id. at 27:57–28:10.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26, and 28
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30
`are unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Lahti1, Current TV
`Mobile2, and Current TV
`FAQ3
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and Washington4
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, Washington, and
`Franken5
`Lahti, Chen, and APA6
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and APA
`Lahti
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 13, 29, and 30
`
`17 and 19–21
`
`22–25
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 4, 5, and 9
`
`
`1 Janne Lahti et al., “A Mobile Phone-based Context-Aware Video
`Management Application,” Multimedia on Mobile Devices II, Proc. of
`SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vol. 6074, 60740O, 2006 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Lahti”).
`2 Current TV “create & upload: mobile” webpage (Ex. 1009) (“Current TV
`Mobile”).
`3 Current TV “FAQ” webpage (Ex. 1011) (“Current TV FAQ”).
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0235200 A1, filed Mar. 21,
`2007, published Sept. 25, 2008 (Ex. 1007) (“Washington”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0012965 A1, filed June 30,
`2008, published Jan. 8, 2009 (Ex. 1008) (“Franken”).
`6 Admitted Prior Art (Ex. 1001, 1:39–40) (“APA”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms found
`in the challenged claims: “‘predetermined constraints’ (all claims),”
`“‘transcoding’ (claims 1, 19, 22, 26),” and “‘buffered on the client
`computing device using scripts’ (claim 5).” Pet. 7–10.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed constructions and determine
`that they are consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation. For
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`predetermined
`constraints
`
`Construction
`parameters, rules, or restrictions provided to ensure
`compliance and compatibility with system
`requirements or goals, including but not limited to
`video length, video format type, video image
`resolution, and video transmission bit rate
`
`transcoding
`
`converting from one video format to another
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Claim Term
`
`buffered on the
`client computing
`device using scripts
`
`Construction
`temporarily storing data in memory of the client
`computing device using a computer program,
`software application, or other unit of computer
`code
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness of Claims over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, and
`Current TV FAQ
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26, and 28 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, and Current TV FAQ. Pet. 10–41. In support of its showing,
`Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Henry Houh. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Lahti
`Lahti describes a video management system including a video server
`and a mobile camera-phone application called MobiCon. Ex. 1006, 1
`(Abstract). MobiCon allows a user to capture videos, annotate them with
`metadata, specify digital rights management (DRM) settings, upload videos
`over a cellular network, and share the videos with others. Id. Lahti
`describes that the MobiCon application is downloaded over the air to a
`mobile camera-phone. Id. at 5. MobiCon operates on the Candela system
`architecture, which was developed as a solution for general video
`management and includes tools for video creation, analysis, annotation,
`storage, search, and delivery phases. Id. at 4. Figure 3 of Lahti is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Lahti is a high-level description of MobiCon.
`As shown above, the UploadClient, which is a mobile Java
`application, runs on a mobile phone, and UploadGateway, which is
`implemented as a Java servlet, runs on the server. The system provides
`wireless access over a mobile phone network to enable storing video clips on
`the server where it is possible to run more computation-intensive operations
`such as video transcoding. Id. at 5.
`
`2. Current TV Mobile and Current TV FAQ7
`Current TV Mobile states the following:
`
`
`
`
`7 Petitioner contends that Current TV was an interactive television channel
`in the U.S. that permitted viewers to submit video content to be included in
`television programming. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1018, 8). Petitioner further
`argues that Current TV had an associated website that described the
`channel’s programming, scheduling, promotions, as well as how viewers
`could participate in programming by submitting their own content. Pet. 12.
`According to Petitioner, Current TV Mobile (Ex. 1009), Current TV
`Submission Guidelines (Ex. 1010), and Current TV FAQ (Ex. 1011) are
`pages from the Current TV associated website that were publically available
`by December 31, 2007. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1016, 1, 11–14, 19–29).
`Petitioner refers to pages from the website (Ex. 1009–1011) as the “Current
`TV References.” Pet. 12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Don’t just watch content on your mobile phone, make content
`and let the world see it—on Current’s national TV network—
`now available in 28 million homes. Current is the first and only
`TV network to showcase your mobile videos.
`
`Check out the call outs below, watch a sample, shoot some
`footage with your video phone and find out how the content you
`capture with your mobile can pay those coverage charges. Oh,
`and make sure what you send to Current is something you and
`your friends would want to watch on TV!
`
`Ex. 1009, 2 (emphasis omitted).
`Current TV FAQ describes a POD as a short video that is anywhere
`from one minute to seven or eight minutes. Ex. 1011, 3.
`
`3. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Lahti, Current TV Mobile,
`and Current TV FAQ describes all of the elements of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–
`16, 26, and 28. Pet. 14–41. We begin our analysis with claim 1. Petitioner
`relies on Lahti to meet all of the limitations of claim 1 except for the
`limitation of “wherein at least one format of the transcoded video data
`defines a video file in a format appropriate for inclusion in a linear television
`programming broadcast.” Id.
`Claim 1 recites a “method performed by data processing apparatus,
`the method comprising: receiving video data from a client computing device
`at a server system.” The present record supports the contention that Lahti
`describes a server system (e.g., Figure 3 server and “Upload Gateway”) that
`performs data processing functions to process videos captured and uploaded
`by users’ mobile phones (client computing device). Pet. 15–18 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 1, 2, 5, 6, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–86).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`The present record further supports the contention that Lahti describes
`“wherein the video data is captured using a camera connected to the client
`computing device in accordance with instructions executed on the client
`computing device” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 19–21. Lahti describes a
`mobile phone having an integrated camera for capturing video data.
`Ex. 1006, 1. Petitioner contends, with supporting evidence, that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the client
`computing device (e.g., mobile phone) and Lahti’s video camera are
`“connected” because the mobile phone has an integrated camera. Pet. 19
`(citing Ex. 1006, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends, with
`supporting evidence, that Lahti describes that the mobile phone (client
`computing device) uses a software application called MobiCon (UIManager)
`executed on the mobile phone to capture video. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1006,
`5, 6, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–93).
`Claim 1 recites “wherein the instructions are provided to the client
`computing device by the server system and cause the video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints and the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate defined by the instructions.”
`The present record supports the contention that Lahti describes providing to
`the mobile phone (client computing device), MobiCon (instructions) from
`the server system server. Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1006, 5 (“The server allows
`distribution of MobiCon application easily to mobile phone users by using
`Over-The-Air (OTA) specification from the Open Mobile Alliance, which
`enables mobile applications to be downloaded and installed over the cellular
`network.”)). The present record further supports the contention that Lahti
`describes that MobiCon provides parameters that include a frame rate
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`defined by the instructions by which the mobile device (on which the
`application is executing) captures video data. Pet. 21–23 (citing Ex. 1006, 6;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–99).
`Claim 1 further recites “automatically transcoding the video data,
`using a server included in the server system, into at least one different
`format based on at least one of user credentials associated with a user of the
`client computing device or attributes associated with the video data.” The
`present record supports the contention that Lahti describes that video
`received by the server VideoManager servlet transcodes uploaded video data
`into at least one different format. Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1006, 6, 7; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 102, 105, 106; Ex. 1015, 12).
`The present record supports the contention that Lahti in combination
`with Current TV Mobile and Current TV FAQ describe “wherein at least
`one format of the transcoded video data defines a video file in a format
`appropriate for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast.” Pet.
`25–27. Lahti describes transcoding video data into multiple formats,
`including H.263 and H.264. Ex. 1006, 7. The present record supports the
`contention that H.264 format was employed in television programming
`broadcasts at the time of the invention. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108;
`Ex. 1015, 4). The present record further supports the contention that Current
`TV Mobile and Current TV FAQ each discloses a linear television
`broadcasting channel that received and broadcasted short videos submitted
`by viewers. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 1011, 3–8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–
`114). Petitioner provides reasons for combining Lahti, Current TV Mobile,
`and Current TV FAQ. Pet. 13–14, 27. For instance, Petitioner contends that
`Current TV discloses a practical application of using the teachings of Lahti,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`“namely to take the video content created using the MobiCon application
`and submit it to be included in the Current TV programming,” and that
`Current TV provided a monetary reason for Lahti users to create and submit
`video content for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast.
`Pet. 13.
`Lastly, claim 1 recites “uploading the transcoded video data to a
`distribution server for distribution.” The present record supports the
`contention that Lahti describes storing uploaded video at the server via the
`Candela Interface and uploading videos to a streaming server for
`distribution. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1006, 4–6, Fig. 2; Ex. 1011, 3–8;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115–118).
`Independent claim 26 is similar to claim 1, and Petitioner’s showing is
`nearly the same for claim 26 as that for claim 1. See Pet. 29–30. For similar
`reasons to those provided above, the present record supports Petitioner’s
`contention that Lahti in combination with Current TV Mobile and Current
`TV FAQ would have rendered obvious claim 26. Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14–
`16 depend directly from claim 1, and claim 28 depends directly from
`independent claim 26. Petitioner’s contentions demonstrate, at this stage of
`the proceeding, that claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, and 28 would have been
`obvious over Lahti in combination with Current TV Mobile and Current TV
`FAQ. See Pet. 30–41.
`For all of the above reasons, we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26,
`and 28 as obvious over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, and Current TV FAQ.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV FAQ,
`and Washington
`
`Petitioner contends claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV FAQ, and
`Washington. Pet. 41–44. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon
`the declaration of Dr. Henry Houh. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`Petitioner has accounted sufficiently for the limitations of claim 11.
`Claim 11 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “performing an
`automated review of at least one of the video data or the transcoded video
`data to identify potentially inappropriate content.” The present record
`supports the contention that Washington discloses a multimedia-content
`delivery system for automatically identifying protected content on a content
`delivery system, such as identifying potentially inappropriate content. Pet.
`41–42 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 1, 15, 33). Petitioner further provides reasons for
`combining Washington with Lahti and the Current TV references. Pet. 42–
`43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 217–229).
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claim 11 would have been obvious over Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV FAQ, and Washington.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, Washington, and Franken
`
`Petitioner contends claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, Washington, and Franken. Pet. 44–58. In support of its showing,
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Henry Houh. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003).
`Petitioner has accounted sufficiently for the limitations of claims 12,
`13, 29, and 30. Claim 12 depends directly from claim 11 and recites
`“retrieving the transcoded video data for manual review” and
`“presenting a review interface adapted to: provide an indication of at least
`one frame within the transcoded video file including content identified as
`potentially inappropriate content” and “allow[ing] an administrator to select
`the transcoded video file for manual review.”
`With respect to claim 12, Petitioner contends that Washington
`describes retrieving transcoded data for manual review and that the
`potentially inappropriate content is sent to a human reviewer for manual
`review in a number of ways. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 15, 42).
`Petitioner relies on Franken for its description of a “review interface” for
`manual review. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 54, 60, 87–99, Figs. 8–14).
`Petitioner further contends that Franken in combination with Washington
`teaches “provid[ing] an indication of at least one frame within the
`transcoded video file including content identified as potentially
`inappropriate content” and provides reasons for combining Franken and
`Washington. Pet. 49–51. Lastly, Petitioner contends that Franken describes
`allowing an administrator to select the file for manual review as claimed in
`claim 12. Pet. 51–52. Claim 29 depends from claim 26 and is similar to
`claim 12. Petitioner’s showing with respect to claim 29 is similar to its
`showings with respect to claim 12. Pet. 55–56. We also have reviewed
`Petitioner’s showings with respect to claim 13 and claim 30, which are
`similar to those for claim 12.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claims 12, 13, 29, and 30 would have been obvious over
`Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV FAQ, Washington, and Franken.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Lahti, Chen, and APA
`Petitioner contends claims 17 and 19–21 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lahti, Chen, and APA. Pet. 59–67. In
`support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Henry
`Houh. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`Independent claim 17 is similar to independent claims 1 and 26,
`except that claim 17 includes that the video data captured is “high definition
`video” and that “at least a portion of the formatted high definition video
`data” is transmitted “to a storage server of the server system during the
`continuous recording segment.” The present record supports the contention
`that Lahti in combination with Chen and APA describes all of the elements
`of claim 17. For example, Petitioner contends that “high definition video”
`was well known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 59 (citing Ex.
`1001, 1:39–40). Petitioner further contends, with supporting evidence, that
`it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that
`consumer equipment such as that disclosed in Lahti was able to capture and
`transmit high definition video. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 365). Petitioner
`relies on Chen for its description of transmitting recorded video data in real
`time while it is being captured. Pet. 60, 65 (citing Ex. 1017, 3:65–4:3; Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 415–419). Petitioner further provides reasons for combining Lahti,
`Chen, and APA. Pet. 60–62. We also have reviewed and considered
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Petitioner’s showing for claims 19–21, which depend from claim 17. Pet.
`65–67.
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claims 17 and 19–21 would have been obvious over Lahti,
`Chen, and APA.
`
`F. Asserted Obviousness over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and APA
`
`Petitioner contends claims 22–25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV FAQ, and
`APA. Pet. 68–74. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the
`declaration of Dr. Henry Houh. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`Independent claim 22 is similar to independent claim 17, except that
`claim 22 does not require transmitting video data “during the continuous
`recording segment.” Claim 22 also differs from claim 17 in that claim 22
`requires “establishing a connection with a content submission server in
`response to a user selection to upload the high definition video data,” and
`“wherein the predetermined constraints are adapted to facilitate transcoding
`of the formatted high definition video data into a format appropriate for
`inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast.” The present record
`supports Petitioner’s contention that Lahti in combination with Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV FAQ, and APA describe all of the elements of claim 22,
`for reasons similar to its showing with respect to claim 17, accounting for
`differences between claim 17 and claim 22. Pet. 69–71. Petitioner further
`provides reasons for combining Lahti, Current TV Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and APA. Id. at 68. We also have reviewed and considered
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`Petitioner’s showing for claims 23–25, which depend from claim 22. Pet.
`71–74.
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claims 22–25 would have been obvious over Lahti, Current
`TV Mobile, Current TV FAQ, and APA.
`
`G. Anticipation of claims over Lahti
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 4, and 9 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lahti. Pet. 74–75. Petitioner argues
`that the Current TV references are relied on for the first challenge for claims
`1, 4, and 9 because the Current TV references disclose submitting user-
`created video clips for inclusion in a linear television programming
`broadcast, but that a proper reading of the claim language makes clear that
`“inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast” is not actually
`required for claim 1. Id. at 74. Rather, Petitioner argues, claim 1 requires
`that the claimed format be appropriate for inclusion in a linear television
`programming broadcast, but does not require that the video actually be
`included in a television programming broadcast. Id. at 74–75.
`Based on the current record before us, we determine the information
`presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing that claims 1, 4, and 9 are anticipated by Lahti.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`showing that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–30 of the ’304 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14–16, 26, and 28
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 13, 29, and 30
`
`17 and 19–21
`
`22–25
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11–17, 19–26, and 28–
`30 of the ’304 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, and Current TV
`FAQ
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and Washington
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, Washington, and
`Franken
`Lahti, Chen, and APA
`Lahti, Current TV
`Mobile, Current TV
`FAQ, and APA
`Lahti
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 4, 5, and 9
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Todd M. Siegel
`Andrew M. Mason
`Robert T. Cruzen
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`rob.cruzen@klarquist.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Scott McKeown
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`Spencer C. Patterson
`GRABLE MARTIN FULTON PLLC
`spatterson@gchub.com
`
`Stephen L. Levine
`CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.
`slevine@ccsb.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
