IPR2018-01187, -01630
`Netflix, Inc.
`v.
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Patent 9,769,477
`
`Served October 7, 2019
`
`Presented October 15, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`Netflix, Inc.
`v.
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Patent 9,769,477
`
`Served October 7, 2019
`
`Presented October 15, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`2
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Petitions Do Not Identify The Claimed “first” Or
`“second” Encoders
`
`The Petitions must explain “how any specific
`combination would operate or read on” the
`claims. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
`Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327-28 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012).
`
`POR at 8
`
`4
`
`
`
`The Petitions Do Not Identify The Claimed “first” Or
`“second” Encoders
`
`Limitation 1[B] requires specifying which of at
`least two encoders is the “first asymmetric data
`compression encoder” that is “configured to
`compress . . . video or image data” and which is
`the “second asymmetric data compression
`encoder” that is configured to compress video or
`image data.
`
`POR at 10 (quoting Ex. 1001 at Cl. 1[B])
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Storer Would Only Say That the “first” Encoder Is
`Whichever Is “faster”
`
`“And that encoder that is faster, for example,
`would correspond to a first encoder, and the one
`that is slower, that is being replaced -- for
`example, in that example, would correspond to a
`second encoder.” Ex. 2003 at 66:13-67:9
`
`POR at 11-12 (quoting Ex. 2003 at 66:13-67:9)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dr. Storer Would Only Say That the “first” Encoder Is
`Whichever Is “faster”
`
`• The references never disclose the relative
`speeds of any encoders.
`
`• The references never disclose sufficient
`information to determine the relative speeds
`of any encoders.
`
`POR at 13-16
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Petitions Do Not Identify The Claimed “first” Or
`“second” Encoders
`
`Petitioners also fail to indicate which would be
`the claimed “first” and “second” encoders of
`Claim 20.
`
`POR at 51-53
`
`8
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`9
`
`
`
`The “first” encoder must compress at a higher rate than
`the “second” encoder because it is designed to do so.
`
`• Aspex Eyewear v. Marchon Eyewear, 672 F.3d 1335,
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs., 822 F.3d 1282,
`1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Altera, 2013 WL 3913646, at
`*7 (D. Del. July 26, 2013)
`
`• SIPCO v. Abb, 2012 WL 3112302, at *7 (E.D. Tex. July
`30, 2012)
`
`POR at 17-19
`
`10
`
`
`
`The ’477 Patent Uses “configured to” To Convey
`Purposeful Design
`
`• “In this way, a system can be configured to achieve
`greater speed, while not sacrificing disk space.” Ex.
`1001 at 18:26-41.
`
`• The specification describes a “programmable logic
`device” being “configured for its environment.” Ex.
`1001 at 16:37-40.
`
`POR at 19-20
`
`11
`
`
`
`The Invention Relies On The Predictable Relationship
`Between The Speeds Of The Encoders
`
`• Where the speed of the encoder causes a “bottleneck”
`because “the compression system cannot maintain
`the required or requested data rates,” “then the
`controller will command the data compression system
`to utilize a compression routine providing faster
`compression . . . so as to mitigate or eliminate the
`bottleneck.” Ex. 1001 at 14:14-24.
`
`• The invention switches to a “faster rate of
`compression” when the “throughput falls below a
`predetermined threshold” “so as to increase the
`throughput.” Ex. 1001 at 8:12-18.
`
`POR at 3, 21
`
`12
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners Argue that limitation 1[B]
`would be met by chance
`
`“A POSITA would have understood that it is only a
`remote possibility that any two different
`asymmetric data compression encoders would
`have the same execution speed, and therefore
`the obvious result of including two or more
`different asymmetric compression encoders is
`that one encoder would have a higher data
`compression rate than another encoder.” Pet.
`21.
`
`POR at 22-24
`
`14
`
`
`
`Imai Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 26 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0068])
`
`15
`
`
`
`Imai Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 28 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0068])
`
`16
`
`
`
`Imai Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 28-29 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0068])
`
`17
`
`
`
`Imai Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`Sur-Reply at 7-9 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0067])
`
`18
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Not Modify Imai to
`Meet Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 30-34 (citing Ex. 1005 at [0145])
`
`19
`
`
`
`Pauls Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 37-38 (citing Ex. 1007 at [0010])
`
`20
`
`
`
`Pauls Does Not Disclose Limitation 1[B]
`
`POR at 38-39 (discussing Ex. 1007 at Fig. 5)
`
`21
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Petition Must Explain the Motivation to Combine
`
`“Obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only
`could have made but would have been motivated to make
`the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at
`the claimed invention.” Personal Web Tech. v. Apple, 848
`F.3d 987, 993-94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis original;
`internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`Sur-Reply at 15
`
`23
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Combination
`
`“A POSITA would thus have been motivated to combine
`the systems of Imai and Pauls to utilize the numerous
`video and image data compression encoders of Pauls to
`enable video compression in Imai’s system.” Pet. 53.
`
`POR at 42 (citing Pet. 53)
`
`24
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Motivation
`
`“As Imai explicitly applies its teachings to video encoding,
`a POSITA would logically look towards other prior art
`references involving data encoding and video encoding
`techniques to create a video encoding and transmission
`system. One such prior art reference is Pauls, which
`includes extensive teachings specific to video.” Pet. 53
`(emphasis added).
`
`POR at 43 (citing Pet. 53)
`
`25
`
`
`
`Realtime Data v. Inacu is not Applicable
`
`“This is enough evidence to support a finding that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to
`Nelson, a well-known data compression textbook, to
`better understand or interpret O’Brien's compression
`algorithms.” Realtime Data v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368,
`1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).
`
`POR at 49-50 (citing Realtime Data v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374)
`
`26
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`27
`
`
`
`The Petition Must Explain the “How”
`
`A party asserting obviousness must explain
`
`“[1] how specific references could be combined,
`
`[2] which combination(s) of elements would yield a
`predictable result, [and]
`
`[3] how any specific combination would operate or read
`on the asserted claims.”
`
`POR at 52 (quoting ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1327-28)
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Petition’s Combination
`
`“A POSITA would thus have been motivated to combine
`the systems of Imai and Pauls to utilize the numerous
`video and image data compression encoders of Pauls to
`enable video compression in Imai’s system.” Pet. 53.
`
`POR at 42 (citing Pet. 53)
`
`29
`
`
`
`Argument Roadmap
`
`❖ The Petitions do not identify the claimed “first” or “second”
`encoders
`
`❖ Limitation 1[B] requires the first encoder being “configured
`to” compress video or image data faster than the second
`encoder
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to show Imai, Pauls, or any combination
`disclose limitation 1[B]
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain why a POSITA would combine
`Imai and Pauls
`
`❖ The Petitions fail to explain how a POSITA would combine the
`references
`
`❖ The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`30
`
`
`
`The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`“The petition must specify where each element of the
`claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Sur-Reply at 21 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4))
`
`31
`
`
`
`The Petitions do not address the limitations of claim 20
`
`“Claim 20 and Claim 2 include all limitations of
`independent Claim 1 and have the additional requirement
`that ‘at least one of the plurality of different asymmetric
`data compression encoders is configured to utilize an
`arithmetic algorithm.’” Pet. 61.
`
`POR at 58 (citing Pet. 61)
`
`32
`
`
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
