`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR NO.: 2019-01015
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.: 081841.0120
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board denied institution of all grounds based upon a misapprehension of
`
`the argument set forth in the Petition. In particular, the Board incorrectly
`
`characterized Ground 1 as requiring redundant authorization control by both (i)
`
`Hoang ‘980’s bidirectional control system, in which the server determines whether
`
`the client is authorized to receive the content in response to a content request, and
`
`(ii) Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control system, where the set top box itself
`
`determines whether the client is authorized to receive content. Institution Decision
`
`(“ID”) (Paper 11) at 10-11. However, Ground 1 set forth in the Petition did not
`
`propose the use of redundant unidirectional and bidirectional control for the same
`
`data request.
`
`Ground 1 in the Petition set forth a theory of invalidity based solely on using
`
`Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control technique, where the set top box is trusted to
`
`determine whether the user is authorized to access the requested content. Paper 2
`
`(Pet.) at 27, 29-30. When authorizing a realtime video on demand request, the set
`
`top box would first authorize the request, then “selectively transmit” a “demand” to
`
`the server to initiate content transmission over a bidirectional communication link.
`
`Id. at 27, 30, 40, 43. This Board’s misapprehension therefore lies in requiring the
`
`content server to make a second redundant authorization check of the same request.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`Building off of Hoang ‘980’s suggestion that “even more features can be
`
`
`
`provided… when a bi-directional communications link is available,” (Ex. 1008 at
`
`¶. 0049), Ground 1 of the Petition proposed adding a bidirectional communication
`
`link to Hoang ‘980 for the purpose of permitting the unidirectional control
`
`technique disclosed therein to also access to “user-initiated VOD [(Video On
`
`Demand)] programming.” Paper 2, (Pet.) at 18. As explained in the Petition, this
`
`would improve Hoang ‘980 because, without the bidirectional link, Hoang ‘980’s
`
`unidirectional control could “control access to linear programming, but not to
`
`user-initiated VOD programming.” Id.1 By adding the bidirectional link, this
`
`limitation would be overcome, allowing Hoang ‘980 to offer “user-initiated VOD
`
`services,” where the user could “control when the programming is delivered from
`
`the DOD server” rather than being restricted to “linear programming” with start
`
`times determined by the system operator. Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Thus, rather than using two redundant access control techniques for the same
`
`request, Ground 1 of the Petition relied on only one access control technique—the
`
`unidirectional control technique of Hoang ‘980, to control two types of requests:
`
`(1) requests for pre-scheduled linear programming (which would not require use of
`
`the bidirectional communication link) and (2) requests for user-initiated realtime
`
`on demand programming (which used the bidirectional communication link to
`
`
`1 All emphasis supplied, unless noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`initiate realtime delivery of the requested content, after first authorizing that
`
`
`
`request at the set top box). Paper 2, (Pet.) at 17-18, 40-43. Because institution
`
`denial was based on a misapprehension of the argument set forth in the Petition,
`
`rehearing is respectfully requested.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Misapprehension of Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory Is a Proper
`Basis For Rehearing
`Granting rehearing of an institution denial is appropriate when that decision
`
`was based on a misapprehension of Petitioner’s theory of invalidity. See Sony
`
`Corp. v. Fujifilm Corp., IPR2017-00618, Paper 11 at *4-*5 (P.T.A.B., Dec. 18,
`
`2017)(“We are persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s [invalidity]
`
`rationale…. Because we denied institution…based on this misapprehension, we
`
`grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request”). See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`B.
`The Board Misapprehended Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory
`The Board misapprehended the theory of invalidity set forth in Ground 1 of
`
`the petition. The Board interpreted the Petition as requiring use of both Hoang
`
`‘980’s unidirectional control technique (where authorization is performed by the
`
`client set top box) and its bidirectional control technique (where authorization is
`
`performed by the server) to process a single content request. ID (Paper 11) at 16-
`
`17.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`In particular, the Board characterized Hoang ‘980’s bidirectional system as
`
`
`
`involving the server receiving all content requests, determining whether the client
`
`is authorized to receive the requested program, and if so, “transmit[ting] the
`
`requested data to the client.” Id. at 10-11. The Board distinguished this approach
`
`from Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional system, which was characterized as a system
`
`where “the determination of whether the client may access a particular service is
`
`performed at the client, not at the server.” Id. at 11. The Institution Decision
`
`repeatedly mischaracterized the Petition as involving not the addition of a limited-
`
`use bi-directional communication link, but instead the addition of bidirectional
`
`control to Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control system. For instance, the ID states:
`
`1. “Petitioner’s proposed combination would use both unidirectional
`
`access control and bidirectional access control for the same data request.” Paper
`
`11, (ID) at 16.
`
`2. “Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have been motivated to use both the prior art access control using
`
`bidirectional communication and the improved access control using unidirectional
`
`communications at the same time.” Paper 11, (ID) at 16.
`
`3. “Petitioner has failed to establish why an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`would have used both access control paradigms for the same data request.” Paper
`
`11, (ID) at 17.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`4. “Petitioner’s inference that this system would then also utilize
`
`
`
`account control using the resource-intensive bidirectional communications is
`
`speculative and not sufficiently supported by the evidence of record.” Paper 11,
`
`(ID) at 16.
`
`5. “Petitioner does not explain persuasively why an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have continued to use unidirectional communications to provide
`
`access control for a data request when using bidirectional communications
`
`already provides access control for the same data request.” Paper 11, (ID) at 17.
`
`The Board’s analysis could only be based on a misapprehension of
`
`Petitioner’s argument. Ground 1 of the petition exclusively relied upon Hoang
`
`980’s unidirectional control technique, where the client performs authorization
`
`based on information previously received via the unidirectional path. The petition
`
`proposed adding a bidirectional communication link in order to permit Hoang
`
`980’s unidirectional control system to “provide realtime access to on-demand
`
`material.” Paper 2 (Pet.) at 18, 29. Ground 1 did not rely on that bidirectional link
`
`to perform “account control” or “access control” that had already been performed.
`
`As explained in the Petition, adding a bidirectional link was desirable
`
`because it would permit the modified unidirectional control system “to control
`
`access to user-initiated VOD programming,” which was “the Holy Grail.” Id.
`
`Using that link, the user could “control when the programming is delivered from
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`the DOD server.” Id. (emphasis in original). Without the upstream, bi-directional
`
`
`
`link, Hoang ‘980’s system would be limited to controlling “access to linear
`
`programming, but not to user-initiated VOD programming.” Id. Thus, as the
`
`Petition summarized, an ordinary skilled artisan “would be motivated to provide a
`
`bi-directional communications link to implement a VOD service.” Id. at 19.
`
`Petitioner did not argue that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to
`
`provide a redundant authorization scheme.
`
`Ground 1 of the Petition solely relies on Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional access
`
`control technique. For example, the Petition explained that, in the proposed
`
`modified system, “the central controlling server 502” would still “generate[]
`
`subscription data packets.” Paper 2 (Pet.) at 23. These packets are described as
`
`“controlling what DOD services are available.” Id. Using this approach, the
`
`“DOD service provider can control exactly what DOD services each client may
`
`access.” Id. at 26. The EPG program and subscription data packets received over
`
`Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control system are used by the set top box to
`
`“determine whether to transmit (access) or not transmit (display a refusal message)
`
`a content request to the service provider network” over the added bi-directional
`
`communications link. Id. at 30. In other words, as explained in the Petition,
`
`proposed Ground 1 uses Hoang 980’s unidirectional control technique whereby
`
`instructions received at the set top box are used to control whether the customer is
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`authorized to access requested content. Id. at 30, 40-43. This corresponds to the
`
`
`
`Board’s description of Hoang 980’s unidirectional control technique, wherein “the
`
`determination of whether the client may access a particular service is performed at
`
`the client, not at the server.” ID (Paper 11) at 11.
`
`As the Petition explains, when the requested content involves a “realtime
`
`access to on-demand material,” the set top box first would “determine whether to
`
`transmit … a content request to the service provider network.” Id. at 29-30. This
`
`would occur in accordance with the unidirectional control technique of Hoang ‘980
`
`shown and described with respect to Figure 11. Id. at 39-40, citing Hoang’980 Fig.
`
`11 (“the STB makes a determination as to whether or not to attempt to access
`
`content based on whether the STB has a sufficient subscription level for the
`
`content.”). The Petition goes on to note that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would
`
`implement the ‘demand that server provide requested client specific data’ of Hoang
`
`‘980’s bi-directional system as part of the step of ‘access selected DOD service’ at
`
`step 706 in Fig. 11.” Paper 2 (Pet.) at 42-43. As is seen in Figure 11, step 706
`
`(where the proposed modified system would “demand” that the server provide
`
`requested content over the bi-directional communications link), occurs after the set
`
`top box has already verified that the STB subscription level received using Hoang
`
`‘980’s unidirectional control system, is “sufficient” to permit access to the content:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`
`
`Hoang ‘980 Fig 11, as reproduced at Paper 2 (Pet.) at 40. In other words, any
`
`“account control” or “access control” applicable to the realtime video on demand
`
`requests in Ground 1 occurs solely via Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control
`
`techniques, wherein the set top box determines, using data previously received via
`
`the unidirectional data stream from the server whether access is authorized or not.
`
`As the Petition summarized “the check at step 704 determines whether the [set top
`
`box] STB subscription level is sufficient before accessing a DOD service that
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`requires a content request … be transmitted from the STB back to the central
`
`
`
`controlling server.” Paper 2 (Pet.) at 43.
`
`Nowhere in Ground 1 did Petitioner argue that Hoang’s bi-directional link
`
`would provide redundant control over access to the requested content. Instead,
`
`only after the unidirectional control technique is applied does the modified system
`
`“demand” that the server send the requested content. Id. at 42-43. No other
`
`authorization checks are described in Ground 1 of the petition. Accordingly, the
`
`reasoning upon which institution was denied could only be based on a
`
`misapprehension of the invalidity theory proposed in the Petition.
`
`C.
`
`Institution Is Appropriate Because There Is A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Petitioner Will Prevail
`Under the invalidity theory set forth in the Petition, Institution is appropriate.
`
`The Petition set forth in detail the rationale for adding a bi-directional
`
`communications link to Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional control system, including an
`
`express suggestion and motivation in Hoang ‘980. For example, the Petition stated
`
`that:
`
`
`
`The preferred embodiment in Hoang ’980 may be implemented in
`
`systems with uni-directional or bi-directional communication links
`
`between the server and the STBs. Ex. 1008, ¶ [0049]. If the
`
`system of Hoang ’980’s preferred embodiment is implemented
`
`with a uni-directional communications link between the DOD
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`server 450 and the universal STB 600, then the user would be
`
`
`
`limited to viewing programming no sooner than the time that it is
`
`sent from the DOD server 450 to the universal STB 600. That is,
`
`the user could not control when the programming is delivered
`
`from the DOD server 560 to the universal STB 600 because there
`
`is no communications link that allows the user to specify that they
`
`want to view the programming. Without this flexibility, the
`
`universal STB 600 would control access to linear programming,
`
`but not to user-initiated VOD programming. Ex. 1006, ¶ 109.
`
`Hoang ’980 discloses “that all aspects of the present invention
`
`can be implemented within the bi-directional communication
`
`paradigm, the only difference being that even more features
`
`can be provided to the digital broadcast and DOD user when
`
`a bi-directional communication link is available.” Ex.
`
`1008, ¶ [0049]. . . . A POSA would have understood that
`
`user-initiated VOD services using a bi-directional
`
`communication link are desirable because it takes “the
`
`dominant set-top application, which is watching television,
`
`and transform[s] it by putting control into the customers’
`
`hands.” Id. POSAs recognized that “the idea of providing
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`access to a movie library is very appealing ... and customer
`
`
`
`response has been enthusiastic.” Id. at 0227. VOD services
`
`“emulate[] the current video rental business, so it is easy to
`
`justify from an economic point of view.” Id. Specifically,
`
`POSAs recognized that “[s]uccessful on-demand services add
`
`value in some way for the ... cable operator, and
`
`customer. Added value can come from a number of sources:
`
`... video-on-demand has demonstrated significantly higher buy
`
`rates than impulse pay-per-view in a number of trials ...
`
`Availability of on-demand services enhances the customer’s
`
`perception of the overall cable service.” Id. at 0226. Thus,
`
`there are many reasons a POSA would be motivated to
`
`provide a bi-directional communications link to implement a
`
`VOD service. Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 109-110.
`
`Paper 2, (Pet.)at 18-19.
`
`Moreover, the reasoning set forth in the Institution Decision works in favor
`
`of Petitioner’s Ground 1, not against it. The Institution Decision faulted the
`
`Petition for reliance on “resource-intensive” bidirectional communications
`
`techniques. (ID) at 15. But Petitioner’s Ground 1 selectively restricts the use of the
`
`bidirectional communications link to only authorized realtime content requests. As
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`explained above, the proposed modification to Hoang ‘980 would utilize the
`
`
`
`unidirectional control techniques of Hoang ‘980 to first determine whether such a
`
`content request was authorized before utilizing the bidirectional communications
`
`link. Paper 2 (Pet.) at 22-23, 30, 39, 43 (“The transmission of content requests in
`
`the bi-directional systems … is selective because the check at step 704 determines
`
`whether the STB subscription level is sufficient before accessing a DOD service
`
`that requires a content request to be transmitted from the STB back to the
`
`controlling server.”). Accordingly, the reasoning of the Institution Decision
`
`actually supports institution, as Ground 1 minimizes use of the bidirectional
`
`communications link, employing it only as necessary to implement the added
`
`feature of realtime access to on-demand material, and only when access to such
`
`material was previously authorized using Hoang ‘980’s unidirectional techniques.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Because the Board’s reasoning was based on a misapprehension as to the
`
`theory of invalidity asserted in Ground 1of the Petition, rehearing is respectfully
`
`requested. Moreover, because the arguments and evidence set forth in the Petition
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in its invalidity
`
`challenge, the Board should promptly institute this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`G. Hopkins Guy III (Reg. No. 35,866)
`1001 Page Mill Road, Bld. 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`650.739.7511
`
`Ali Dhanani (Reg. No. 66,233)
`910 Louisiana St.
`Houston, TX 77002
`713.229.1108
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, DISH Network
`L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 13, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing to be served via electronic
`
`mail on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner at the email addresses
`
`listed below.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Benjamin R. Johnson
`Reg. No. 64,483
`Toler Law Group, PC 8500 Bluffstone
`Cove Suite A201 Austin, TX 78759
`bjohnson@tlgiplaw.com
`Tel. 512-327-5515
`Fax 512-327-5575
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jeffrey G. Toler
`Reg. No. 38,342 Toler Law Group, PC
`8500 Bluffstone Cove Suite A201
`Austin, TX 78759
`jtoler@tlgiplaw.com
`Tel. 512-327-5515
`Fax 512-327-5575
`
`Date: December 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Eliot D. Williams /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`