UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.
`and DIRECTV, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00556
`Patent No. 10,028,026
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,028,026
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`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 .................................................. 6
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 7
`A.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 7
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims and Statements of Precise
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 7
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§ 314(A) OR 325(D) IS
`INAPPROPRIATE HERE ............................................................................... 8
`A.
`General Plastic Factors ......................................................................... 8
`B.
`Fintiv Factors ......................................................................................... 8
`THE ’026 PATENT .......................................................................................11
`A.
`Summary of the ’026 Patent ................................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’026 Patent ............................................... 14
`STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................15
`A.
`The Priority Date of the ’026 Patent ................................................... 15
`B.
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ 17
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................18
`A.
`“Web-based content management system” ......................................... 18
`B.
`“Hierarchically-arranged category information associated with
`the respective title” .............................................................................. 18
`
`VI.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`“Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) system” ............................................... 19
`C.
`Other Terms ......................................................................................... 19
`D.
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-16 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF GONDER,
`SON AND/OR KELTS .................................................................................19
`A.
`Summary ............................................................................................. 19
`B.
`Overview of Gonder ............................................................................ 20
`C.
`Overview of Son .................................................................................. 28
`D.
`Overview of Kelts ............................................................................... 31
`E.
`Detailed Claim Mapping ..................................................................... 35
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................35
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................55
`3.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................56
`4.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................56
`5.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................58
`6.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................58
`7.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................60
`8.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................61
`9.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................61
`10. Claim 10 ....................................................................................62
`11. Claim 11 ....................................................................................63
`12. Claim 12 ....................................................................................63
`13. Claim 13 ....................................................................................64
`14. Claim 14 ....................................................................................64
`
`ii
`
`

`

`15. Claim 15 ....................................................................................65
`16. Claim 16 ....................................................................................65
`F. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 66
`G.
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................. 73
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................73
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“‘026 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ
`1003
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Samuel Russ
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 8,434,118 (“Gonder”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,159,233 (“Son”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030667 (“Kelts”)
`1008
`Intentionally omitted
`1009
`1010
`1011
`CableLabs Video-On-Demand Content Specification Version 1.1
`1012 Declaration of Christie Poland
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 (“’336 patent”)
`1014
`Intentionally omitted
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`1015
`
`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
`
`1016
`
`Civil Minutes-General, DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., 19-cv-1602-
`PSG (DFMx) (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,590,997 (“’997 patent”)
`1018
`1019
`
`Claim Construction Order, Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom,
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“‘026 File History”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inc., et al., 14-00169 ACK-RLP (D. Haw. June 24, 2015)
`1020 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0138619 (“Ramaley”)
`1021 Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated May 8, 2020
`1022 Unified Patent’s Q1 2020 Patent Dispute Report (March 31, 2020)
`1023
`
`Judge Alan D. Albright Patent Statistics
`
`1024
`
`Excerpt from File History for related U.S. Patent Application No.
`12/632,745
`
`1025
`
`Family Chart for the ’997 patent
`
`1026
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc.’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions and
`Identification of Priority Dates cover pleading dated April 30, 2020
`
`1027
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc.’s Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026
`(Ex. 1) dated April 30, 2020
`1028 Highlighted Claim 1 for ‘026 Patent
`1029
`Intentionally omitted
`
`1030
`
`Comcast’s 2004 Annual Report – Excerpts
`http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c/N
`ASDAQ_CMCSA_2004.pdf
`
`1031
`
`Time Warner, Inc.’s Form 10-K for the year 2003 – Excerpts
`http://getfilings.com/o0000950144-04-002438.html
`1032 AT&T U-Verse Wikipedia page
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse.
`1033 Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated June 18, 2020
`1034 Western District of Texas Order RE: COVID-19 dated July 2, 2020
`1035 Minute Entry, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-
`ADA (W.D. Tex., Jun. 15, 2020), ECF 293
`
`1036
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`v
`
`

`

`1037
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`Set-Top,
`4200
`Explorer
`Launches
`Scientific-Atlanta
`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.opencable.
`com/ocap/ocap.html
`
`1042
`
`Google pays the price to capture online video zeitgeist, Way Back
`Machine capture,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070901031352/http://www.eurekastree
`t.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=1837
`1043 Mpeg-2 Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2
`Sony’s PS3 makes U.S. debut to long lines, short supplies,
`https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-11-17-ps3-
`debut_x.htm
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions,
`last edited May 2020
`
`1046
`
`CableLabs Specifications Library,
`https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications
`1047 Merriam-Webster’s definition of “effect”
`1048 Document Details from CableLabs website re CableLabs Video-On-
`Demand Content Specification Version 1.1
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00224, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2020) ................................................. 8
`Broadband iTV, Inc v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al,
`Case No. 1:20-cv-717-ADA (W.D. Tex.)............................................................. 5
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:19-cv-712-ADA (W.D. Tex.)............................................................. 4
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DirectTV, LLC,
`Case No. 6:19-cv-714-ADA (W.D. Tex.)............................................................. 4
`Broadband iTV, Inc v. DISH Network, L.L.C.,
`Case No. 6:19-cv-716-ADA (W.D. Tex.)............................................................. 5
`DISH Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2021) ................................ 8, 9, 10, 11
`DISH Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01267, Paper 18 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) ................................................. 9
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................. 8
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 20, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...........................................................................20, 21, 22, 28, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ....................................................................................... 20, 21, 28
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 17
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`vii
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................... 8, 11
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.122 ............................................................................................... 5, 8
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners AT&T Services, Inc. and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively
`
`“Petitioners” or “AT&T”) request inter partes review of claims 1-16 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 (“’026 patent”), attached as
`
`Ex. 1001. The ’026 patent is owned by Broadband iTV, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’026 patent is directed to a purported incremental improvement to
`
`video-on-demand (“VOD”) systems. The patent concedes that VOD systems were
`
`well-known and in existence before its filing. The ’026 patent attempts to improve
`
`on these known systems in two ways. First, the claims include a template-based
`
`hierarchically-arranged user interface or electronic program guide (“EPG”) that
`
`organizes available videos by category and subcategory. According to the ’026
`
`patent, this makes it easier for subscribers to locate a video of interest. Second, the
`
`claims include a web-based upload system. According to the ’026 patent, this
`
`allows many different individual content providers to upload content—like movies,
`
`television programs, advertisements, and the like—and associated metadata for
`
`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 to an Internet-connected digital device.
`
`As of the ’026 patent’s filing date, video-on-demand systems—including
`
`systems possessing the very same “improved” features referenced in the ’026
`
`1
`
`

`

`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 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 three exemplary references demonstrating this: U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,434,118 to Gonder et al (Ex. 1005, “Gonder”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,159,233 to Son et al. (Ex. 1006, “Son”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2001/0030667 to Kelts (Ex. 1007, “Kelts”).
`
`Like the ’026 patent, Gonder relates to a system that makes VOD content
`
`available to end-users. Users access this content through a device running software
`
`that displays a template-based hierarchical menu. Gonder’s menu employs the
`
`same categorically-arranged hierarchical “drill-down” structure as the menu of the
`
`’026 patent, and further shows different templates used at different levels of the
`
`menu. Gonder also teaches that its menu allows users to easily find desired content.
`
`Further, Gonder teaches that its menu uses industry standard metadata provided by
`
`content providers.
`
`2
`
`

`

`While Gonder does not teach that content providers upload video content
`
`and metadata using a web-based content management system, this was well-known
`
`when the ’026 patent was filed. Son provides an example. Like both the ’026
`
`patent and Gonder, Son relates to a method and system for making video—
`
`including video-on-demand—available to end users. Son explains that such a
`
`system should employ a web-based upload system. Using this type of upload
`
`system allows many different individual content providers to upload content to the
`
`system over the Internet. It also allows the content to be converted into a format
`
`that allows a single central server to distribute the content to many different types
`
`of users located on different types of networks.
`
`Gonder explains that its menu is generated using software running on a
`
`generic device but does not specifically teach the numerous types of Internet-
`
`connected digital devices recited in the dependent claims. As of the filing of the
`
`’026 patent, however, it was well known that VOD content could be accessed via
`
`applications running on a variety of potential devices. Kelts, for instance, teaches a
`
`web-application that, like Gonder’s system, presents hierarchical menus of
`
`multimedia content. This allows VOD content to be made available through
`
`interactive mobile application on any web-enabled device. Given the proliferation
`
`of mobile devices at the time the ’026 patent was filed, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have considered it highly obvious to apply Kelts’s teaching to Gonder.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Further, because Kelts anticipates that the user may use Kelts’ service from many
`
`different devices, Kelts also teaches features helpful in that context – such as
`
`allowing a user to login and/or save “favorites.”
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Communications, LLC, and DIRECTV, LLC
`
`are the real parties-in-interest. In addition, AT&T Inc., DIRECTV Holdings LLC,
`
`The DIRECTV Group, Inc., and DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC are identified as
`
`real parties-in-interest only to the extent that Patent Owner contends they need to
`
`be named as such. AT&T Inc. is and always has been a holding company that is a
`
`legally and factually distinct entity from its subsidiaries. Each of AT&T Inc.’s,
`
`DIRECTV Holdings LLC’s, The DIRECTV Group, Inc.’s, and DIRECTV Group
`
`Holdings, LLC’s
`
`subsidiaries,
`
`including AT&T Services,
`
`Inc., AT&T
`
`Communications, LLC, and/or DIRECTV, LLC, maintains its own independent
`
`status, identity, and structure. AT&T Inc., DIRECTV Holdings LLC, The
`
`DIRECTV Group, Inc., and DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC do not provide any
`
`of the products or services at issue in the underlying patent infringement lawsuit.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`The ’026 patent is asserted against Petitioners in lawsuits brought by Patent
`
`Owner, 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-
`
`4
`
`

`

`714-ADA (W.D. Tex.), both of which were subsequently transferred and
`
`consolidated into lead case Broadband iTV, Inc v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al, Case
`
`No. 1:20-cv-717-ADA (W.D. Tex.). The earliest date on which any of Petitioners
`
`was served with a complaint asserting the ’026 Patent was December 19, 2019.
`
`The ’026 patent is also being asserted by Patent Owner in Broadband iTV,
`
`Inc v. DISH Network, L.L.C., Case No. 6:19-cv-716-ADA (W.D. Tex.). The
`
`Complaint was served on DISH Network, L.L.C. (“DISH”) on December 19, 2019.
`
`DISH timely filed petition IPR2020-01267 challenging Claims 1-16 of the ’026
`
`patent, for which trial was instituted on January 21, 2021. DISH also filed petition
`
`IPR2020-01268 challenging the same claims of the ’026 Patent, and the Board
`
`denied institution of that petition on January 21, 2021. DISH also filed petitions for
`
`inter partes review against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,506,269, 9,998,791 and 9,648,388,
`
`which are related to the ’026 Patent.
`
`This Petition includes the same prior art and invalidity grounds as DISH’s
`
`instituted petition IPR2020-01267 and is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Petitioners filed this petition and Motion for Joinder within one month of
`
`institution of IPR2020-01267 as permitted by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.122. Because this
`
`petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the
`
`time-bar under Section 315(b) does not apply.
`
`5
`
`

`

`The ’026 patent is related to U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 (“’336 patent”),
`
`which was subject to prior petitions for review (IPR2014-01222 and CBM2014-
`
`00189). Ex. 1013. Institution was denied for both petitions. AT&T had no notice
`
`of or involvement with either prior petition.
`
`Counsel, Service and Fee Information
`C.
`Petitioners designate the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Roger Fulghum, Reg. No. 39,678
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`One Shell Plaza
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, Texas 77002-4995
`Phone: 713.229.1707
`Fax: 713.229.2707
`roger.fulghum@bakerbotts.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Jeffery S. Becker, Reg. No. 68,533
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`Trammel Crow Center
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: 214.953.6526
`Fax: 214.661.4526
`Email: jeff.becker@bakerbotts.com
`
`Morgan G. Mayne, Reg. No. 76,653
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`Trammel Crow Center
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: 214.953.6945
`Fax: 214.661.4945
`morgan.mayne@bakerbotts.com
`
`Petitioners consent to service by electronic mail at the e-mail addresses
`
`identified immediately above. Petitioners’ Power of Attorney is attached. The
`
`USPTO is authorized to charge the filing fee and any other fees incurred by
`
`Petitioners to Deposit Account No. 02-0384.
`
`6
`
`

`

`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A.
`Grounds for Standing
`Petitioners certify that the Challenged Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims and Statements of Precise
`Relief Requested
`Petitioners request inter partes review 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. 1002,
`
`“Russ”), a leading expert in computer engineering applications in the Video-On-
`
`Demand industry.
`
`Petitioners rely on the following references: (1) Gonder (Ex. 1005), (2) Son
`
`(Ex. 1006), and (3) Kelts (Ex. 1007).
`
`Petitioners challenge the claims on the following ground:
`
`Grounds: Claims 1-16 are obvious over the combination of Gonder, Son,
`
`and/or Kelts, when considered in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). The Board has correctly interpreted this ground as
`
`stating two obviousness grounds: (1) Claims 1-16 are obvious over Gonder and
`
`7
`
`

`

`Son; and (2) Claims 1-16 are obvious over Gonder, Son, and Kelts. Paper 15, 10-
`
`11.
`
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §§ 314(A) OR 325(D) IS
`INAPPROPRIATE HERE.
`This Petition includes the same prior art and invalidity grounds as IPR2020-
`
`01267 filed by DISH (the “DISH IPR”), is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder,
`
`and has been timely filed under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.122. Thus, this Petition is proper
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
`
`General Plastic Factors
`A.
`General Plastic does not apply here because the petitioner has not
`
`previously challenged this patent and seeks to join an instituted IPR proceeding in
`
`an inactive role. See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki
`
`Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15-19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00224, Paper 10 at 4-5 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2020).
`
`Fintiv Factors
`B.
`In the DISH IPR, the Board found that the Fintiv factors favored institution.
`
`DISH Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 at 12-25
`
`(PTAB Jan. 21, 2021). For the reasons explained in more detail below, the Fintiv
`
`factors weigh strongly in favor of institution of this Petition, and even more so
`
`because Petitioners merely seek to join an instituted IPR.
`
`Factor 1. As the Board correctly recognized in the DISH IPR, Factor 1 is
`
`8
`
`

`

`neutral because no motion to stay has been filed yet. See id. at 12-13 (“It would be
`
`improper to speculate, at this stage, what the Texas court might do regarding a
`
`motion to stay, given the particular circumstances of this case”).
`
`Factor 2. The Board found that this factor weighs slightly against
`
`institution in the DISH IPR. See id. at 14-18. Here, the factor is neutral. In the
`
`Board’s institution decision, the Board analyzed the possibility of whether DISH’s
`
`November 2021 trial date in the district court case could be delayed and observed
`
`that “there is at least some persuasive evidence that delays are possible.” Id. at 17-
`
`18. AT&T’s trial date is also set for November 2021 in the same court as DISH.
`
`While AT&T has no transfer motion on file, AT&T submits that its trial date is not
`
`relevant because AT&T’s trial has no chance of resolving the issues of invalidity
`
`present in this Petition. To wit, AT&T has served its final invalidity contentions in
`
`its district court case, which do not rely on the Grounds in petition. See DISH
`
`Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01267, Paper 18, Ex. 2032 at 12-
`
`25 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) at 5-7, 38-47 (omitting Gondor). AT&T submits that it
`
`therefore cannot rely on these Grounds at trial and has no intention of doing so. To
`
`avoid any doubt, AT&T hereby submits that it will not rely on the Grounds set
`
`forth in this Petition at its district court trial. The proximity of AT&T’s trial date is
`
`therefore irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`Factor 3. The Board’s Institution Decision states that “we are not persuaded
`
`9
`
`

`

`that the level of investment so far by the Texas court and the parties in the Texas
`
`case supports exercising our discretion to deny institution.” Paper 15, at 20.
`
`AT&T submits that its case has not progressed significantly further than the DISH
`
`matter, as the only recent events in AT&T’s case have been one factual deposition
`
`and the service of AT&T’s Final Invalidity Contentions. The Board credited
`
`DISH’s diligence in filing the DISH IPR, and AT&T has also timely filed this
`
`Petition and Motion for Joinder. Id. at 20-21. As such, this factor strongly favors
`
`institution, as the Board previously recognized. Id. at 21. (“On balance, this factor
`
`weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.”).
`
`Factor 4. The Board found that with respect to DISH, this factor weighs in
`
`favor of discretionary denial. Id. at 23. AT&T submits that with respect to AT&T,
`
`however, this factor weighs heavily in favor of institution. As discussed above,
`
`there is little to no overlap between the invalidity grounds in the DISH IPR and
`
`those presented in Petitioners’ district court proceeding, as the Board has observed
`
`in a related institution decision. IPR2020-01280, at 17 n.4 (“With respect to the
`
`AT&T case (for which Petitioner’s motion to transfer is irrelevant), there does not
`
`appear to be significant overlap between Petitioner’s contentions in this proceeding
`
`and the invalidity contentions of the defendants in that case (factor 4)”). And, as
`
`discussed above, Petitioners will not rely on the Grounds in this Petition at trial.
`
`Accordingly, this factor heavily favors institution.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Factor 5. Although Petitioners are a defendant in the district court
`
`proceeding, the Board observed in the DISH IPR that “this factor is, at most,
`
`slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” Paper 15, at 23.
`
`Factor 6. The Board concluded that the merits of the DISH IPR weigh in
`
`favor of institution. “[T]he merits of [DISH’s] case are straightforward and
`
`strong.” Id. at 24. This Petition includes the same prior art and grounds as the
`
`DISH IPR. Id. at 24-25. Petitioners also submit that additional factors in favor of
`
`this institution include that this petition is merely a joinder to an instituted IPR, that
`
`Petitioners will take an inactive role (unless and until DISH ceases to participate),
`
`and that trial is likely to proceed regardless of Petitioners’ involvement.
`
`On balance, Petitioners submit that the Fintiv factors weigh heavily in favor
`
`of granting this Petition and accompanying Motion for Joinder.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Petitioners submit that the factors and circumstances discussed above weigh
`
`strongly against the Board exercising its discretion to deny institution under
`
`§ 325(d).
`
`V.
`
`THE ’026 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the ’026 Patent
`The ’026 patent issued July 17, 2018 and names Milton Diaz Perez as its
`
`sole inventor. Ex. 1001 at (45), (72). The ’026 patent has a priority date of March
`
`11
`
`

`

`12, 2007, based on the filing of a continuation-in-part application that issued as the
`
`’336 patent (Ex. 1013). Ex. 1001 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. 1001, 2:3-
`
`12.
`
`According to the ’026 patent, delivery of content through VOD systems was
`
`expected to “increase dramatically,” as a result of commercial publishers and “self-
`
`publishers or so called ‘citizen’ content publishers” providing additional content.
`
`Id. 2:66-3:8. In this context, the ’026 patent’s system seeks to add to existing VOD
`
`systems in two ways. First, the ’026 patent’s system purportedly permits content
`
`publishers to “transmit their programs to the 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 and well-known
`
`methods. For example, the ’026 patent employs a web-based content management
`
`server to allow content publishers to transmit their programs to the home TV. Id.
`
`3:54-58. But
`
`the ’026 patent acknowledges
`
`that existing websites
`
`like
`
`YouTube.com and Brightcove.com similarly allowed users to upload video content
`
`12
`
`

`

`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 the 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
`
`video content of interest. Id. 6:9-20.
`
`The ’026 patent refers to menu pages as “templatized display[s].” Id. 6:16-
`
`20. These templatized displays are generated in three layers, as shown in Figure 1C
`
`below.
`
`Id. Fig. 1C. First, there is a background layer that includes a “basic color, logo, or
`
`13
`
`

`

`graphical theme” and serves as the background underlying 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 and plugged into the reserved areas in the second layer. Id. 7:25-30.
`
`The ’026 patent explains that use of these templates allows the menu to be
`
`modified or updated more easily. Id. 6:65-7:10.
`
`While the ’026 patent’s illustrative embodiment presents the EPG using a
`
`conventional set-top box, the Challenged Claims are directed to “an Internet-
`
`connected digital device” through which a viewer at home can navigate through
`
`the hierarchically-arranged EPG. Id. 17:64-18:7. The ’026 patent explains that the
`
`EPGs can be exported to Internet-connected digital devices including digital
`
`phones, media players, game consoles and PDAs. Id. 21:16-35.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’026 Patent
`B.
`On June 24, 2016, Patent Owner filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/192,598, which eventually issued as the ’026 patent. In the first office action,
`
`several claims were rejected as obvious in light of Novak combined with Ellis
`
`(U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2002/0104099 and 2002/0042921, respectively). Ex.
`
`1018 at 694-701 (’026 File History). In response, Patent Owner amended
`
`application claim 1 to add “at least one of the uploaded associated plurality of
`
`14
`
`

`

`images designated by the video content provider is displayed with the associated
`
`respective title in the templatized video-on-demand display.” Id. at 867-68. On
`
`October 30, 2017, the examiner rejected the claims under Novak and Ellis, in
`
`further view of Betz (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0126605). Id. at 949.
`
`On January 12, 2018, Patent Owner responded that none of the cited
`
`references disclosed arranging the hierarchical EPG based on the metadata
`
`provided by the video content provider, in contrast to the EPG provider. Id. at
`
`1001-03. The examiner apparently disagreed and held a telephone interview with
`
`Patent Owner o