IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BROADBAND ITV, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026
`Issue Date: July 17, 2018
`
`Title: SYSTEM FOR ADDRESSING ON-DEMAND TV PROGRAM
`CONTENT ON TV SERVICES PLATFORM OF A DIGITAL TV
`SERVICES PROVIDER
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01268
`
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,028,026
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-16
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`Page
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ii
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ......................................................................... viii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 4
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 4
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 4
`C.
`Counsel, Service and Fee Information ................................................. 5
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................... 6
`A. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 6
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims and Statement of Precise
`Relief Requested ................................................................................... 6
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§ 314(A) OR 325(D) IS
`INAPPROPRIATE ......................................................................................... 7
`THE ’026 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary of the ’026 Patent ............................................................... 10
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’026 Patent .............................................. 13
`VI. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 14
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 14
`A.
`“Web-based content management system” ........................................ 14
`B.
`“Hierarchically-arranged category information associated with
`the respective title.” ............................................................................ 15
`“Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) system” .............................................. 16
`C.
`D. Other Terms ........................................................................................ 16
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-16 are Obvious In view of Hecht, SoN, Scheffler and/or
`CableLabs ..................................................................................................... 16
`A.
`Summary ............................................................................................ 16
`B. Overview of Hecht ............................................................................. 18
`ii
`
`V.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`C. Overview of Son ................................................................................. 25
`D. Overview of Scheffler ........................................................................ 28
`E.
`Overview of CableLabs ...................................................................... 30
`F.
`Detailed Claim Mapping .................................................................... 31
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 31
`[1.preamble] An Internet-connected digital device for
`receiving, via the Internet, video content to be
`viewed by a subscriber of a video-on-demand
`system using a hierarchically arranged electronic
`program guide ................................................................ 31
`[1.a] the Internet-connected digital device being
`configured to obtain and present to the subscriber
`an electronic program guide as a templatized
`video-on-demand display, which uses at least one
`of a plurality of different display templates to
`which the Internet-connected digital device has
`access, to enable a subscriber using the Internet-
`connected digital device to navigate in a drill-
`down manner through titles by category
`information in order to locate a particular one of
`the titles whose associated video content is desired
`for viewing on the Internet-connected digital
`device using the same category information as was
`designated by a video content provider in metadata
`associated with the video content .................................. 33
`[1.b] wherein the templatized video-on-demand display
`has been generated in a plurality of layers,
`comprising ..................................................................... 40
`(a) a first layer comprising a background screen to
`provide at least one of a basic color, logo, or
`graphical theme to display ............................................. 40
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(b) a second layer comprising a particular display
`template from the plurality of different display
`templates layered on the background screen,
`wherein the particular display template comprises
`one or more reserved areas that are reserved for
`displaying content provided by a different layer of
`the plurality of layers; and ............................................. 41
`(c) a third layer comprising reserved area content
`generated using the received video content, the
`associated metadata, and the associated plurality of
`images to be displayed in the one or more reserved
`areas in the particular display template as at least
`one of text, an image, a navigation link, and a
`button ............................................................................. 42
`[1.c] wherein the navigating through titles in a drill-down
`manner comprises navigating from a first level of
`the hierarchical structure of the video-on-demand
`content menu to a second level of the hierarchical
`structure to locate the particular one of the titles,
`and .................................................................................. 44
`[1.d] wherein a first template of the plurality of different
`display templates is used as the particular display
`template for the templatized display for displaying
`the first level of the hierarchical structure and
`wherein a second template of the plurality of
`different display templates is used as the particular
`display template for the templatized display for
`displaying the second level of the hierarchical
`structure ......................................................................... 45
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`[1.e] wherein the received video content was uploaded to
`a Web-based content management system by a
`content provider device associated with the video
`content provider via the Internet in a digital video
`format, along with associated metadata including
`title information and category information, and
`along with an associated plurality of images
`designated by the video content provider, the
`associated metadata specifying a respective
`hierarchical location of a respective title of the
`video content within the electronic program guide
`to be displayed on the Internet-connected digital
`device using the respective hierarchically-arranged
`category information associated with the
`respective title ................................................................ 47
`[1.f] wherein at least one of the uploaded associated
`plurality of images designated by the video content
`provider is displayed with the associated respective
`title in the templatized video-on-demand display ......... 49
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 50
`2.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 52
`4.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 52
`5.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 54
`7.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 55
`8.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 55
`9.
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 55
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 56
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 56
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 58
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 58
`15. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 59
`16. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 59
`G. Motivation to Combine ...................................................................... 60
`H.
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................ 68
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 68
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.,
`136 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Haw. 2015) .................................................................. 5
`DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al.,
`19-cv-1602-PSG (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) ........................................... 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 28
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................. 18, 25, 28, 30
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 25
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`Exhibit
`1101
`1102
`1103
`1104
`1105
`1106
`1107
`1108
`
`1109
`1110
`1111
`1112
`1113
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`1117
`1118
`1119
`
`1120
`1121
`1122
`1123
`1124
`1125
`1126
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“’026 patent”)
`Intentionally omitted
`Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ
`Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Samuel Russ
`Intentionally omitted
`U.S. Patent No. 7,159,233 (“Son”)
`Intentionally omitted
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. 2003/0113100
`(“Hecht”)
`Scheffler, Robert G. “Ingest & Metadata Partitioning:
`Requirements For Television On DemandTM” (2003) (“Scheffler”)
`Declaration of Robert Scheffler
`CableLabs Video-On-Demand Content Specification Version 1.1
`Declaration of Christie Poland
`U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 (“’336 patent”)
`Intentionally omitted
`Scheduling Order, Broadband iTV, Inc v. DISH Network, L.L.C.,
`Case No. 6:19-cv-716-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2020), ECF No.
`34
`Civil Minutes-General, DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., 19-cv-
`1602-PSG (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 (“’997 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“’026 File History”)
`Claim Construction Order, Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian
`Telcom, Inc., et al., 14-00169 ACK-RLP (D. Haw. June 24, 2015)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0138619
`(“Ramaley”)
`Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated May 8, 2020
`Unified Patent’s Q1 2020 Patent Dispute Report (March 31, 2020)
`Judge Alan D. Albright Patent Statistics
`Excerpt from File History of related U.S. Patent Application No.
`12/632,745
`Family Chart for the ’997 patent
`Broadband iTV, Inc.’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions and
`Identification of Priority Dates cover pleading dated April 30, 2020
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`Exhibit
`
`1127
`1028
`
`1129
`
`1130
`
`1131
`
`1132
`
`1133
`1134
`1135
`1136
`1137
`
`1138
`
`1139
`
`1140
`
`1141
`
`Description
`Broadband iTV, Inc.’s Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026
`(Ex. 1) dated April 30, 2020
`Highlighted Claim 1 for ‘026 Patent
`Statement from Annette Schuler of the Leibniz Information Centre
`for Science and Technology University Library dated May 26, 2020
`regarding technical paper “Ingest & Metadata Partitioning:
`Requirements for Television on Demand” (2003)
`Comcast’s 2004 Annual Report - Excerpts
`http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c
`/NASDAQ_CMCSA_2004.pdf
`Time Warner, Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year 2003 - Excerpts
`http://getfilings.com/o0000950144-04-002438.html
`AT&T U-Verse Wikipedia page
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse.
`Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated June 18,
`2020
`Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated July 2, 2020
`Minute Entry, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-
`00308-ADA (W.D. Tex., Jun. 15, 2020), ECF 293
`Palm Tungsten Wikipedia page
`PlayStation 3 technical specifications Wikipedia page
`Scientific-Atlanta Launches Explorer 4200 Set-Top,
`https://www.tvtechnology.com/equipment/scientificatlanta-
`launches-explorer-4200-settop.
`Samsung gains first OpenCable Certification on two-way digital
`television, https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/samsung-gains-
`first-opencable-certification-on-twoway-digital-television
`The Razor V3 was launched 14 years ago: Here’s why it still has a
`place in our hearts, https://www.androidauthority.com/motorola-
`razr-v3-888664/
`CableLabs OpenCable - www.opencable website Way Back
`Machine capture,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060326111508/http://www.opencabl
`e.com/ocap/ocap.html
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`Exhibit
`
`1142
`
`1143
`1144
`1145
`
`1146
`1147
`1148
`1149
`
`Description
`Google pays the price to capture online video zeitgeist, Way Back
`Machine capture,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070901031352/http://www.eurekastr
`eet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1837
`Mpeg-2 Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2
`Intentionally omitted
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury
`Instructions, last edited May 2020
`CableLabs Specifications Library,
`https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications
`Merriam-Webster’s definition of “effect”
`Intentionally omitted
`Christopher Butler Affidavit - Archive.org
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-16 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“’026
`
`patent”), attached as Ex. 1101. The ’026 patent is owned by Broadband iTV, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’026 patent purports to disclose an incremental improvement in video-
`
`on-demand (“VOD”) systems. The patent concedes such systems were well-
`
`known and in existence before its filing, and discusses two attempts to improve on
`
`these known systems. First, the specification discloses a template-based
`
`hierarchically-arranged user interface or electronic program guide (“EPG”) that
`
`organizes available videos by category and subcategory. According to the
`
`specification, this helps subscribers locate video content. Second, it discloses the
`
`use of a web-based system that allows content providers to upload content and
`
`associated metadata for later delivery to subscribers. The claims of the ’026 patent
`
`further require that the video content and hierarchical electronic program guide
`
`(“EPG”) be provided via the Internet and to an Internet-connected digital device.
`
`As of the ’026 patent’s filing date, VOD systems possessing the very same
`
`“improved” features referenced in the ’026 patent were well known. Indeed,
`
`during its prosecution, all of the claim limitations reciting these alleged
`
`improvements were found in the prior art. The ’026 patent was only allowed after
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`the claims were amended to include limitations that required additional
`
`conventional concepts: (1) navigating through levels of the hierarchical menu in a
`
`“drill down” manner and (2) using different templates for different levels of the
`
`hierarchical menu. Neither of these additions was even purported to be novel in
`
`the patent’s specification, and both were likewise well-known and obvious in view
`
`of the prior art.
`
`This petition discusses four references demonstrating this: U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2003/0113100 to Hecht et al. (Ex. 1108, “Hecht”),
`
`U.S. Patent 7,159,233 to Son et al. (Ex. 1106, “Son”), a 2003 article by Scheffler
`
`entitled “Ingest & Metadata Partitioning: Requirements for Television on Demand”
`
`(Ex. 1109, “Scheffler”) published in 2003, and a VOD industry specification
`
`released by CableLabs. These four references together render obvious all
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`Like the ’026 patent, Hecht teaches an Internet-connected digital device with
`
`software that presents hierarchical menus of VOD content to end-users, including
`
`to cable-television service subscribers. Hecht teaches the same type of
`
`categorically-arranged hierarchical menu claimed by the ’026 patent, and
`
`recognizes that this menu structure allows users to easily find desired content.
`
`Hecht also teaches defining the structure and appearance of its EPG using both
`
`metadata associated with the VOD content and preexisting templates.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`While Hecht does not explicitly disclose a web-based content upload system,
`
`it is compatible with numerous back-end systems. As of the ’026 patent’s filing
`
`date, the use of web-based upload systems was well-known in the prior art. Son
`
`provides an example. Like both the ’026 patent and Hecht, Son discloses systems
`
`and methods for making video—including VOD—available to end users. Son
`
`explains that web-based upload systems are desirable because they allow
`
`individual content providers to upload content to a video distribution system over
`
`the Internet in a standardized format that (in turn) allows a central server to
`
`distribute the content to many different types of users on different types of
`
`networks.
`
`While Hecht does not discuss the initial origin of the metadata used to
`
`populate its user interface, as of the ’026 patent’s filing date it was known that
`
`content providers should be the source of content-related metadata. This is
`
`disclosed by all of Son, Scheffler, and CableLabs. Son’s system allows content
`
`providers to append metadata—including categorical metadata—to content before
`
`upload. Scheffler includes a similar teaching and explains that VOD systems are
`
`substantially improved if metadata is appended to content by the original creator so
`
`that it travels downstream with the content during distribution. Scheffler also lists
`
`numerous “standard” types of metadata that should be appended to content and
`
`makes reference to the CableLabs specification. That specification provides
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`additional examples and notes that it is “standard” to include categorical metadata
`
`that controls how content is listed in a hierarchical menu or user interface. This is
`
`exactly what the ’026 patent’s claims require.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C. is the real party in interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’026 patent is asserted against Petitioner in a lawsuit brought by Patent
`
`Owner, Broadband iTV, Inc v. DISH Network, L.L.C., Case No. 6:19-cv-716-ADA
`
`(W.D. Tex.). Petitioner was served with the Complaint for that matter on
`
`December 19, 2019 and this petition is therefore timely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`The ’026 patent is also being asserted by Patent Owner in Broadband iTV,
`
`Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-712-ADA (W.D. Tex.) and
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DirectTV, LLC, Case No. 6:19-cv-714-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’026 patent has not been subject to any inter partes review or
`
`reexamination. Petitioner is separately filing petitions for inter partes review
`
`against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,506,269, 9,998,791 and 9,648,388. These patents are
`
`all members of the same family. Petitioner is also concurrently filing a second IPR
`
`petition against the ’026 patent. In light of Petitioner’s second petition challenging
`
`the ’026 patent, Petitioner has filed a statement with the Board explaining the need
`
`for separately filed petitions.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`The ’026 patent is related to U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 (“’336 patent”) and
`
`shares the same specification. Ex. 1113. The ’336 patent was the subject of a prior
`
`petition for inter partes review (IPR2014-01222) and a prior petition for covered
`
`business method review (CBM2014-00189). Institution was denied for both
`
`petitions. Petitioner had no involvement in either prior petition. The ’336 patent
`
`was held invalid in district court litigation for lack of patentable subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 136 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Haw. 2015).
`
`C. Counsel, Service and Fee Information
`Petitioner designates the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Alyssa Caridis
`Registration No. 57,545
`(A8CPTABDocket@orrick.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
`T: 213-629-2020; F: 213-612-2499
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`K. Patrick Herman
`Registration No. 75,018
`(P52PTABDocket@orrick.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`T: 212-506-5000; F: 212-506-5151
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail at the following addresses:
`
`
`
`A8CPTABDocket@orrick.com, P52PTABDocket@orrick.com. Petitioner’s
`
`Power of Attorney is attached.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`The USPTO is authorized to charge the filing fee and any other fees incurred
`
`by Petitioner to the deposit account of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP: 15-
`
`0665.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the Challenged Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that neither the Petitioner, nor any real party-in-interest or any privy of
`
`Petitioner is barred or estopped from requesting this review. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(a).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims and Statement of Precise
`Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-16. This petition discusses claim
`
`construction, explains why the claims are unpatentable, provides details regarding
`
`where the various claim limitations are found in the prior art, and is supported by
`
`the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ (Ex. 1103, “Russ”), a leading
`
`expert in computer engineering applications in the Video-On-Demand industry.
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references: (1) Hecht (Ex. 1108), (2) Son
`
`(Ex. 1106), (3) Scheffler (Ex. 1109) and (4) CableLabs (Ex. 1111).
`
`Petitioner challenges the claims on the following ground:
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`Ground 1: Claims 1-16 are obvious over the combination of Hecht, Son,
`
`Scheffler and/or CableLabs, when considered in view of the knowledge of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§ 314(A) OR 325(D) IS
`INAPPROPRIATE
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits
`
`and all other requirements for IPR have been met. The Board should institute IPR.
`
`The parallel district court proceeding involving the ’026 patent does not weigh
`
`against institution. As of the filing of this petition, no trial has been formally
`
`scheduled. The Scheduling Order entered in that proceeding indicates that trial may
`
`be set for some not yet determined date “52 weeks after [the] Markman hearing (or
`
`as soon as practicable).” See Ex. 1115. But the Court does not plan to schedule
`
`trial until “the conclusion of the Markman Hearing.” Id. The Markman hearing is
`
`currently scheduled for November 13, 2020 and the schedule includes numerous
`
`other intermediary deadlines extending to October 1, 2021, suggesting a trial at least
`
`52 weeks after Markman is contemplated. Even assuming this hearing is not
`
`delayed, the earliest date on which trial could occur is November 18, 2021.
`
`It is, however, highly likely that trial will occur much later. Over the last year,
`
`the number of patent cases initiated in the Western District of Texas has ballooned
`
`from 257 to 632 cases, and Judge Albright’s patent case load grew from 248 cases
`
`in 2019 to 400 new cases so far in 2020. See Ex. 1122, Ex. 1123. At the same time,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`patent trials have not been moving forward even while the number of filings has
`
`grown. Indeed, no patent trials have been conducted in the Western District this year
`
`and none of Judge Albright’s patent cases has gone to trial.
`
`Further, the current pandemic continues to delay district court trials. On May
`
`8, 2020, the Western District of Texas issued an order continuing all civil trials
`
`scheduled between now through June 30, 2020. See Ex. 1121. A second order
`
`pushed out trials until July 31, 2020, and a more recent order pushed them out again
`
`until August 31, 2020. Exs. 1033 and 1034. On June 15, 2020 Judge Albright
`
`pushed an already-continued trial by yet another month, stating that he could not
`
`“guarantee that the pandemic will allow the trial to go forward then.” Ex. 1135. All
`
`of these trials will need to be rescheduled, causing cascading delays and likely
`
`continuances of more recently filed cases, including the parallel district court
`
`proceeding at issue here. See Civil Minutes-General, DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et
`
`al., 19-cv-1602-PSG (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) at *5 (“‘the Court, parties,
`
`and counsel face unprecedented challenges from COVID-19’ … It is likely that if
`
`these cases were to proceed on their current schedule, hearings and trial would be
`
`subject to delays, particularly because criminal matters will take priority over these
`
`patent infringement actions.”). Ex. 1116.
`
`In sum, the growing volume of patent cases pending before Judge Albright,
`
`the fact that none of those patent cases has been tried, and the delays the Federal
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`Court system is experiencing with jury trials, make it likely that the parallel district
`
`court proceeding will reach trial well after the projected final written decision date
`
`for this petition.
`
`The district court proceeding is also still in its early stages. Petitioner was
`
`not served with Patent Owner’s infringement contentions and identification of
`
`asserted claims until April 30, 2020, and diligently prepared and filed this petition
`
`promptly thereafter. Exs. 1026 and 1027. Petitioner did not wait until near the end
`
`of the statutorily provided one-year period for filing IPRs. Instead, it filed only
`
`seven months after being served with a complaint. No preliminary injunction
`
`motion has been filed, no claim construction has occurred, a motion to transfer is
`
`pending, and there has been no meaningful fact or expert discovery. Further, this
`
`petition challenges unasserted claim 10 which weighs in favor of institution.
`
`The arguments set forth here are different from those addressed by the
`
`Patent Office during prosecution and by the Board in proceedings involving related
`
`patents. None of the relied-upon references has been presented in any PTAB
`
`proceedings against any related patents. While some CableLabs materials are
`
`listed on the face of the ’026 patent, they were buried in a set of 26 simultaneously
`
`filed IDS forms that collectively listed a total of 396 references. Ex. 1118 at 67-
`
`658. Thus, neither the Office nor the Board has ever had an opportunity to assess
`
`the patentability of the ’026 patent’s claim over the art discussed in this petition.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`As further discussed below, that art explicitly discloses the ’026 patent’s
`
`purportedly “inventive” features. The Board should, therefore, institute this
`
`petition.
`
`V. THE ’026 PATENT
`Summary of the ’026 Patent
`A.
`The ’026 patent issued July 17, 2018 and names Milton Diaz Perez as its
`
`sole inventor. Ex. 1101 at (45), (72). The ’026 patent has a priority date of March
`
`12, 2007, based on the filing of a continuation-in-part application that issued as the
`
`’336 patent (Ex. 1113). Ex. 1101 at (60).
`
`The ’026 patent relates to a system for making video content available
`
`through a VOD server to subscribers of, for example, a cable television service.
`
`As the ’026 patent explains, traditional cable TV service was provided using a set-
`
`top box that was “individually addressable from the CATV head end.” Ex. 1101,
`
`2:3-12.
`
`According to the ’026 patent, delivery of content through VOD systems was
`
`expected to “increase dramatically,” as a result of commercial and “self-
`
`publishers” providing additional content. Id. 2:66-3:8. The ’026 patent’s system
`
`seeks to address this anticipated change in two ways. First, the ’026 patent’s
`
`system purportedly permits content publishers to “transmit their programs to the
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`home TV.” Id. 3:8-10. Second, it allows viewers to find desired content among
`
`the large amount of available content. Id. 3:8-12.
`
`To accomplish this, the ’026 patent uses conventional methods. For
`
`example, it employs a web-based content management server. Id. 3:54-58. But
`
`prior to its filing, websites like YouTube.com and Brightcove.com similarly
`
`allowed users to upload video content to web servers over the Internet. Id. 16:48-
`
`51.
`
`To allow the content to be presented in an easily browsable manner, the ’026
`
`patent requires content publisher to provide certain metadata concerning the video
`
`content at the time of upload, such as its title and the categories and subcategories
`
`to which it belongs. Id. 3:58-66. This metadata is used to place the program title
`
`within the hierarchical structure of the EPG menu. Id. A user can navigate the
`
`categories and subcategories of the hierarchical EPG until they locate desired video
`
`content. Id. 6:9-20.
`
`The ’026 patent refers to the menu pages as “templatized display[s]” Id.
`
`6:16-20. These templatized displays as generated in three layers, as shown in
`
`Figure 1C.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`
`
`
`Id. Fig. 1C.
`
`First, there is a background layer that includes a “basic color, logo, or
`
`graphical theme” and serves as the background for the page’s content. Id. 7:19-21.
`
`Second, there is a template layer, which defines the page’s layout by reserving
`
`certain areas for text, images and navigation buttons. Id. 7:21-25. Third, there is
`
`the “Text, Image, & Buttons” layer, which consists of data retrieved from the
`
`database to populate the reserved areas in the second layer. Id. 7:25-30.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01268, Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,028,026
`While the illustrative embodiment described in the ’026 patent presents the
`
`EPG using a conventional set-top box, the Challenged Claims are directed to “an
`
`Internet-connected digital device” through which a viewer can navigate through
`
`the hierarchically-arranged EPG. Id. 17:64-18:7. The ’026 patent also explains
`
`that the EPGs ca