Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: January 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: January 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, GARTH D. BAER, and
`NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and
`DISH Technologies L.L.C. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 B2 (Exhibit 1001, “the ’535 Patent”).
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming”) has filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”
`With the agreement of the parties, we authorized Petitioner to file a Reply to
`the Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner a
`Sur-Reply (Paper 8, “PO Sur-Reply”). Both the Reply and Sur-Reply were
`limited to the applicability of the time-bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) to these
`proceedings. We have authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition “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.” Having considered the
`arguments and the associated evidence presented in the Petition, for the
`reasons described below, we institute inter partes review of all the
`challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties inform us that the ʼ535 Patent is involved in the following
`litigations:
`
` Realtime Data, LLC v. Echostar Corp., No. 6:17-cv-84 (E.D. Tex.)
` Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. DISH Network Corporation et al.,
`6:17-cv-00421 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Sling TV, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-
`2097 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-
`549 (E.D. Tex.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. EchoStar Technologies, LLC et
`al., No. 6:17-cv-00567 (E.D. Tex.).
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-7611
`(C.D. Cal.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-
`cv-591 (E.D. Tex.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Brightcove, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-
`1519 (D. Del.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Haivision Network Video, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-1520 (D. Del.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Polycom, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-
`2692 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1692
`(D. Del.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. 1:17-cv-
`1693 (D. Del.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2869
`(D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 1:18-cv-
`10355 (D. Mass.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., No.
`6:18-cv-00113 (E.D. Tex.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Wowza Media Systems LLC, No.
`1:18-cv-00927 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC et al, No. 2:18-cv-
`03629 (D.C. Cal.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01046
`(D. Colo.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Broadcom Corporation et al.,
`No. 1:18-cv-01048 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, No.
`6:18-cv-00215 (E.D. Tex.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-cv-01173 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 1:18-cv-
`01175 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Mitel Networks, Inc., No. 1:18-
`cv-01177 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. et
`al, No. 1:18-cv-01345 (D. Colo.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., No.
`8:18-cv-00942 (C.D. Cal.)
` Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, No. 1:18:cv-01446 (D. Colo.)
`Pet. 4–6; Paper 3, 2–4.
`Petitioner further informs us that the ʼ535 Patent is involved in the
`following inter partes review proceedings:
`
` Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-
`00883
` Hulu, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01169
` Hulu, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01170
` Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH
`Technologies L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-
`01332
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`C. The ʼ535 Patent
`The ʼ535 Patent relates generally to compressing and decompressing
`data based on an actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system.
`Ex. 1001, 1:21–25. The ʼ535 Patent explains that data compression
`algorithms can have varied performance characteristics. Ex. 1001, 1:32–35.
`For example, with a typical dictionary-based compression algorithm, such as
`Lempel-Ziv, the size of the dictionary can affect the performance of the
`algorithm. Ex. 1001, 1:35–38. A large dictionary may yield very good
`compression ratios, but may make the algorithm take a long time to execute.
`On the other hand, a smaller dictionary would yield a faster compression
`time but at the expense of lower compression ratio. Ex. 1001, 1:38–44.
`Thus, one challenge in employing data compression is selecting the
`appropriate algorithm from a variety of algorithms for a given application or
`system. The desired balance between speed and efficiency is an important
`factor in determining which algorithm to select for data compression. A
`system that provides dynamic modification of compression system
`parameters to provide an optimal balance between speed and compression
`ratio is highly desirable. Ex. 1001, 1:56–60.
`The ʼ535 Patent describes two categories of compression
`algorithms—asymmetrical and symmetrical. An asymmetrical data
`compression algorithm is “one in which the execution time for the
`compression and decompression routines differ significantly.” Ex. 1001,
`9:64–66. Thus, in an asymmetrical algorithm, either the compression time is
`fast with the decompression time being slow, or vice versa. An example of
`an asymmetric algorithm is Lempel-Ziv. Ex. 1001, 10:2–4. A symmetric
`compression algorithm, on the other hand, is “one in which the execution
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`time for the compression and the decompression routines are substantially
`similar. Examples of symmetrical algorithms include table-based
`compression schemes such as Huffman.” Ex. 1001, 10:5–9. The total
`execution time of the compression and decompression portions of
`asymmetrical algorithms is typically higher than the total time for
`symmetrical algorithms. But an asymmetric algorithm typically achieves
`higher compression ratios. Ex. 1001, 10:10–14.
`The invention described in the ʼ535 Patent “is directed to a system and
`method for compressing and decompressing based on the actual or expected
`throughput (bandwidth) of a system employing data compression and a
`technique of optimizing based upon planned, expected, predicted, or actual
`usage.” Ex. 1001, 7:51–55. A bandwidth sensitive data compression routine
`may be selected based on access profiles that enable the controller to
`determine a compression routine associated with a data type of the data to be
`compressed. Ex. 1001, 8:4–8. The access profiles comprise information
`that enables the controller to select a suitable compression algorithm that
`provides the desired balance between speed and compression ratio.
`Ex. 1001, 8:8–13.
`These access profiles may take into account the overall throughput of
`a system as one factor in deciding whether to use an asymmetric or
`symmetric algorithm. Ex. 1001, 11:25–29. Another factor the access profile
`may track is the type of data to be processed. Ex. 1001, 11:29–31. For
`example, different data types (the type may be determined by a file
`extension of the data) may be associated with different compression
`algorithms. Ex. 1001, 11:35–40.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`The ʼ535 Patent illustrates this concept with three categories of access
`profiles. In a first category, the access profile of a particular data type may
`specify that the data may be decompressed significantly more times than it is
`compressed. This is typical with operating systems, applications, and
`websites. Ex. 1001, 12:1–12. In such a situation it may be suitable to use an
`asymmetric algorithm that provides a slow compression routine and a fast
`decompression routine. Ex. 1001, 12:14–20. Thus, the compression ratio
`achieved by using an asymmetric algorithm with slow compression will be
`higher than if a symmetric algorithm was used. Ex. 1001, 12:20–24.
`A second category is one in which the data would be compressed
`significantly more times than decompressed. Ex. 1001, 12:25–27. This is
`typical for automatically updating an inventory database. Here, an
`asymmetric algorithm with a fast compression routine and a slow
`decompression routine would be most appropriate. Ex. 1001, 12:27–35.
`A third category is one in which the data is accessed with a similar
`number of reads and writes, and thus would be compressed and
`decompressed approximately the same number of times. Ex. 1001, 12:36–
`39. This is typical of most user-generated data such as documents and
`spreadsheets. Ex. 1001, 12:40–41. In this case, a symmetric algorithm that
`provides relatively fast compression and decompression would be
`preferable. Ex. 1001, 12:41–43.
`In this way, the ʼ535 Patent describes a system that automatically
`selects an appropriate compression algorithm to optimize system throughput
`based on the type of data being installed or stored. Ex. 1001, 14:27–39.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claims 2–
`6, and 8–12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1.
`A method, comprising:
`determining a parameter or attribute of at least a portion
`of a data block having audio or video data;
`selecting an access profile from among a plurality of
`access profiles based upon the determined parameter or
`attribute; and
`compressing the at least the portion of the data block
`with one or more compressors using asymmetric data
`compression and information from the selected access profile to
`create one or more compressed data blocks, the information
`being indicative of the one or more compressors to apply to the
`at least the portion of the data block.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 of the ʼ535 Patent on
`the following grounds:
`
`Basis Challenged Claims References
`§ 102 1, 2, 9, 10, 14
`Dvir1
`§ 103 1, 2, 9, 10, 14
`Dvir
`§ 103 3–6, 8, 11, 12
`Dvir and Ishii2
`
`
`
`
`1 Dvir, U.S. Patent No. 6,557,001 B1, iss. Apr. 29, 2003, filed Nov. 12, 1999
`(Exhibit 1004, “Dvir”).
`2 Ishii, U.S. Patent No. 5,675,789, iss. Oct. 7, 1997 (Exhibit 1005, “Ishii”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`
`F. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`computer engineering, computer science, or the equivalent and
`2–3 years of work experience with data compression, storage,
`retrieval, processing, and transmission, or the equivalent.
`Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–39). Patent Owner does not propose a level
`of ordinary skill. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`proposed level of ordinary skill.
`
`G. Claim Interpretation
`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)3;
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812
`F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Only terms that are in controversy need to
`be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`3 The revised claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter
`partes review proceedings as set forth in the final rule published October 11,
`2018, does not apply to this proceeding, because the new “rule is effective
`on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR, and CBM petitions filed
`on or after the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37
`C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “data block,”
`“parameter,” “asymmetric compressors,” and “access profile.” Pet. 16–20.
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed constructions, nor does
`it offer any constructions of its own. At this time, we determine that no
`construction is necessary. We note that this determination does not preclude
`the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during
`trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in
`general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. A final determination as to claim
`construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, after any hearing,
`based on all the evidence of record. The parties are expected to assert all
`their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent
`Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as
`permitted by our rules.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Discretion to Decline to Institute Under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`Patent Owner asserts that we should deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) per our decision in General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki
`Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) because the
`Petition is the fourth petition filed against the same claims of the same patent
`(one of which the Board granted) and because Petitioner knew or should
`have known about the asserted prior art after it was sued, yet waited almost a
`year to file its Petition. Prelim. Resp. 5–9. We decline to exercise our
`discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`We recognize that the Petition in this case represents a third round of
`challenges to the ’535 patent. None of the previous challenges, however,
`involves the same Petitioner or same prior art at issue in this case. In
`addition, Patent Owner’s complaint about multiple petitions filed against its
`patent is not persuasive when the number of challenges appears to be a direct
`result of its own litigation activity. Thus, we find the circumstances in this
`case do not warrant denying the Petition under § 314(a). See Alcatel-Lucent
`USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Case IPR2017-02146, slip op. at 12 (Paper
`12) (PTAB Feb. 28, 2018) (“Once resolution of factor 1 indicates that
`Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the same patent, factors
`2–5 bear little relevance unless there is evidence in the record of extenuating
`circumstances.”).
`
`B. § 315(b) Time Bar
`Section 315(b) provides that “an inter partes review may not be
`instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year
`after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest or privy of the
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35
`U.S.C. § 315(b) (2018). Patent Owner asserts Petitioner is time barred
`under § 315(b), because Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging
`infringement of the ’535 Patent more than one year before it filed the present
`petition. See Prelim. Resp. 1 (citing Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio,
`Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc)). For the reasons that follow,
`we determine the Petition is not time barred under § 315(b).
`On June 6, 2017, Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime Data”) filed and
`subsequently served an amended complaint in the Eastern District of Texas
`naming Petitioner and alleging infringement of the ’535 Patent. Prelim.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`Resp. 3 (citing Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp., No. 6:17-cv-00084-
`RWS-JDL). When Realtime Data filed its complaint, however, it did not
`own the ’535 Patent, because it had previously recorded an assignment to
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming on March 7, 2017. See Ex. 1026. Realtime
`Data thus voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and on
`October 10, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming filed a complaint again
`naming Petitioner and alleging infringement of the ’535 Patent. Pet. Reply
`2. Less than one year later, on July 3, 2018 Petitioner filed its Petition in
`this case. See Pet. 66.
`Patent Owner asks us to read § 315(b)’s language broadly such that
`the June 6, 2017 complaint filed and served by non-patent owner Realtime
`Data triggered the one-year time bar. To this end, Patent Owner quotes
`Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., where the Federal
`Circuit reaffirmed its holding in Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d 1321, noting that
`“[t]he statute endorses no exceptions for dismissed complaints.” PO Sur-
`Reply 1 (quoting Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.,
`905 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (emphasis in original). Petitioner responds
`that “Click-to-Call is not controlling and readily distinguishable because the
`entity that filed the June 2017 complaint, Realtime Data, LLC . . . did not
`own the patent and thus did not have standing to file the complaint in the
`first place.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner argues further that both § 315(b)’s title
`and its legislative history demonstrate “that the deadline would be triggered
`[only] after the patent owner filed a complaint.” Id. at 6.
`We agree with Petitioner that Click-to-Call does not control on the
`current facts. Click-to-Call established that a complaint’s later dismissal has
`no bearing on the one-year time bar. 899 F.3d at 1336. But, in Hamilton
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods, LLC, the Federal Circuit explained that
`the issue in this case—i.e., whether a complaint filed without standing
`triggers § 315(b)’s time bar—was “not present, or considered, in Click-to-
`Call.” 908 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2018).4
`We further agree with Petitioner that only a patent owner’s action
`triggers § 315(b)’s time bar. Section 315(b) specifies that the time bar is
`triggered when “the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`infringement of the patent.” Although the statute’s text is not explicit as to
`who must file and serve the complaint, § 315(b) is titled “Patent Owner’s
`Action,” thus, suggesting that only service of a patent owner’s complaint
`triggers the one-year time bar. See Yanko v. United States, 869 F.3d 1328,
`1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting parenthetically Florida Dep’t of Revenue
`v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 47 (2008)) (explaining that
`“statutory titles and section headings are tools available for the resolution of
`doubt about the meaning of a statute”). Section 315(b)’s legislative history
`suggests Congress envisioned that only a patent owner’s complaint would
`trigger the time bar:
`The House bill also extends the deadline for allowing an accused
`infringer to seek inter partes review after he has been sued for
`infringement. The Senate bill imposed a 6-month deadline on
`seeking IPR after the patent owner has filed an action for
`infringement. The final bill extends this deadline, at proposed
`section 315(b), to 1 year.
`157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl)
`emphasis added). In light of the statute’s ambiguity, the title’s clarity, and
`
`
`4 Despite holding Click-to-Call not controlling, the Federal Circuit did not
`resolve the time-bar issue in Hamilton Beach Brands for procedural reasons.
`908 F.3d at 1337.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`the legislative history, we read § 315(b) as requiring the Petitioner to be
`served with, a patent owner’s5 complaint to trigger the one-year time bar.
`
`C. Overview of Dvir
`Dvir is entitled “Method for Enhancing Video Compression Through
`Automatic Data Analysis and Profile Selection.” Ex. 1004, [54]. Dvir
`discloses a system and method “for rapid video data compression and
`transmission for a wireless remote monitor.” Id. at Abstract. Dvir’s method
`allows the compression method to be adjusted according to the type of
`software application which generated the video data, and according to the
`characteristics of the data itself. Id. Dvir discloses that the type and profile
`of video data compression is selected by a profile manager, which detects
`the characteristics of the video data to determine the character of the data,
`and then which selects the video data compression method and profile
`according to the video data character. Id.
`Dvir matches the compression algorithm to a data type by performing
`the following steps:
`(a) providing a plurality of different multimedia data compression
`procedures, each of the compression procedures being associated with a
`profile of characteristics of the multimedia data;
`(b) receiving the multimedia data to be compressed to form received
`
`data;
`
`(c) determining at least one characteristic of the received data;
`(d) selecting a profile according to the at least one characteristic; and
`
`
`5 We do not resolve the full scope of who may qualify as a patent owner.
`Here, there is no dispute or ambiguity that Realtime Data, LLC had no
`remaining interest in the ’535 Patent at the time it served the first complaint.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`(e) compressing the received data according to a compression
`procedure associated with the profile.
`Ex. 1004, 2:64–3:21.
`Dvir shows this compression selection technique in Figure 1b.
`
`
`Figure 1b shows a flow chart of the compression selection technique of Dvir.
`Id. at 5:6–11.
`Dvir explains that for each received data “sample,” Dvir’s
`compression system determines a “parameter” or “characteristic” of the data
`such as “a number of unique colors in the screen, a presence of static dark
`thin rows of pixels or large static blocks, and a level of motion in the screen
`between one frame and the next frame.” Id. at 5:36–42; see also id. at
`4:66–5:11. A “compression profile manager” then “selects a suitable
`compression profile for compressing the video data, according to the
`characteristics of the display data.” Id. at 5:8–10; see also id. at 5:43–5:51.
`Dvir’s selected compression algorithms include an asymmetric compression
`algorithm. For example, Dvir states that “the actual process of compression
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`is performed by an MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group) encoder . . . or
`other type of compression algorithm.” Ex. 1004, 5:14–24; see also id. at
`Fig. 3a.
`Finally, Dvir uses the “compression profile” to “select the particular
`type of video compression method for compressing the display data.”
`Ex. 1004, 4:66–5:3; see also id. at 6:43–45. Dvir therefore automatically
`creates a specifically tailored “compression procedure” for each set of
`multimedia data. Id. at 2:31–49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–72.
`
`D. Overview of Ishii
`Ishii is entitled “File Compression Processor Monitoring Current
`Available Capacity and Threshold Value,” and relates to a file compression
`processor that records image and text data to a recording media after data
`compression. Ex. 1005, [54], 1:10–15. Ishii’s file compression processor
`comprises a file status monitor that keeps track of the current available
`capacity on the file unit and an upper limit threshold value of available
`capacity that is always to be ensured. Id. at Abstract, 1:56–60. When the
`current available file capacity is greater than the threshold value, files are not
`compressed and, in some embodiments, certain files with high access
`frequency are decompressed. Id. at 6:65–7:3. When the current available
`file capacity is below the threshold, the system searches for files with a
`lower access frequency and compresses them. An appropriate data
`compression method is selected based on access frequency and file type. Id.
`at 5:43–50, 5:60–65. For example, a compression method with shorter
`compression and decompression times is selected for files that are accessed
`frequently and a compression method with a higher compression ratio (and
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`typically longer compression times) is selected for files with lower access
`frequency. Id. at 6:12–17.
`
`E. Anticipation by Dvir
`Claim 1 recites “determining a parameter or attribute of at least a
`portion of a data block having audio or video data.” Claim 14 recites a
`similar limitation. Petitioner argues Dvir discloses this limitation through its
`disclosure of a compression profile manager that receives multimedia data—
`that includes video stream data or audio stream data, or both, which is
`“sampled for analysis” in “groups of rasters” that are, for example, “block[s]
`of 8x8 pixels.” Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:22–35; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–95).
`In addition, Dvir discloses that the compression profile manager “receive[s]
`pertinent information concerning the type” of data being processed. Id. at
`28–30 (Ex. 1004, 4:37–5:14, 5:29–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–95). Also, Dvir
`discloses determining “at least one parameter,” such as “a number of unique
`colors in the screen, a presence of static dark thin rows of pixels or large
`static blocks, and a level of motion in the screen between one frame and the
`next frame” for each sample and matching “the plurality of parameters . . . to
`a particular compression profile.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:29–52;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–95).
`Claim 1 further recites “selecting an access profile from among a
`plurality of access profiles based upon the determined parameter or
`attribute.” Claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner argues Dvir
`discloses this limitation. Pet. 30–32. Petitioner contends that, after
`determining the parameter of the multimedia data block, Dvir discloses
`“selecting a particular compression profile according to the type” of the data.
`Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:22–34). For example, Petitioner notes that Dvir
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`samples “groups of rasters” of data to determine “at least one
`parameter . . . for each sample,” and matches the determined parameter(s) to
`“a particular compression profile, which is then selected by compression
`profile manager.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 5:29–52). Petitioner argues that
`“[t]he compression profile manager selects ‘a suitable compression profile
`for compressing the video [or audio] data, according to the characteristics of
`the [received video or audio] data.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004, 4:67–5:22)
`(alterations in original). Moreover, Petitioner submits that Dvir selects the
`compression profile from among a plurality of compression profiles. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–104). Petitioner asserts that Dvir explains that
`“compression profile manager 7 has a plurality of compression profiles,” and
`that the compression profile manager selects “a compression profile from
`[the] plurality of such profiles” based on characteristics of the data. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:3–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–104).
`Claim 1 further recites “compressing the at least the portion of the
`data block with one or more compressors using asymmetric data
`compression and information from the selected access profile to create one
`or more compressed data blocks, the information being indicative of the one
`or more compressors to apply to the at least the portion of the data block.”
`Claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner argues that once Dvir’s
`compression profile manager selects the “proper compression profile” for
`the data, the “compression profile is set to determine the
`particular . . . compression method for compressing the . . . data.” Pet. 32
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:14–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105–117). Petitioner asserts that
`Dvir’s “compression methods” disclose the claimed “compressors,” because
`Dvir states that “the actual process of compression is performed by an
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group) encoder . . . or other type of
`compression algorithm.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 5:14–24; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 105–117). Further, Petitioner contends that Dvir discloses the use of
`asymmetric compressors, such as MPEG. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 52–72, 105–117). Petitioner also contends that Dvir discloses that the
`compressing “create[s] one or more compressed data blocks. Id. at 34
`(citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1b, 2:64–3:21, 6:43–45, 4:66–6:67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105–
`107)
`
`Claim 14 differs from claim 1 in that instead of explicitly requiring
`the use of “asymmetric data compressor,” claim 14 recites “wherein the one
`or more compressors utilize at least one slow compress encoder and at least
`one fast decompress decoder.” Claim 14 further recites:
`wherein compressing the at least the portion of the data block
`with the at least one slow compress encoder takes more time
`than decompressing the at least the portion of the data block
`with the at least one fast decompress decoder if the time were
`measured with the at least one slow compress encoder and the
`at least one fast decompress decoder running individually on a
`common host system.
`Petitioner argues that Dvir discloses these limitations of claim 14
`largely for the same reasons as it discloses the “asymmetric data
`compression” limitations of claim 1. Namely, Dvir teaches the use of
`MPEG, which is, according to Petitioner, “an asymmetric compression
`algorithm where the slower encoding process is more complex and time-
`consuming than the comparatively faster decoding process.” Pet. 39–40
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–152).
`Having reviewed Petitioner’s contentions as summarized above, based
`on a review of the current record at this stage of the proceeding, we find
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Dvir anticipates
`claims 1 and 14.
`Petitioner also contends that Dvir anticipates claims 2, 9, and 10. We
`note that Patent Owner has not presented any arguments addressing the
`limitations of these dependent claims other than the arguments regarding
`§ 314(a) and § 315(b) discussed above. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s
`contentions that Dvir anticipates claims 2, 9, and 10, and determine that the
`Petition provides the requisite showing, at this stage, that Dvir anticipates
`these claims. See Pet. 35–38.
`We determine, based on the current record, that the Petition shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to the
`contention that Dvir anticipates claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14.
`
`F. Remaining Claims and Grounds
`Petitioner further asserts claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14 would have been
`obvious over Dvir, id. at 40–42; and that claims 3–6, 8, 11, and 12 would
`have been obvious over Dvir and Ishii, id. at 42–65. We have reviewed
`Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the grounds that claims 1, 2, 9, 10,
`and 14 would
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
