`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00390
`U.S. Patent 9,898,590
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,898,590
`
`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. 9,898,590
`
`
`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 ’590 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`A.
`Summary of Disclosure ......................................................................... 4
`1.
`Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content .................... 4
`2.
`Targeted Marketing ..................................................................... 7
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty ............................................. 8
`B.
`The ’590 Patent Claims ......................................................................... 8
`C.
`D. Other Challenged Patents .................................................................... 10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-21 AND 23 OF THE ’590
`PATENT ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED-POU. ........................................ 12
`A. Overview of Peled ............................................................................... 12
`B.
`Overview of Pou .................................................................................. 13
`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] “receiving a license request…to engage in a license
`
`transaction.” .............................................................................. 20
`[1B] “evaluating the license transaction to determine whether
`the user has acquired a license.” ............................................... 20
`[1C] “…extracting from the license transaction user
`data…wherein the user data includes demographic data…that
`enables a copyright owner…to gauge a demographic that
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`acquired the license…and a demographic that declined the
`license.” ..................................................................................... 22
`[1D] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record…when
`the user acquires the license and when the user declines the
`license.” ..................................................................................... 23
`[1E] “storing in a license database the statistics record so that
`the user data is accessible to the copyright owner.” ................. 23
`[1F] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records…to provide the
`copyright owner with the aggregated user data.” ..................... 25
`Claim 7. ............................................................................................... 25
`Claim 13. ............................................................................................. 27
`Claim 19. ............................................................................................. 28
`Claims 2 and 14 (“receiv[ing] a license” and “preventing
`reproduction…when the licensing request is declined by the licensing
`system”). .............................................................................................. 31
`Claims 3 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”). ................ 32
`Claims 4, 10, 16, and 21 (storing user data such that it is “accessible
`to a third party online media retailer”). ............................................... 32
`Claims 6 and 23 (“geographic location”). ........................................... 34
`Claims 8 and 20 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”). ................................................................... 35
`M. Claim 9 (“fingerprint”). ....................................................................... 35
`N.
`Claim 12 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed). ........................................................................... 36
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 18 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED, POU, AND
`BRANDSTETTER. ....................................................................................... 36
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 5, 11, 17, AND 22 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED,
`POU, AND VIJAY. ....................................................................................... 37
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18-21, AND 23 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER BRANDSTETTER-LEVY. ............................................................... 40
`A. Overview of Brandstetter .................................................................... 40
`B.
`Overview of Levy ................................................................................ 43
`C.
`A POSA Would Have Combined Brandstetter and Levy. .................. 46
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`J.
`
`K.
`L.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`J.
`
`K.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Brandstetter’s
`content licensing platform with Levy’s content identification
`and fingerprinting framework. .................................................. 46
`A POSA would have known how to combine Brandstetter and
`Levy and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success. ...................................................................................... 49
`Brandstetter-Levy Discloses Claim 1. ................................................. 50
`[1P]. ........................................................................................... 50
`
`[1A] “receiving a license request…to engage in a license
`
`transaction.” .............................................................................. 53
`[1B] “evaluating the license transaction to determine whether
`the user has acquired a license.” ............................................... 56
`[1C] “…extracting from the license transaction user
`data…wherein the user data includes demographic data…that
`enables a copyright owner…to gauge a demographic that
`acquired the license…and a demographic that declined the
`license.” ..................................................................................... 58
`[1D] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record…when
`the user acquires the license and when the user declines the
`license.” ..................................................................................... 60
`[1E] “storing in a license database the statistics record so that
`the user data is accessible to the copyright owner.” ................. 60
`[1F] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records…to provide the
`copyright owner with the aggregated user data.” ..................... 62
`Claim 7. ............................................................................................... 63
`Claim 13. ............................................................................................. 66
`Claim 19. ............................................................................................. 66
`Claims 2 and 14 (“receiv[ing] a license” and “prevent[ing]
`reproduction…when the licensing request is declined by the licensing
`system”). .............................................................................................. 69
`Claims 3 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”). ................ 70
`Claims 4, 10, 16, and 21 (storing user data such that it is “accessible
`to a third party online media retailer”). ............................................... 71
`Claims 6 and 23 (“geographic location”). ........................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`L.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`Claims 8 and 20 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”). ................................................................... 72
`M. Claim 9 (“fingerprint”). ....................................................................... 75
`N.
`Claims 12 and 18 (user data includes “quantity of times” and
`“additional media content items” previously accessed). ..................... 75
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 5, 11, 17, AND 22 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER, LEVY, AND VIJAY. ................................................... 75
`XI. PETITIONER IS UNAWARE OF ANY SECONDARY
`CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. ....................................... 76
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION BASED ON EITHER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) OR §
`325(D). ........................................................................................................... 76
`A.
`The Board Should Not Use its Discretion to Deny the Petition Under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). .............................................................................. 77
`1.
`This case is at its very earliest stages. ....................................... 77
`(a)
`Factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of institution. ................. 77
`(b)
`Factors 3-5 weigh in favor of institution. ....................... 78
`(c)
`Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution. .......................... 78
`The Board should not avoid the merits of the case under
`General Plastics because there is only one pending petition. .. 79
`This Case Does Not Implicate § 325(d) as a Basis for Denial. ........... 79
`B.
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ................................... 79
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 79
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 79
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................... 80
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 81
`XIV. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ............................................................ 81
`XV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 82
`APPENDIX A: LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................ 1
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590 (“’590 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`1003 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0010417 to Peled (“Peled”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0191246 to Brandstetter et al.
`(“Brandstetter”)
`1005 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0004873 to Pou et al. (“Pou”)
`1006 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0140433 to Levy et al. (“Levy”)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,818,261 to Weiskopf et al. (“Weiskopf”)
`1008 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”)
`1015 Curriculum Vitae of John Tinsman
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 7,043,473 to Rassool et al. (“Rassool”)
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`Description
`
`1017
`
`Mary Madden, The State of Music Online: Ten Years After Napster,
`Pew Research Center (June 15, 2009)
`(https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/06/15/the-state-of-music-
`online-ten-years-after-napster/)
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 8,185,475 to Hug (“Hug”)
`1019 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)
`1021 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=FE
`C1E2A0F87ABB7EB30E41EA93AC1CAC?sequence=2)
`1023
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1024
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1025
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1026
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1027 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”)
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 9,554,176 to Gharaat et al. (“Gharaat”)
`
`1020
`
`1022
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`Description
`
`1031
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Alex Pappademas, “Mood music for the cyber set,” CNN.com,
`archived December 7, 2004
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20041207191754/http:/archives.cnn.com/
`2000/TECH/computing/09/08/mood.music.idg/index.html)
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 8,306,976 to Handman et al. (“Handman”)
`1033 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0206478 to Glaser et al. (“Glaser”)
`1034 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”)
`1039 U.S. Patent No. 5,223,924 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe924”)
`1040 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0056405 to Muyres et al. (“Muyres”)
`1041 U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 to Halt, Jr. (“Halt”)
`1042 U.S. Patent No. 10,447,564 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`1043 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-
`youll-hate-that-not-all-web-recommendations-are.html)
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1044
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`Description
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1045
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1046 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0233701 to Kidron (“Kidron”)
`1047 U.S. Patent No. 6,317,722 to Jacobi et al. (“Jacobi”)
`1048 U.S. Patent No. 8,352,331 to Dunning et al. (“Dunning”)
`1049 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0086341 to Wells et al. (“Wells”)
`1050 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
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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
`(https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/ho
`w%2Bcan%2Bpublishers%2Blimit%2Bebook%2Bpiracy/3391502.htm
`l)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`1051
`
`1052
`1053
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`Description
`
`1060
`
`1066
`
`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)
`1061 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0020647 to Vogel (“Vogel”)
`1062
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1063
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1064 Complaint, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-cv-00027
`(“Complaint”)
`1065 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”)
`1067
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1068 U.S. Patent No. 7,577,703 to Boucher et al. (“Boucher”)
`1069 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
`Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00027-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
`filed December 22, 2021.
`1072 U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 to Estes (“’581 Patent”)
`1073
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1074 U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 to Estes (“’560 Patent”)
`1075 U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 to Estes (“’191 Patent”)
`1076 U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 to Estes (“’691 Patent”)
`1077 U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 to Estes (“’154 Patent”)
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1078
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1079
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1080 California Northern District Time to Milestones, Docket Navigator,
`accessed January 4, 2022.
`
`Description
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`Roku, Inc. petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-23 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,898,590 to Estes, “Digital Media Reproduction and Licensing.”
`
`EX1001, ’590 patent, Title.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’590 patent purportedly improves the tracking of user demographic data
`
`when a user acquires or declines to acquire a license to digital media content.
`
`EX1001, 11:58-12:20; EX1010, 77-85. Specifically, the claims of the ’590 patent
`
`are directed to a licensing system that determines whether a user has already
`
`acquired a license to reproduce desired content. EX1001, 9:28-41. If not, the user
`
`is offered a content license. Id. When the user acquires or declines the license, the
`
`licensing system records demographic data corresponding to the user. Id., 5:25-33,
`
`7:57-8:3, 11:58-12:20. 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., 11:58-12:20.
`
`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. 9,898,590
`
`
`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 ’590 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
`1-4, 6-10, 12-16,
`19-21, and 23
`18
`
`5, 11, 17, and 22
`1-4, 6-10, 12-16,
`18-21, and 23
`5, 11, 17, and 22
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`The alleged earliest priority date of the ’590 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. 9,898,590
`
`• 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 ’590 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., ¶¶1-41, 453-54.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’590 PATENT
`
`The claims of the ’590 patent are generally directed to: (1) licensing and
`
`distributing digital media content, and (2) 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. EX1010, 77-
`
`85. However, the second concept and the other claimed conventional concepts
`
`were well-known in the art. EX1002, ¶¶49-76.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`Summary of Disclosure
`1. Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content
`The ’590 patent describes a platform for distributing, licensing, and
`
`marketing digital media content as shown in Figure 2. EX1001, Abstract, 1:14-17,
`
`1:58-60, 3:30-37, FIG. 2.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`The platform includes a “licensing system 16” (green) and user “device 10”
`
`(red). Id., 3:21-29, 3:60-4:2. The ’590 patent broadly describes its functionality as
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`capable of being implemented at any of these devices. Id., 8:4-14, 10:12-16, 11:32-
`
`36; EX1002, ¶¶77-90. Figures 4-5 depict this functionality. EX1002, ¶¶82-87.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 4-5.
`
`
`
`“Licensing system 16” is loaded with a “catalog of media content items.”
`
`See EX1001, FIG. 3, 7:35-39, 8:16-51, 13:19-22. The content items are analyzed to
`
`determine “identifying characteristics” that are “inherently present.” Id., 4:8-26,
`
`6:51-61, 8:22-45, 8:65-9:5, 9:12-16. This may be a “fingerprint” or “digital
`
`watermarking.” Id., 4:26-35, 13:19-22.
`
`A user device then provides a license request. EX1002, ¶¶85-87. The request
`
`may occur when the user has loaded a digital media file on user’s device 10.
`
`EX1001, 4:8-17. A license database is accessed to determine whether the user has
`
`licensed the content. Id., 4:36-39, 9:28-32. If so, the device “initializes
`
`reproduction of the digital media file.” Id., 9:32-35. If not, the user receives a
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`“query” asking whether the user would like to purchase a license. Id., 9:36-41; see
`
`also id., 4:39-42. If the user declines, the device denies access to the content. Id., 4:
`
`43-57, 9:41-43, 10:2-11:14. If the user accepts, the licensing system permits the
`
`user to play or stream the content. Id., 4:43-57, 9:41-43, 10:2-11:14.
`
`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. Id., 5:25-33, 7:57-8:3, 9:42-52, 11:7-31, 11:56-12:20; EX1002,
`
`¶¶88-90. Figure 7 depicts this process:
`
`EX1001, FIG. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`B.
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty
`During prosecution of the ’590 patent’s parent, the applicant amended the
`
`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 be collected both when the user acquired “and” declines a license. Id., 224-25,
`
`227, 305, 307, 345. In allowing these amended claims, the Examiner found that the
`
`prior art does not disclose “storing demographic data about users that decline a
`
`media license in order to inform a marketing analysis.”1 Id., 376. The ’590 patent,
`
`filed years later, was not subject to a single rejection and issued based on the
`
`Examiner’s similar determination. EX1010, 84. The Examiner was unaware,
`
`however, that this feature is disclosed in Brandstetter and Peled as further
`
`explained below.
`
`C. The ’590 Patent Claims
`The ’590 patent contains twenty-three claims, four of which (claims 1, 7, 13,
`
`and 19) are independent. A Claim Appendix has been included with this Petition
`
`identifying the claims and claim elements.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for offering a content license ([1A]-[1B]) and
`
`identifying user demographic data when the user accepts or declines ([1C]-[1F]).
`
`EX1002, ¶¶91-92. Elements [1A]-[1B] are directed to the first concept: licensing
`
`and distributing digital media content, while elements [1C]-[1F] 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,
`
`¶¶154-451.
`
`Claim 1 does not explicitly require a single device or system to perform all
`
`of its steps. EX1002, ¶¶92-94. Indeed, when Patent Owner (PO) intended to claim
`
`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, 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, ¶¶92-97; EX1001, FIG. 5, 7:57-8:3, 10:43-58, 11:15-31. 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, ¶¶92-97.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`D. Other Challenged Patents
`Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging other patents in the same
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`family. Claim features unique to the individual patents can be found, for example,
`
`at ¶¶98-100 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, ¶98. Peled and Brandstetter each disclose
`
`these common concepts. The ’590 patent likewise claims these concepts and
`
`recites overlapping limitations as its parent patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581,
`
`(’581 patent), EX1072) except that the ’590 patent removes several limitations
`
`from claim 1 of the ’581 patent. Specifically, claim 1 of the ’590 patent does not
`
`recite the claimed “loading,” “analyzing,” “accessing,” “reproducing,” and
`
`“providing” recited in claim 1 of the ’581 patent. See EX1072, Claim 1.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`
`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 (in response to a still
`
`pending motion for judgment on the pleadings) that the “decline” limitation ([1C])
`
`“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 IV.B. PO cannot
`
`now disavow the narrowing amendment that allowed the patent to issue in the first
`
`place.
`
`Regardless, under any reasonable interpretation of a user “decline,” the prior
`
`art presented here discloses it. EX1002, ¶¶104-48, 156-60, 175, 196-215, 241-242 .
`
`Thus, while PO’s interpretation of “decline” in the parallel litigation is wrong, the
`
`construction of that term is immaterial to the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`
`Likewise, no other claim term requires construction—all terms should
`
`receive their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the ’590 patent
`
`specification. EX1002, ¶¶152-53.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-21 AND 23 OF THE ’590
`PATENT ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED-POU.
`Peled-Pou discloses every element of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19,
`
`which are materially identical. Peled and Pou both describe facilitating content
`
`distribution to aid content creators with monetizing content. Peled discloses the
`
`alleged point of novelty (i.e., gathering demographic data when users accept or
`
`decline content license offers), while Pou discloses many of the cla