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.
`
`____________________________
`Case No.: IPR2020-01281
`U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791
`Original Issue Date: June 12, 2018
`
`Title: VIDEO-ON-DEMAND CONTENT DELIVERY METHOD FOR
`PROVIDING VIDEO-ON-DEMAND SERVICES TO TV SERVICE
`SUBSCRIBERS
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SAMUEL H. RUSS, Ph.D.
`
`-1-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 1
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND
`OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................... 4
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................... 7
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 9
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 13
`VI.
`THE ’791 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE ................................... 15
`VII. THE ’791 PATENT ....................................................................................... 15
`A.
`Overview of the ’791 Patent ................................................................ 15
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’791 Patent ............................................... 19
`C.
`The ’791 Patent’s Claims .................................................................... 19
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 25
`A.
`“Web-based content management system” ......................................... 26
`B.
`“Hierarchically arranged category information and subcategory
`information to specify a location of the first title information for the
`video content in a predetermined video-on-demand application” ...... 27
`“TV equipment” .................................................................................. 28
`C.
`D. Other Terms ......................................................................................... 30
`IX. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 30
`A.
`Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 30
`1.
`Son.............................................................................................30
`2.
`Scheffler and CableLabs ...........................................................34
`3.
`Kelts ..........................................................................................38
`
`-2-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 2
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-18 Are Obvious Over Son,
`Scheffler, CableLabs, and Kelts in View of the Knowledge of a
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 42
`1.
`Claim-By-Claim Analysis .........................................................42
`a.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................42
`b.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................76
`c.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................76
`d.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................78
`e.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................80
`f.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................82
`g.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................83
`h.
`Claim 10 ..........................................................................85
`i.
`Claim 11 ..........................................................................89
`j.
`Claim 12 ..........................................................................91
`k.
`Claim 14 ..........................................................................94
`l.
`Claim 15 ..........................................................................96
`m. Claim 16 ..........................................................................98
`n.
`Claim 17 ........................................................................100
`o.
`Claim 18 ........................................................................100
`Motivation to Combine ...........................................................101
`2.
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................... 114
`
`-3-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 3
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`I, Samuel H. Russ, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”). I am not an employee of DISH or any affiliate or
`
`subsidiary of DISH.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references teach or
`
`suggest the features recited in certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791, which I
`
`refer to herein as the ’791 patent.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`My opinions and the bases for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary rate of $350
`
`per hour for my work, plus reimbursement for any reasonable expenses. My
`
`compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity related
`
`to this case and is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE,
`AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached hereto as Attachment A and
`
`provides an accurate identification of my background and experience.
`
`-4-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 4
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience in the field of cable television
`
`specifically set-top boxes, spanning a variety of positions in academia and
`
`industry.
`
`7.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1986 and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1991.
`
`8.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have held a faculty position as an
`
`Assistant and Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of South Alabama. I have taught a number of classes
`
`including classes in embedded systems and the design of high-speed digital
`
`systems. During that time, I won awards for excellent teaching and have been
`
`actively publishing research in home networking and digital video recording
`
`(DVR) technologies. I am active in the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer
`
`Electronics Society. I am also a consultant, where I have conducted briefings for
`
`members of the financial community on technology trends in the cable, satellite,
`
`and Internet Protocol television (IPTV) sectors.
`
`9.
`
`From 2000 to 2007 and prior to my academic positions at the
`
`University of South Alabama, I was the manager in the Advanced Technologies
`
`R&D group for Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco’s Service Provider Video
`
`-5-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 5
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`Technology Group). As part of this work, I managed a cable set-top box (STB)
`
`design group that designed four STB models for the cable television industry,
`
`including the Explorer 4200 (non-DVR) and 8300 (DVR) models. Both models
`
`were produced in high volumes and sold several million units. As the design-
`
`group manager, I was responsible for managing the design and prototyping
`
`activities of the group and for interfacing with other groups (especially integrated
`
`circuit design, procurement, software developers, the factory where prototypes
`
`were built, and product managers). I also maintained the hardware and mechanical
`
`development schedule.
`
`10. While at Scientific-Atlanta, I became a staff expert in home
`
`networking, and conducted demonstrations of wireless video technology. I also
`
`managed a group that developed a new coaxial home networking system. This
`
`coaxial system won a Technology and Engineering Emmy® Award in 2013.
`
`Further, I was a staff expert in digital video recorder (DVR) reliability, and led a
`
`team that improved the software, hardware, repair, and manufacturing processes.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on 51 patent applications that were filed while
`
`I was at Scientific-Atlanta, many of which focus on cable technology. These
`
`applications have led to 29 issued U.S. patents and 9 as European patents.
`
`12.
`
`I have researched and written about video storage, multimedia
`
`broadcasting over networks, embedded systems, consumer electronics, STBs,
`
`-6-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 6
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`access of stored video from peer devices in a local network, electronic
`
`manufacturing systems, and other topics in video and image processing. Along
`
`this same vein, I have authored or co-authored 32 journal articles and conference
`
`papers in these areas of video storage, video networking and consumer electronics.
`
`One of my conference papers on digital video recording won second place in a
`
`“Best Paper” competition at the 2011 International Conference on Consumer
`
`Electronics in Las Vegas, Nevada.
`
`13.
`
`From 1994 to 1999, I served on the faculty of Mississippi State
`
`University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer
`
`Engineering. I taught circuit board design and two-way interactive video classes,
`
`among other things.
`
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`14.
`I have been asked to provide analysis and explain the subject matter of
`
`the ’791 patent, including the state of the art when the ’791 patent application was
`
`filed. I have also been asked to consider, analyze, and explain certain prior art to
`
`the ’791 patent including how that art relates to the challenged claims of the ’791
`
`patent and to provide my opinions regarding whether that art invalidates the
`
`claimed subject matter.
`
`15.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of
`
`opinions I may offer in the future regarding the unpatentability of the claims of
`
`-7-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 7
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`the ’791 patent. Therefore, the fact that I do not address a particular point should
`
`not be understood to indicate an agreement on my part that any claim complies
`
`with the requirements of any applicable patent or other rule.
`
`16.
`
`I reserve the right to amend and supplement this declaration in light of
`
`additional evidence, arguments, or testimony presented during this IPR or related
`
`proceedings on the ’791 patent.
`
`17.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`and relied upon my education, knowledge of the relevant field, knowledge of
`
`scientific and engineering principles, and my experience. I have also reviewed and
`
`considered the ’791 patent (Exhibit 1101), its prosecution history (Exhibit 1102),
`
`and the following additional materials:
`
`Exhibit
`1104
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0153997 to Baumgartner
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1109
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`U.S. Patent 7,159,233 to Son et al.
`
`Scheffler, “Ingest & Metadata Partitioning: Requirements for
`Television on Demand” (2003)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2001/00330667 A1 to Kelts
`
`CableLabs ® Video-on-Demand Content Specification, Version 1.1
`(Sept. 27, 2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,578,376 to Perez
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,338,512 to Perez
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,232,275 to Perez
`
`-8-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 8
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1131
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,078,016 to Perez
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,774,819 to Perez
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 to Perez
`
`Claim Construction Order from Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian
`Telecom, Inc., Case. No. 14-00169, Dkt. No. 290 (D. Haw. June 24,
`2015)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0138619 A1 to Ramaley et al.
`
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury
`Instructions, last edited May 2020
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`18.
`I am not an attorney, but have been instructed in and applied the law
`
`as described in this section. I have also been provided with a copy of the Federal
`
`Circuit Bar Association’s Model Patent Jury Instructions (Ex. 1131) and I have
`
`looked to them for guidance in formulating my opinions. To the extent there is any
`
`difference in the language used in my summary of the law (as set forth below) and
`
`the Model Patent Jury Instructions, I have considered the Model Instructions as
`
`authoritative and have attempted to faithfully apply those standards.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the first step in comparing an asserted claim to the
`
`prior art is for the claim to be properly construed. I address how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the alleged invention
`
`in Section VIII below.
`
`-9-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 9
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I have been further instructed and understand that a patent claim is
`
`unpatentable and invalid as obvious if the subject matter of the claim as a whole
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed
`
`subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that when
`
`assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, the following factors are
`
`evaluated: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or
`
`differences between each claim of the patent and the prior art; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claimed subject matter may be obvious in view of
`
`more than one item of prior art. I understand, however, that it is not enough to
`
`show simply that all the limitations of the claimed subject matter are spread
`
`throughout the prior art. Instead, for claimed subject matter to be obvious over
`
`multiple references, there must be some reason or motivation for one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an
`
`invention that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider
`
`the references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references render the combination obvious to such a person.
`
`-10-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 10
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, while not required, the
`
`prior art references themselves may provide a teaching, suggestion, motivation, or
`
`reason to combine, but other times the motivation linking two or more prior art
`
`references is common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious by
`
`showing that it was obvious to try the combination. I have been informed that, if a
`
`technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references also may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace. For example, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve
`
`a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`-11-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 11
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`26.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. Thus, where all of the elements of a claim are used in
`
`substantially the same manner, in devices in the same field of endeavor, the claim
`
`is likely obvious.
`
`27. Additionally, I understand that a patent is likely to be invalid for
`
`obviousness if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation or if
`
`there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. Therefore, when work is
`
`available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that combining embodiments related to each other
`
`in a single prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that one of ordinary skill in the art must have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success when combining references for claimed subject
`
`matter to be obvious.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed and I understand that factors referred to as
`
`“objective indicia of non-obviousness” or “secondary considerations” are also to
`
`be considered when assessing obviousness when such evidence is available. I
`
`understand that these factors can include: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but
`
`-12-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 12
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem the claimed subject matter solved; and (6) unexpected results.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I
`
`further understand that there must be a relationship, sometimes referred to as a
`
`“nexus,” between any such secondary indicia and the claimed invention.
`
`32.
`
`Finally, I have been informed that one cannot use hindsight to
`
`determine that an invention was obvious.
`
`33.
`
`I provide my opinions in this declaration based on the guidelines set
`
`forth above.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`34.
`I have been informed and understand that the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention is relevant to inquiries such as the
`
`meaning of claim terms, the meaning of disclosures found in the prior art, and the
`
`reasons one of ordinary skill in the art may have for combining references.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill include: (1) the education of
`
`the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions
`
`to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication
`
`-13-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 13
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`of the technology; and (6) education level of active workers in the relevant field. I
`
`have been further informed and understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`36. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering,
`
`computer science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with 3-4
`
`years of experience with the design and/or implementation of video-on-demand
`
`systems. This person of ordinary skill in the art would have been, in my opinion,
`
`aware of and generally knowledgeable about the systems used to upload content to
`
`a video-on-demand server, how such a server can be structured and operates, the
`
`types of metadata employed by video-on-demand systems, and the types of user
`
`interfaces that are commonly used by such systems.
`
`37.
`
`In view of my educational background (e.g. a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering obtained in 1991) and decades of experience working with cable
`
`television technology, as discussed in Section II, I was a person of more than the
`
`ordinary level of skill in the art as of July 2004. In forming my opinion, I have
`
`drawn on my personal experiences both as a hiring manager and as an educator
`
`charged with preparing accreditation and other similar curriculum-related
`
`documentation. My opinions herein, however, were formed taking into account
`
`the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
`
`-14-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 14
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`VI. THE ’791 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`38.
`I understand that the application leading to the ’791 patent was filed
`
`on January 5, 2017.
`
`39. Based on my review of the ’791 patent, I note that it also makes
`
`reference back through a chain of continuation and divisional applications to a July
`
`30, 2004 filing.
`
`40.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been instructed to use July 30,
`
`2004 as the effective filing date of the ’791 patent. My opinions in this declaration
`
`were formed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July
`
`30, 2004, including both the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`that time as well as how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the prior art.
`
`VII. THE ’791 PATENT
`A.
`Overview of the ’791 Patent
`41.
`The ’791 patent relates to “the provision of” “video-on-demand” (or
`
`“VOD”) “through cable TV infrastructure.” (Ex. 1101, 1:53-60.)
`
`42.
`
`The ’791 patent explains that VOD systems were known and in
`
`existence long before its filing. (Id., 2:16-22.)
`
`43. According to the ’791 patent, these existing prior art VOD systems
`
`allowed a “viewer” to “enter a selection choice for a video program … and have
`
`-15-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 15
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`the desired video program delivered instantaneously for display on the TV.” (Id.,
`
`2:16-22.)
`
`44.
`
`Existing VOD systems also included “on-screen menu[s]” allowing
`
`users to “cursor through” and “select from a variety of titles for stored video
`
`programs for individual viewing on demand.” (Id., 2:25-29.)
`
`45.
`
`The ’791 patent attempts to improve on these already existing VOD
`
`systems in a number of ways.
`
`46.
`
`For instance, the ’791 patent states that its VOD system “allow[s]
`
`viewers to navigate readily and visually to specific items of interest.” (Id., 3:2-6.)
`
`47.
`
`The patent also explains that its system permits “uploads … from
`
`individuals such as through an online network for search, navigation, and display
`
`to TV subscribers.” (Id., 3:9-14.)
`
`48.
`
`Figure 2A of the ’791 patent, reproduced below, depicts a “VOD
`
`content delivery system … adapted to offer consumer-generated classified ads on
`
`TV.” (Id., 9:37-44.)
`
`-16-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 16
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 2A.)
`
`49.
`
`“[I]ndividual user[s]” upload content via a “Web-based Content
`
`Management System 40.” (Id., 9:42-48.)
`
`50.
`
`The ’791 patent explains that this uploaded content is accompanied by
`
`“meta data for classifying the video ad by title and topical area(s).” (Id., 9:48-49.)
`
`51.
`
`To make content available to users, “a VOD content Delivery System
`
`44” generates “menus” that can be “navigated” by the users through their TV
`
`equipment. (Id., 9:63-10:4.)
`
`52. After a particular piece of desired content is located via menu
`
`navigation and selected by a user, the requested content is delivered through a
`
`standard “CATV” system and displayed on the TV. (Id.; see also id., 3:14-28.)
`
`53.
`
`Figure 1B, reproduced below, provides an example of a menu “User
`
`Interface using Drill-Down Navigation.” (Id., 6:40-43.)
`
`-17-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 17
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 1B.)
`
`54. As depicted in this particular figure, the interface is arranged
`
`“hierarchically” so the user can “navigate to progressively more focused content.”
`
`(Id., 6:53-57.)
`
`55.
`
`Thus, when navigating through the hierarchical levels of the menu, the
`
`user is first presented with broader categories. As the user selects categories of
`
`interest, the user is presented with “successively lower levels of content in the
`
`hierarchy” until the “viewer” “find[s] specific end content of interest” via this
`
`“drill-down navigation.” (Id., 6:28-39.)
`
`-18-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 18
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`Prosecution History of the ’791 Patent
`B.
`56. As noted above, I have reviewed the ’791 patent’s prosecution history.
`
`No office actions were issued, and the claims were not rejected. (See generally Ex.
`
`1102.)
`
`57. At the time the claims were allowed, the Examiner stated that “Novak
`
`(US 2002/0104099), Dudkiewicz et al (US 2002/0088010), and Ellis (US
`
`2002/0042921) are the closest cited prior art.” (Ex. 1102 at 514.) The Examiner
`
`then went on to identify why he considered each of these references pertinent.
`
`58. More particularly, the Examiner explained that “Novak discloses
`
`[that] an individual can upload media objects to a server and specify a manner in
`
`which the media objects are the played as a media program to the end user.” (Id.)
`
`59.
`
`“Dudkiewicz discloses,” according to the Examiner, discloses a
`
`process for the generation of “metadata.” (Id., 515.) The Examiner went on to
`
`note that Dudkiewicz’s process employs a “system” that “provide[s] preliminary
`
`metadata” to a “user,” including categorical metadata. (Id.)
`
`60.
`
`Finally, “Ellis discloses systems and methods” for “retrieving non-on-
`
`demand media data.” (Id.)
`
`C.
`61.
`
`The ’791 Patent’s Claims
`The ’791 patent has one independent claim and 17 dependent claims.
`
`For reference, claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-18 are reproduced below:
`
`-19-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 19
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`1. A method for video-on-demand content delivery for providing
`video-on-demand services
`to a plurality of
`television service
`subscribers via a television service provider system that comprises a
`video-on-demand content delivery system having one or more
`computers, the method comprising:
`(a) receiving, at the one or more computers of the video-on-demand
`content delivery system of the television service provider system
`from a Web-based content management system,
`at least the following digital content:
`(i) a first video content, along with
`(ii) first metadata, associated with the first video content and
`usable in a video-on-demand content menu, the first metadata
`comprising:
`(1) first title information comprising a first title,
`(2) first content provider designated hierarchically arranged
`category information and subcategory information to
`specify a location of the first title information for the video
`content in a predetermined video-on-demand application,
`the first content provider designated category information
`and subcategory information associated with the first title
`information of the first video content using a same
`hierarchical structure of categories and subcategories as is
`to be used for placement of the first title information in the
`predetermined video-on-demand application; and
`(3) first time information for availability of the first video
`content for scheduling of viewing of the first video content
`through the predetermined video-on-demand application;
`
`-20-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 20
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`wherein the first video content was uploaded to the Web-based
`content management system by a content provider device
`associated with a first video content provider via the Internet in
`a digital video format, along with the associated first metadata
`including first title information, and first content provider
`designated hierarchically arranged category information and
`subcategory information designated by the first video content
`provider, to specify a hierarchical location of the first title of the
`first video content within the video-on-demand content menu
`using the first category information and first subcategory
`information associated with the first title information;
`(b) storing, at a video server comprising one or more computers and
`computer-readable memory operatively connected to the one or
`more computers of the video server, respective video content,
`including the first video content, wherein the video server is
`associated with the video-on-demand content delivery system
`and is configured to supply the respective video content, upon
`request, for transmission to a set top box operatively connected
`to TV equipment of a television service subscriber;
`(c) providing a respective set top box operatively connected to
`respective TV equipment of a respective television service
`subscriber with access to the video-on-demand content menu for
`navigating through titles, including the first title of the first video
`content, by hierarchically-arranged category information and
`subcategory information including at least the first category
`information and the first subcategory information in order to
`
`-21-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 21
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`locate a respective one of the titles whose associated video
`content is desired for viewing on the respective TV equipment,
`wherein the video-on-demand content menu lists the titles using the
`same hierarchical structure of category
`information and
`subcategory information as was designated by one or more video
`content providers, including the first video content provider, in
`the uploaded metadata for the respective video content, wherein
`a plurality of different video display templates, including a first
`video display template, are accessible to the set top box, and
`wherein
`the predetermined video-on-demand application
`accesses the first video display template for generating and
`displaying the video-on-demand content menu at the respective
`TV equipment of the respective television service subscriber;
`(d) determining, at the predetermined video-on-demand application,
`which titles are available for selection from the video-on-demand
`content menu at a respective time based at least in part on
`respective time information during which the respective video
`content associated with the respective time information can be
`accessed
`through
`the
`predetermined
`video-on-demand
`application; and
`(e) in response to (i) the respective television service subscriber
`selecting, via a control unit in communication with the respective
`set top box, the first title associated with the first video content
`from the hierarchically-arranged category information and
`subcategory information of the video-on-demand content menu,
`and (ii) the respective set top box transmitting an electronic
`request for the first video content associated with the selected
`
`-22-
`
`DISH Ex. 1103, p. 22
` DISH v. BBiTV
`IPR2020-01281
`
`

`

`first title, retrieving the first video content from the video server,
`and transmitting the first video content to the respective set top
`box for display of the first video content on the respective TV
`equipment of the respective television service subscriber.
`
`2. The method of claim 1, wherein the control unit is a remote
`control unit.
`
`3. The method of claim 1, further comprising tracking and
`collecting, at the television service provider system, data indicative of
`selections for viewing of video-on-demand video content by respective
`television service subscribers on the television service provider system.
`
`6. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of
`different video display templates is configured to display a logo frame.
`
`7. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of
`different video display templates is configured to provide navigation
`buttons.
`
`8. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of
`different video display templates is configured to provide viewer
`selection options.
`
`9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first metadata further includes
`descriptive data about the video content.
`
`10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first metadata further