UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00391
`U.S. Patent 10,489,560
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,489,560
`
`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. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ......................... 2
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’560 PATENT ........................................................... 3
`A.
`Summary of Disclosure ........................................................................ 3
`1.
`Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content ..................... 3
`2.
`Targeted Marketing.................................................................... 7
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty ............................................ 8
`B.
`The ’560 Patent Claims ........................................................................ 9
`C.
`D. Other Challenged Patents ................................................................... 10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-14 AND 16-19 OF THE ’560 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. ............................... 16
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Peled’s
`distribution of content by including Pou’s licensing management
`framework................................................................................ 16
`A POSA would have known how to combine Peled and Pou and
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............... 18
`Peled-Pou Discloses Claim 1. ............................................................ 19
`[1P]. ......................................................................................... 19
`
`[1A] “receiving a request from a user to stream the media content
`
`item.” ....................................................................................... 21
`[1B] “evaluating the request to stream to determine whether the
`user has acquired a license …and offering the license … when
`the user does not have the license to stream the media content
`item.” ....................................................................................... 22
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`L.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1C] “extracting user data that is specific to the user” when the
`user streams and declines to stream the media content item,
`“wherein the user data includes demographic data” that enables a
`third party online retailer to gauge a demographic that streamed
`the media content item and a demographic that declined to stream
`that “enables the third party online retailer to target marketing of
`different media content items” based on a user’s “trend of
`interest.” .................................................................................. 26
`(a)
`[1C.1] “extracting user data” .......................................... 26
`(b)
`[1C.2] “user data includes demographic data” enabling a
`third party online retailer to gauge a demographic ......... 27
`[1C.3] user data includes a “history of media content
`items” that the user has streamed to allow for targeted
`marketing ....................................................................... 30
`[1C.4] marketing media content items based on a
`determined trend of interest for the user ......................... 30
`[1D] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record.” .......... 31
`[1E] “storing” the statistics record in a license database “so that
`the user data is accessible to the third party online retailer.” .... 32
`[1F] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records… to provide the
`third party online retailer with the aggregated user data.” ........ 33
`Claim 6. ............................................................................................. 34
`Claim 11. ........................................................................................... 38
`Claim 16. ........................................................................................... 39
`Claims 2 and 12 (receiving a license to [reproduce/stream] the media
`content from a licensing system when the request is granted, and
`“preventing streaming… when the request is declined”). ................... 42
`Claims 3 and 13 (“plurality of [reproduction/streaming] parameters”).
`........................................................................................................... 43
`Claims 4, 9, 14, and 18 (storing in the license database the user data so
`that it is “accessible to a third party online media retailer”). .............. 43
`Claims 5 and 19 (“geographic location”). .......................................... 44
`Claim 7 and 17 (generating and storing a “license record in a registered
`user database”). .................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`
`
`M. Claim 8 (“fingerprint”). ..................................................................... 45
`N.
`Claim 10 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed). ......................................................................... 46
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 15 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED, POU, AND
`BRANDSTETTER. ..................................................................................... 46
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-19 ARE OBVIOUS OVER BRANDSTETTER-
`LEVY. ......................................................................................................... 47
`A. Overview of Brandstetter ................................................................... 47
`B.
`Overview of Levy .............................................................................. 50
`C.
`A POSA Would Have Combined Brandstetter and Levy. .................. 53
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Brandstetter’s
`content licensing platform with Levy’s content identification and
`fingerprinting framework. ........................................................ 53
`A POSA would have known how to combine Brandstetter and
`Levy and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. 56
`Brandstetter-Levy Discloses Claim 1. ................................................ 57
`[1P]. ......................................................................................... 57
`
`[1A] “receiving a request from a user to stream the media content
`
`item.” ....................................................................................... 59
`[1B] “evaluating the request to stream to determine whether the
`user has acquired a license …and offering the license … when
`the user does not have the license to stream the media content
`item.” ....................................................................................... 60
`[1C] “extracting user data that is specific to the user” when the
`user streams and declines to stream the media content item,
`“wherein the user data includes demographic data” that enables a
`third party online retailer to gauge a demographic that streamed
`the media content item and a demographic that declined to stream
`that “enables the third party online retailer to target marketing of
`different media content items” based on a user’s “trend of
`interest.” .................................................................................. 64
`(a)
`[1C.1] “extracting user data” .......................................... 64
`(b)
`[1C.2] “user data includes demographic data” enabling a
`third party online retailer to gauge a demographic ......... 65
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`L.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`[1C.3] user data includes a “history of media content
`items” that the user has streamed to allow for targeted
`marketing ....................................................................... 67
`[1C.4] marketing media content items based on a
`determined trend of interest for the user ......................... 69
`[1D] “aggregating the user data into a statistics record.” .......... 70
`[1E] “storing” the statistics record in a license database “so that
`the user data is accessible to the third party online retailer.” .... 70
`[1F] “analyzing a plurality of statistics records… to provide the
`third party online retailer with the aggregated user data.” ........ 72
`Claim 6. ............................................................................................. 74
`Claim 11. ........................................................................................... 79
`Claim 16. ........................................................................................... 80
`Claims 2 and 12 (receiving a license to [reproduce/stream] the media
`content from a licensing system when the request is granted, and
`“prevent[ing] streaming… when the request is declined”). ................ 83
`Claims 3 and 13 (“plurality of [reproduction/streaming] parameters”).
`........................................................................................................... 84
`Claims 4, 9, 14, and 18 (storing in a license database the user data …
`that is accessible to the third party). ................................................... 85
`Claims 5 and 19 (“geographic location”). .......................................... 86
`Claims 7 and 17 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”). ................................................................. 87
`M. Claim 8 (“fingerprint”). ..................................................................... 89
`N.
`Claims 10 and 15 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed and “a quantity of times that the user has
`previously accessed the media content item”). ................................... 89
`IX. PETITIONER IS UNAWARE OF ANY SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. ......................................................................... 90
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION BASED ON EITHER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) OR § 325(D). 90
`A.
`The Board Should Not Use its Discretion to Deny the Petition Under
`§ 314(a). ............................................................................................ 90
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`This case is at its very earliest stages. ...................................... 90
`(a)
`Factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of institution. ................. 91
`(b)
`Factors 3-5 weigh in favor of institution. ....................... 91
`(c)
`Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution. ........................... 92
`The Board should not avoid the merits of the case under General
`Plastics because there is only one pending petition. ................. 92
`This Case Does Not Implicate § 325(d) as a Basis for Denial. ........... 93
`B.
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ................................... 93
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 93
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................... 93
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................... 94
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 94
`XII. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ........................................................... 95
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 96
`APPENDIX A: LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...................................... 97
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 (“’560 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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”)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Description
`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/)
`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/)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Description
`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”)
`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”)
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Description
`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-
`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)
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Description
`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/
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0028796 to Roberts et
`al. ("Roberts")
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`
`1080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Affidavit of Service, Media Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No.
`1:21-cv-00027-LY (W.D. Tex.), filed January 26, 2021.
`Plantiff'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.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 to Estes (“’581 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590 to Estes (“’590 Patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`Roku, Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,489,560 (the “’560 patent”) to Estes, “Digital Media Reproduction and
`
`Licensing.” EX1001, ’560 patent, Title.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’560 patent purportedly improves the tracking of user demographic data
`
`when a user acquires or declines a license to stream digital media content. EX1001,
`
`11:63-12:25; EX1009, 371-77. Specifically, the ’560 patent claims a licensing
`
`system that determines whether a user has acquired a license to stream content.
`
`EX1001, 9:33-46. When the user acquires or declines the license, the licensing
`
`system records demographic data corresponding to the user. Id., 5:30-39, 7:61-8:7,
`
`11:63-12:26. The licensing system then provides a summary of these statistics to
`
`content providers or third party online retailers, so that the retailers can gauge user
`
`demographics and target marketing accordingly. Id., 11:63-12:26.
`
`Unfortunately for Patent Owner (“PO”), tracking demographic data in
`
`response to accepting and declining a license to stream was already disclosed by
`
`several prior art references, including 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 demographic
`
`data were well-known techniques, and would have been obvious to a person of
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art. This Petition demonstrates the unpatentability of all claims
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`of the ’560 patent.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Prior Art
`Peled (EX1003) and
`Pou (EX1005)
`Peled, Pou, and
`Brandstetter (EX1004)
`Brandstetter and
`Levy (EX1006)
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-14 and 16-19
`
`15
`
`1-19
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`The alleged earliest priority date of the ’560 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.
`• Brandstetter (EX1004) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`because it was published on August 4, 2011.
`• Pou (EX1005) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`was published on January 6, 2005.
`• Levy (EX1006) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`was published on June 12, 2008.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the ’560 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
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery, digital
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`media content protection, and statistical analysis of digital media consumption.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶39-41; id., ¶¶1-48, 500-01.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’560 PATENT
`
`The claims of the ’560 patent generally are 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, 376. However the second concept and the other
`
`claimed conventional concepts were well-known in the art. EX1002, ¶¶49-77.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Disclosure
`1. Licensing and Distributing Digital Media Content
`The ’560 patent describes a platform for distributing, licensing, and
`
`marketing digital media content. EX1001, Abstract, 1:17-20, 1:61-63, 3:35-42,
`
`FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`The platform includes a “licensing system 16” (green) and user “device 10”
`
`(red). EX1001, 3:26-33, 3:65-4:7. The ’560 patent broadly describes its
`
`functionality as capable of being implemented at any of these devices. Id., 8:8-19,
`
`10:16-21, 11:37-41; EX1002, ¶¶78-82. Figures 4-5 depict this functionality.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶83-88.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 4-5.
`
`
`
`“Licensing system 16” is loaded with a “catalog of media content items.”
`
`See EX1001, FIG. 3, 7:39-43, 8:21-56, 13:27-31. The content items are analyzed to
`
`determine “identifying characteristics” that are “inherently present.” Id., 4:13-31,
`
`6:57-67, 8:27-50, 9:3-10, 9:17-21. This may be a “fingerprint” or “digital
`
`watermarking.” Id., 4:31-37, 13:27-30.
`
`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, 4:13-22. A license database is accessed to determine whether the user has
`
`licensed the content. Id., 4:41-44, 9:33-37. If so, the device “initializes
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`reproduction of the digital media file.” Id., 9:37-40. If not, the user receives a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`“query” asking whether the user would like to purchase a license. Id., 9:41-46; see
`
`also id., 4:44-57. If the user declines, the device denies access to the content. Id.,
`
`4:48-62, 9:47-49, 10:8-11:12. If the user accepts, the licensing system permits the
`
`user to play or stream the content. Id., 4:48-6, 9:47-49, 10:8-11:12.
`
`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, 5:35-43, 7:61-8:7, 9:49-57, 11:12-36, 11:61-12:26;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶89-91. Figure 7 depicts this process:
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 7.
`
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty
`B.
`The ’560 patent purports to claim priority to the ’581 patent. During
`
`examination of the ’581 patent, 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 inform a marketing analysis.”1
`
`Id., 376. The ’560 patent was filed years later and quickly issued after amendments
`
`further defining the term “user data” and adding similar features to the ’581 patent.
`
`EX1011, 113. The Examiner determined that the “record as a whole” supported
`
`allowance. Id., 136. The Examiner was unaware, however, that these features are
`
`explicitly disclosed in Peled and Brandstetter as further explained below. EX1002,
`
`¶101.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`C. The ’560 Patent Claims
`The ’560 patent contains nineteen 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 and identifying user
`
`demographic data when the user accepts or declines. EX1002, ¶¶92-97. Elements
`
`[1A]-[1B] are directed to licensing and distributing digital media content, while
`
`elements [1C]-[1F] are directed to targeted marketing (i.e., gathering and
`
`summarizing user demographic data when a user accepts or declines a license).
`
`The claimed gathering of user demographic data and managing licenses was well
`
`known in the art. Grounds 1-2 (Peled-Pou grounds) and Ground 3 (Brandstetter-
`
`Levy grounds) demonstrate that this was obvious, not inventive. Sections VI-VIII;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶150-501.
`
`Importantly, claim 1 does not explicitly require a single device or system to
`
`perform all of its steps. Id., ¶¶93. Indeed, when 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 on a
`
`server, such as “aggregating the user data into a statistics record,” “storing” the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`record in a license database, and “analyzing a plurality of statistics records.”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`EX1002, ¶¶92-93; 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, ¶¶94-97, 150-501.
`
`D. Other Challenged Patents
`Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging other patents in the same
`
`family as the ’560 patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,715,581; 9,898,590; 10,515,191;
`
`10,860,691; 10,885,154. 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. The ’560 patent likewise claims these
`
`concepts except that it refers specifically to streaming a media content item and
`
`marketing based on user stream history. The prior art here discloses all of these
`
`features.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560
`
`
`
`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., [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—rendering the