UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent 9,715,581
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,715,581
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .......................... 2
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’581 PATENT .............................................................. 3
`A.
`Summary of Disclosure ........................................................................... 4
`1.
`Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content ...................... 4
`2.
`Targeted Marketing ....................................................................... 6
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty ............................................... 7
`B.
`The ’581 Patent Claims ........................................................................... 8
`C.
`D. Other Challenged Patents ........................................................................ 9
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 10
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-21, 23, 25, 27, 29-30, AND 32 OF THE ’581
`PATENT ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED-POU. .......................................... 11
`A. Overview of Peled ................................................................................. 11
`B.
`Overview of Pou .................................................................................... 12
`C.
`A POSA Would Have Combined Peled and Pou. ................................. 15
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Peled’s
`distribution of content by including Pou’s licensing management
`framework. .................................................................................. 15
`A POSA would have known how to combine Peled and Pou and
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ................ 17
`Peled-Pou Discloses Claim 1. ............................................................... 18
`[1P]. ............................................................................................. 18
`
`[1A] “loading a digital media file” ............................................. 20
`
`[1B] “analyzing the digital media file” ....................................... 22
`
`[1C] “receiving a license request… to engage in a license
`
`transaction” ................................................................................. 23
`[1D] “evaluating the license transaction to determine whether the
`user has acquired a license” ........................................................ 24
`[1E] “accessing a license database” ............................................ 25
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`[1F] “reproducing the media content item when the user is
`licensed” ...................................................................................... 26
`[1G] “providing a licensing query to the user when the user is not
`licensed” ...................................................................................... 27
`[1H] “…extracting from the license transaction user data…
`wherein the user data includes demographic data” ..................... 29
`[1I] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record” .............. 30
`[1J] “storing… the statistics record” ........................................... 30
`[1K] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records… to provide the
`copyright owner with the aggregated user data.” ....................... 32
`Claim 6. ................................................................................................. 32
`Claim 11. ............................................................................................... 34
`Claim 16. ............................................................................................... 35
`Claims 2 and 12 (“licensing response to the licensing query”). ........... 38
`Claims 3 and 13 (“providing a licensing request” and “preventing
`reproduction… when the user declines the license”). ........................... 38
`Claims 4 and 14 (“receiving a license” and “preventing reproduction…
`when the licensing request is declined by the licensing system”). ....... 39
`Claims 5 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”). .................. 40
`K.
`Claims 7-8 and 17-18 (“payment” for license). .................................... 41
`L.
`M. Claims 9 and 19 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”). ..................................................................... 41
`Claims 10 and 20 (“fingerprint”). ......................................................... 42
`Claims 21, 23, 25, and 27 (storing user data such that it is “accessible to
`a third party online media retailer”). ..................................................... 42
`Claims 29 and 32 (“geographic location”). ........................................... 44
`Claim 30 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed). ............................................................................. 44
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 31 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED, POU, AND
`BRANDSTETTER. ......................................................................................... 44
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 22, 24, 26, AND 28 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED,
`POU, AND VIJAY. ......................................................................................... 45
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`J.
`
`N.
`O.
`
`P.
`Q.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-21, 23, 25, 27, AND 29-32 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER-LEVY. ............................................................................. 47
`A. Overview of Brandstetter ...................................................................... 48
`B.
`Overview of Levy .................................................................................. 50
`C.
`A POSA Would Have Combined Brandstetter and Levy. .................... 52
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Brandstetter’s
`
`content licensing platform with Levy’s content identification and
`fingerprinting framework. ........................................................... 52
`A POSA would have known how to combine Brandstetter and
`Levy and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. 55
`Brandstetter-Levy Discloses Claim 1. ................................................... 56
`[1P]. ............................................................................................. 56
`
`[1A] “loading a digital media file.” ............................................ 59
`
`[1B] “analyzing the digital media file.” ...................................... 62
`
`[1C] “receiving a license request… to engage in a license
`
`transaction.” ................................................................................ 65
`[1D] “evaluating the license transaction to determine whether the
`user has acquired a license.” ....................................................... 68
`[1E] “accessing a license database.” ........................................... 69
`[1F] “reproducing the media content item when the user is
`licensed.” ..................................................................................... 71
`[1G] “providing a licensing query to the user when the user is not
`licensed.” ..................................................................................... 73
`[1H] “…extracting from the license transaction user data…
`wherein the user data includes demographic data.” .................... 75
`[1I] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record.” ............. 76
`[1J] “storing… the statistics record.” .......................................... 77
`[1K] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records… to provide the
`copyright owner with the aggregated user data.” ....................... 79
`Claim 6. ................................................................................................. 80
`Claim 11. ............................................................................................... 82
`Claim 16. ............................................................................................... 84
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`

`

`H.
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`Claims 2 and 12 (“licensing response to the licensing query”). ........... 87
`Claims 3 and 13 (“providing a licensing request” and “preventing
`reproduction… when the user declines the license”). ........................... 89
`Claims 4 and 14 (“receiving a license” and “preventing reproduction…
`when the licensing request is declined by the licensing system”). ....... 89
`Claims 5 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”). .................. 90
`K.
`Claims 7-8 and 17-18 (“payment” for license). .................................... 91
`L.
`M. Claims 9 and 19 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”). ..................................................................... 92
`Claims 10 and 20 (“fingerprint”). ......................................................... 95
`Claims 21, 23, 25, and 27 (storing user data such that it is “accessible to
`a third party online media retailer”). ..................................................... 95
`Claims 29 and 32 (“geographic location”). ........................................... 95
`Claims 30 and 31 (user data includes “quantity of times” and
`“additional media content items” previously accessed). ....................... 96
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 22, 24, 26, AND 28 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER, LEVY, AND VIJAY. ..................................................... 97
`XI. PETITIONER IS UNAWARE OF ANY SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. ............................................................................. 97
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION BASED ON EITHER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) OR § 325(D). . 98
`A.
`The Board Should Not Use its Discretion to Deny the Petition Under
`§ 314(a). ................................................................................................. 98
`1.
`This case is at its very earliest stages. ......................................... 98
`(a)
`Factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of institution. ................... 99
`(b)
`Factors 3–5 weigh in favor of institution. ........................ 99
`(c)
`Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution. ..........................100
`The Board should not avoid the merits of the case under General
`Plastics because there is only one pending petition. ................100
`This Case Does Not Implicate § 325(d) as a Basis for Denial. ...........100
`B.
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ...................................101
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................................101
`
`N.
`O.
`
`P.
`Q.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................101
`B.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ..........................102
`C.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .....................................102
`D.
`XIV. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)) ...........................................................102
`XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................103
`APPENDIX A: LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ......................................104
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 (“’581 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0010417 to Peled (“Peled”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0191246 to Brandstetter et al.
`(“Brandstetter”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0004873 to Pou et al. (“Pou”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0140433 to Levy et al. (“Levy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,261 to Weiskopf et al. (“Weiskopf”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0166921 to Vijay et al. (“Vijay”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 (“’581
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590 (“’590
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 (“’560
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 (“’191
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 (“’691
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 (“’154
`Prosecution History”)
`Curriculum Vitae of John Tinsman
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,473 to Rassool et al. (“Rassool”)
`Mary Madden, The State of Music Online: Ten Years After Napster,
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`Pew Research Center (June 15, 2009)
`(https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/06/15/the-state-of-
`music-online-ten-years-after-napster/)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,185,475 to Hug (“Hug”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,051,130 to Logan (“Logan”)
`“Digital Rights Management,” FTC.org (March 25, 2009)
`(https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2009/03/digital-
`rights-management)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,776,216 to Boccon-Gibod et al. (“Boccon-
`Gibod”)
`Urs Gasser et al., “Case Study: DRM-protected Music
`Interoperability and e-Innovation,” Harvard.edu (November 2007)
`(https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2794938/DRM-
`protected+Music+Interoperability+and+eInnovation.pdf;jsessionid=
`FEC1E2A0F87ABB7EB30E41EA93AC1CAC?sequence=2)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314378 A1 to Nijim et al.
`(“Nijim”)
`“Apple TV Coming to Your Living Room,”Apple.com (January 9,
`2007) (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-TV-
`Coming-to-Your-Living-Room/)
`Jaap Haitsma, et al., “A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting
`System,” 3rd International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Paris, France, October 13-17, 2002 (“Haitsma”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,554,176 to Gharaat et al. (“Gharaat”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`Alex Pappademas, “Mood music for the cyber set,” CNN.com,
`archived December 7, 2004
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20041207191754/http:/archives.cnn.co
`m/2000/TECH/computing/09/08/mood.music.idg/index.html)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,306,976 to Handman et al. (“Handman”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0206478 to Glaser et al.
`(“Glaser”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,081,579 to Alcade et al. (“Alcade”)
`Avery Li-Chun Wang, “An Industrial-Strength Audio Search
`Algorithm,” 4th International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, October 27-30, 2003.
`Bryan Jacobs, “How Shazam Works To Identify (Nearly) Every
`Song You Throw At It,” Gizmodo.com (September 24, 2010)
`https://gizmodo.com/how-shazam-works-to-identify-nearly-every-
`song-you-th-5647458
`European Patent Application Publication No. 1,558,032 to Widevine
`Technologies, Inc.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0051772 to Ramaswamy et al.
`(“Ramaswamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,223,924 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe924”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0056405 to Muyres et al.
`(“Muyres”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 to Halt, Jr. (“Halt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,447,564 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,583,089 to Ramer et al. (“Ramer”)
`Laurie J. Flynn, “Like This? You’ll Hate That. (Not All Web
`Recommendations Are Welcome.),” NYTIMES.com (January 23,
`2006) (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/technology/like-this-
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`youll-hate-that-not-all-web-recommendations-are.html)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,375,131 To Rogers et al. (“Rogers”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0233701 to Kidron (“Kidron”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,722 to Jacobi et al. (“Jacobi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,331 to Dunning et al. (“Dunning”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0086341 to Wells et al. (“Wells”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,178,720 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe”)
`“Technological Protection Systems for Digitized Copyrighted
`Works: A Report to Congress,” United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, 2002
`Richard Leeming, “DRM – ‘digital rights’ or ‘digital restrictions’
`management?”, EBU Technical Review, January 2007
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_309-digital_rights.pdf)
`Jordi Ribas-Corbera, “Windows Media 9 Series – a platform to
`deliver compressed audio and video for Internet and broadcast
`applications,” EBU Technical Review, January 2003
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_293-ribas.pdf)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Adrian Slywotzky, et al., “The Future of Commerce,” Harvard
`Business Review, January-February 2000
`(https://hbr.org/2000/01/the-future-of-commerce)
`Benno Stein, et al., “Near Similarity Search and Plagiarism
`Analysis,” 29th Annual Conference of the German Classification
`Society (GfKI), Magdeburg, Germany, 2006
`Chow Kok Kent, et al., “Features Based Text Similarity Detection,”
`Journal of Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 1, January 2010
`Benjamin Cohen, “How can publishers limit e-book piracy?”,
`Channel 4 News, October 18, 2009
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`(https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/
`how%2Bcan%2Bpublishers%2Blimit%2Bebook%2Bpiracy/339150
`2.html)
`John Timmer, “Publishers cut book sharing deal with Scribd,” Ars
`Technica, March 18, 2009 (https://arstechnica.com/information-
`technology/2009/03/publishers-cut-book-sharing-deal-with-scribd/)
`Eric A. Robinson, “Digital Rights Management, Fair Use, and
`Privacy: Problems for Copyright Enforcement through Technology,”
`University of St. Augustine, December 2009
`(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9554-8754)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0020647 to Vogel (“Vogel”)
`Daniel A Keim, et al. “Literature Fingerprinting: A New Method for
`Visual Literary Analysis,” IEEE, 2007
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Complaint, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-cv-00027
`(“Complaint”)
`Order on Motion to Transfer, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`WDTX-1-21-cv-00027 (“Motion to Transfer Order”)
`Scheduling Order, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-
`cv-00027 (“Scheduling Order”)
`Defendant's Answer to Complaint, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`WDTX-1-21-cv-00027 (“Answer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,577,703 to Boucher et al. (“Boucher”)
`Affidavit of Service, Media Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No.
`1:21-cv-00027-LY (W.D. Tex.), filed January 26, 2021.
` Plaintiff's Response, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-
`cv-00027
`Case Management Conference Order in Reassigned Case, Media
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`
`1080
`
`Description
`Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00027-EMC (N.D.
`Cal.), filed December 22, 2021.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590 to Estes (“’590 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 to Estes (“’560 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 to Estes (“’191 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 to Estes (“’691 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 to Estes (“’154 Patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`California Northern District Time to Milestones, Docket Navigator,
`accessed January 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`Roku, Inc. petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-32 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,715,581 to Estes, “Digital Media Reproduction and Licensing.”
`
`EX1001, ’581 patent, Title.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’581 patent purportedly improves the tracking of user demographic data
`
`when a user acquires or declines a license to digital media content. EX1001, 11:52-
`
`12:14; EX1009, 0371-80. Specifically, the ’581 patent claims a licensing system
`
`that determines whether a user has already acquired a license to reproduce desired
`
`content. EX1001, 9:22-35. If not, the user is offered a license. Id. When the user
`
`acquires or declines the license, the licensing system records demographic data
`
`corresponding to the user. Id., 5:20-28, 7:51-64, 11:52-12:14. The licensing system
`
`then provides a summary of these statistics to copyright owners, so that the
`
`copyright owners can gauge user demographics and target marketing accordingly.
`
`Id., 11:52-12:14.
`
`Unfortunately for Patent Owner (PO), tracking user demographic data in
`
`response to acquiring or declining a media license was both trivial and already
`
`disclosed by several prior art references, including at least U.S. Patent Publication
`
`Nos. 2004/0010417 (EX1003, “Peled”), 2011/0191246 (EX1004, “Brandstetter”),
`
`2005/0004873 (EX1005, “Pou”), and 2008/0140433 (EX1006, “Levy”). These
`
`references illustrate that offering media licenses and tracking user responses and
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`demographic data were well-known techniques, and would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. This Petition demonstrates the unpatentability
`
`of all claims of the ’581 patent.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Prior Art
`Peled (EX1003) and
`Pou (EX1005)
`Peled, Pou, and
`Brandstetter (EX1004)
`Peled, Pou, and Vijay
`(EX1008)
`Brandstetter and
`Levy (EX1006)
`Brandstetter, Levy,
`and Vijay
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-21, 23, 25, 27,
`29-30, and 32
`31
`
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`1-21, 23, 25, 27,
`and 29-32
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`The alleged earliest priority date of the ’581 patent is November 4, 2011.
`
`The references qualify as prior art as follows:
`
`• Peled (EX1003) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`was published on January 15, 2004, which is more than one year before
`November 4, 2011.
`• Brandstetter (EX1004) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`because it was published on August 4, 2011, which is before November
`4, 2011.
`• Pou (EX1005) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`was published on January 6, 2005, which is more than one year before
`November 4, 2011.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`• Levy (EX1006) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`was published on June 12, 2008, which is more than one year before
`November 4, 2011.
`• Vijay (EX1008) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it
`was filed on May 31, 2011, which is before November 4, 2011.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the ’581 patent
`
`was filed would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with at least two years of
`
`relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery, digital
`
`media content protection, and statistical analysis of digital media consumption.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶39-41; id., ¶¶1-48, 554-55.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’581 PATENT
`The claims of the ’581 patent are generally directed to two concepts: (1)
`
`licensing and distributing digital media content, and (2) targeted marketing:
`
`gathering and summarizing user demographic data when a user accepts or declines
`
`a license—the alleged point of novelty being found in the second concept (i.e.,
`
`“storing demographic data about users that decline a media license” to inform a
`
`marketing analysis). EX1009, 0376 (emphasis added). However, the second
`
`concept and the other claimed conventional concepts were well-known in the art.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶49-77.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Disclosure
`1. Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content
`The ’581 patent describes a platform for distributing, licensing, and
`
`marketing digital media content. EX1001, Abstract, 1:7-10, 1:51-53, 3:24-31; FIG.
`
`2.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`The platform includes a “licensing system 16” (green) and user “device 10”
`
`(red). EX1001, 3:15-23, 3:54-63. The ’581 patent broadly describes its
`
`functionality as capable of being implemented at any of these devices. Id., 7:65-
`
`8:8, 10:6-10, 11:26-30; EX1002, ¶¶78-91. Figures 4-5 depict this functionality.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶78-91.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGS. 4-5.
`
`“Licensing system 16” is loaded with a “catalog of media content items.”
`
`See EX1001, FIG. 3, 7:29-33, 8:10-45, 13:13-16. The content items are analyzed to
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`determine “identifying characteristics” that are “inherently present.” Id., 4:2-21,
`
`6:47-57, 8:16-39, 8:59-66, 9:6-10. This may be a “fingerprint” or “digital
`
`watermarking.” Id. 4:21-27, 13:13-16.
`
`A user device then provides a license request. EX1002, ¶¶83-88. The request
`
`may occur when the user has loaded a digital media file on user’s device 10.
`
`EX1001, 4:2-11. A license database is accessed to determine whether the user has
`
`licensed the content. Id., 4:31-34, 9:22-26. If so, the device “initializes
`
`reproduction of the digital media file.” Id., 9:26-29. If not, the user receives a
`
`“query” asking whether the user would like to purchase a license. Id., 9:30-35; see
`
`also id., 4:34-37. If the user declines, the device denies access to the content. Id.,
`
`4:38-52, 9:36-38, 9:64-11:1. If the user accepts, the licensing system permits the
`
`user to play or stream the content. Id., 4:38-52, 9:36-38, 9:64-11:1.
`
`2. Targeted Marketing
`User demographic data is collected when a user accepts or declines a license
`
`and is provided as reports so that content providers can gauge interest and perform
`
`targeted marketing. EX1001, 5:20-28, 7:51-64, 9:38-46, 11:1-25, 11:50-12:14;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶89-91. Figure 7 depicts this process:
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`EX1001, FIG. 7.
`
`
`
`B.
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty
`Following a series of rejections (and amendments), the applicant amended
`
`the ’581 patent claims to recite user data being extracted when the user acquires
`
`“or” declines a license. EX1009, 196. The Examiner found that the prior art taught
`
`this limitation, which led the applicant to once again amend the claims, this time to
`
`require user data to be collected both when the user acquires “and” declines a
`
`license. Id., 224-25, 227, 305, 307, 345. In allowing these amended claims, the
`
`Examiner highlighted this limitation, finding that the prior art does not disclose
`
`“storing demographic data about users that decline a media license in order to
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`inform a marketing analysis.”1 Id., 376. The Examiner was unaware, however, that
`
`these features are explicitly disclosed in Peled and Brandstetter as further
`
`explained below. EX1002, ¶102.
`
`C. The ’581 Patent Claims
`The ’581 patent contains thirty-two claims, four of which (claims 1, 6, 11,
`
`and 16) are independent. A Claim Appendix has been included with this petition
`
`identifying the claims and claim elements.
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for offering a content license ([1A]-[1G]) and
`
`identifying user demographic data when the user accepts or declines ([1H]-[1K]).
`
`EX1002, ¶¶92-93. Elements [1A]-[1G] are directed to the first concept: licensing
`
`and distributing digital media content, while elements [1H]-[1K] are directed to the
`
`second concept: targeted marketing (i.e., gathering and summarizing user
`
`demographic data when a user accepts or declines a license). Both concepts were
`
`well known in the art and obvious as established by Grounds 1-3 (Peled-Pou
`
`grounds) and Grounds 4-5 (Brandstetter-Levy grounds). Sections VI-X; EX1002,
`
`¶¶154-553.
`
`Claim 1 does not explicitly require a single device or system to perform all
`
`of its steps. EX1002, ¶¶93-95. Indeed, when Patent Owner (PO) intended to claim
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`a single device, it did so expressly. EX1077, claim 1 (reciting a “multimedia
`
`hardware device” performing certain functions). Rather, the context of claim 1
`
`suggests that at least some of its limitations would be practiced by the licensing
`
`system on a server, such as “aggregating the user data into a statistics record,”
`
`“storing” the record in a license database, and “analyzing a plurality of statistics
`
`records.” EX1002, ¶¶93-98; EX1001, FIG. 5, 7:51-64, 10:43-58, 11:9-25. Under
`
`any interpretation, however, the grounds of unpatentability presented below render
`
`claim 1 obvious when occurring at either a user device or a licensing system.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶93-98.
`
`D. Other Challenged Patents
`Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging other patents in the same
`
`family. Claim features unique to the individual patents can be found, for example,
`
`at ¶¶99-101 of the Declaration of John Tinsman (EX1002).
`
`Each of these patents recite identifying whether the user has accepted or
`
`declined an offer, recording user demographic data, and providing a summary of
`
`the user demographic data. EX1002, ¶99. Peled and Brandstetter each disclose
`
`these common concepts. The ’581 patent likewise claims these concepts and
`
`additionally includes the “loading” and “analyzing” limitations.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In IPRs, claims are “construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims must be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention in light of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`In the parallel litigation, PO represented to the court that the “decline”
`
`limitation (e.g., in [1H]) “does not require an affirmative act by a user,” and that “a
`
`user’s passive interaction with a device, such as navigating or scrolling past an
`
`offer to license or stream media content” was sufficient. EX1070, 3. Petitioner
`
`disagrees with that broad interpretation as it would unreasonably cover any action
`
`by the user that is not an affirmative acceptance of a licensing offer. That
`
`interpretation renders the word “decline” superfluous in the claims. Further, PO’s
`
`interpretation is inconsistent with narrowing amendments made during
`
`prosecution. To obtain allowance of the patent claims, PO narrowed their scope to
`
`require extracting user data when the user declines a license, and that was the very
`
`limitation that the Examiner found was not disclosed in the prior art. See Section
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`IV.B. PO cannot now disavow