UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00392
`U.S. Patent 10,515,191
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,515,191
`
`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. 10,515,191
`
`
`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 ’191 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 ’191 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 ’191
`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 first/second request to reproduce media
`
`content ..................................................................................... 20
`[1B] “evaluating” the requests to determine whether the users
`have previously acquired a license and “offering the license”
`when they do not ...................................................................... 21
`[1C] “extracting first user data … when the first user accepts the
`offer and acquires the license” ................................................. 24
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`[1D] “extracting second user data … when the second user
`declines the offer” .................................................................... 24
`[1E] “aggregating” the first/second user data into a statistics
`record ....................................................................................... 25
`[1F] “statistics record summarizes” the user data ..................... 26
`[1G] “storing” the statistics record so that the first/second user
`data is accessible to a third party .............................................. 26
`[1H] “analyzing by the third party the statistics record to
`determine the target demographic” .......................................... 28
`[1I] “marketing, by the third party, the media content … to the
`determined target demographic” .............................................. 29
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 30
`Claim 13. ........................................................................................... 33
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................ 35
`Claims 2 and 14 (“receiv[ing] a license” and “prevent[ing]
`reproduction” when the first/second requests are declined by the
`licensing system) ............................................................................... 38
`Claims 3 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”). ................. 39
`Claims 4, 10, 16, and 21 (storing user data such that it is “accessible to
`a third party online media retailer”) ................................................... 39
`Claims 6 and 23 (“geographic location[]”) ......................................... 42
`Claims 8 and 20 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”) .................................................................. 43
`M. Claim 9 (“fingerprint”) ...................................................................... 43
`N.
`Claim 12 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed) .......................................................................... 44
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 5, 11, 17, AND 22 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PELED,
`POU, AND VIJAY. ..................................................................................... 44
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIM 18 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED, POU, AND
`BRANDSTETTER. ..................................................................................... 47
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18-21, AND 23 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER BRANDSTETTER-LEVY. .............................................................. 48
`A. Overview of Brandstetter ................................................................... 48
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`J.
`
`K.
`L.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`Overview of Levy .............................................................................. 51
`A POSA would have combined Brandstetter and Levy. ..................... 54
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Brandstetter’s
`
`content licensing platform with Levy’s content identification and
`fingerprinting framework. ........................................................ 54
`A POSA would have known how to combine Brandstetter and
`Levy, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.57
`Brandstetter-Levy Discloses Claim 1. ................................................ 58
`[1P] .......................................................................................... 58
`
`[1A] “receiving” a first/second request to reproduce media
`
`content ..................................................................................... 61
`[1B] “evaluating” the requests to determine whether the users
`have previously acquired a license and “offering the license”
`when they do not ...................................................................... 62
`[1C] “extracting first user data … when the first user accepts the
`offer and acquires the license” ................................................. 65
`[1D] “extracting second user data … when the second user
`declines the offer” .................................................................... 66
`[1E] “aggregating” the first/second user data into a statistics
`record ....................................................................................... 67
`[1F] “statistics record summarizes” the user data ..................... 68
`[1G] “storing” the statistics record so that the first/second user
`data is accessible to a third party .............................................. 68
`[1H] “analyzing by the third party the statistics record to
`determine the target demographic” .......................................... 70
`[1I] “marketing, by the third party, the media content … to the
`determined target demographic” .............................................. 72
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 74
`Claim 13 ............................................................................................ 77
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................ 79
`Claims 2 and 14 (“receiv[ing] a licensing” and “prevent[ing]
`reproduction” when the first/second requests are declined by the
`licensing system) ............................................................................... 81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`J.
`
`K.
`L.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`Claims 3 and 15 (“plurality of reproduction parameters”) .................. 82
`Claims 4, 10, 16, and 21 (storing user data such that it is “accessible to
`a third party online media retailer”) ................................................... 83
`Claims 6 and 23 (“geographic[al] location[]”) ................................... 83
`Claims 8 and 20 (generating and storing a “license record in a
`registered user database”) .................................................................. 84
`M. Claim 9 (“fingerprint”) ...................................................................... 87
`N.
`Claims 12 and 18 (user data includes “additional media content items”
`previously accessed and “quantity of times”). .................................... 87
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 5, 11, 17, AND 22 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER, LEVY, AND VIJAY. .................................................. 87
`XI. PETITIONER IS UNAWARE OF ANY SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. ......................................................................... 88
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION BASED ON EITHER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) OR § 325(D). 88
`A.
`The Board Should Not Use its Discretion to Deny the Petition Under
`§ 314(a). ............................................................................................ 89
`1.
`This case is at its very earliest stages. ...................................... 89
`(a)
`Factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of institution. ................. 90
`(b)
`Factors 3-5 weigh in favor of institution. ....................... 90
`(c)
`Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution. ........................... 91
`The Board should not avoid the merits of the case under General
`Plastics because there is only one pending petition. ................. 91
`This case does not implicate § 325(d) as a basis for denial. ................ 91
`B.
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ................................... 92
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 92
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................... 92
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................... 93
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 93
`XIV. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ........................................................... 93
`XV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 94
`APPENDIX A: LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...................................... 95
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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. 10,515,191
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 (“’191 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`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”)
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`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/)
`Jaap Haitsma, et al., “A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting
`System,” 3rd International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Paris, France, October 13-17, 2002 (“Haitsma”)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`Description
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,447,564 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,583,089 to Ramer et al. (“Ramer”)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1044
`
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`1058
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`Description
`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)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 to Estes (“’560 Patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`
`1080
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`Description
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`Roku, Inc. petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-23 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,515,191 to Estes, “Digital Media Reproduction and Licensing.”
`
`EX1001, ’191 patent, Title.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’191 patent purportedly improves the tracking of user demographic data
`
`when a user acquires or declines a license to digital media content. EX1001, 11:64-
`
`12:26; EX1012, ’191 Pros. History, 0130-41. Specifically, the ’191 patent claims a
`
`licensing system that determines whether a user has already acquired a license to
`
`reproduce desired content. EX1001, 9:34-47. 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., 5:32-40, 7:63-8:9, 11:64-12:26.
`
`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., 11:64-12:26.
`
`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”). EX1002,
`
`Tinsman Decl., ¶¶68-76. These references illustrate that offering media licenses
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`and tracking user responses and 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 ’191 patent.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Prior Art
`Peled (EX1003) and
`Pou (EX1005)
`Peled, Pou, and Vijay
`(EX1008)
`Peled, Pou, and
`Brandstetter (EX1004)
`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
`5, 11, 17, and 22
`
`18
`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 ’191 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.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`• Vijay (EX1008) is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it
`was filed on May 31, 2011.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the ’191 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, ¶¶1-49.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’191 PATENT
`
`The claims of the ’191 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”1 to inform a
`
`marketing analysis). EX1012, 0140. However, the second concept and the other
`
`claimed conventional concepts were well known in the art. EX1002, ¶50-76.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Disclosure
`Licensing and Distributing Digital-Media Content
`1.
`The ’191 patent describes a platform for distributing, licensing, and
`
`marketing digital-media content. EX1001, Abstract, 1:17-20, 1:61-63, 3:37-44,
`
`FIG. 2.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`The platform includes a “licensing system 16” (green) and user “device 10”
`
`(red). EX1001, 3:28-36, 3:67-4:9. The ’191 patent broadly describes its
`
`functionality as capable of being implemented at any of these devices. Id., 8:10-20,
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`10:18-22, 11:38-42; EX1002, ¶¶77-79. Figures 4-5 depict this functionality.
`
`EX1002, ¶80.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 4-5.
`
`
`
`“[L]icensing system 16” is loaded with a “catalog of media content items.”
`
`See EX1001, FIG. 3, 7:41-45, 8:22-57, 13:27-30. The content items are analyzed to
`
`determine “identifying characteristics” that are “inherently present.” Id., 4:15-33,
`
`6:59-7:2, 8:28-51, 9:4-11, 9:18-22. This may be a “fingerprint” or “digital
`
`watermarking.” Id., 4:33-39, 13:27-30.
`
`A user device then provides a license request. EX1002, ¶¶81-85. The request
`
`may occur when the user has loaded a digital media file on the user’s device 10.
`
`EX1001, 4:15-24. A license database is accessed to determine whether the user has
`
`licensed the content. Id., 4:43-46, 9:34-38. If so, the device “initializes
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`reproduction of the digital media file.” Id., 9:38-41. If not, the user receives a
`
`“query” asking whether the user would like to purchase a license. Id., 9:42-47; see
`
`also id., 4:46-49. If the user declines, the device denies access to the content. Id.,
`
`4:50-64, 9:48-50, 10:9-11:13. If the user accepts, the licensing system permits the
`
`user to play or stream the content. Id.
`
`Targeted Marketing
`2.
`User demographic data is collected when a user accepts or declines a license
`
`and provided as reports so that content providers can gauge interest and perform
`
`targeted marketing. Id., 5:32-40, 7:63-8:9, 9:50-58, 11:13-37, 11:62-12:26;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶86-88. Figure 7 depicts this process:
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 7.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`Prosecution History and Alleged Novelty
`B.
`The ’191 patent purports to claim priority to U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`(“’581 patent”). Prior to allowance of the ’581 patent, the applicant amended the
`
`claims in response to a rejection to emphasize the collection of demographic data
`
`when a user acquires or declines a license. EX1009, ’581 Pros. History, 0344-54.
`
`In allowing the claims, the Examiner highlighted that the prior art did not disclose
`
`“storing demographic data about users that decline a media license in order to
`
`inform a marketing analysis.”2 Id., 0376. The ’191 patent was filed years later and
`
`quickly issued based on the Examiner making the same determination that targeted
`
`marketing based on user demographic data gleaned when a user declines a license
`
`was novel. EX1012, 0130-42. The Examiner was unaware, however, that these
`
`features are explicitly disclosed in Peled and Brandstetter as further explained
`
`below. EX1002, ¶¶97-98.
`
`C. The ’191 Patent Claims
`The ’191 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.
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for determining a target demographic for media
`
`marketing based on data associated with two different users requesting to
`
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`reproduce the same media-content item. EX1002, 89-93. Elements [1A]-[1C] are
`
`directed to licensing and distributing digital-media content, while elements [1D]-
`
`[1I] 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 1-3 (Peled-Pou grounds) and Grounds 4-5 (Brandstetter-Levy
`
`grounds) demonstrate that this was obvious, not inventive. Sections VI-X;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶89-93.
`
`Importantly, claim 1 does not explicitly require a single device or system to
`
`perform all of its steps. Id., ¶¶89-93. 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 a licensing system on a server would practice its limitations. EX1001,
`
`FIG. 5, 7:63-8:9, 10:55-11:3, 11:21-37; EX1002, ¶¶89-93. 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, ¶¶89-93.
`
`Additionally, an apparent dependency error exists for claims 14-18, which
`
`depend from claim 12 but have conflicting preambles. It appears claims 14-18
`
`should depend from system claim 13. Similarly, claims 20-23 face the same issue.
`
`
`
`- 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. 10,515,191
`
`family as the ’191 patent: ’581 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,898,590; 10,489,560;
`
`10,860,691; 10,885,154. Claim features unique to the individual patents can be
`
`found, for example, at EX1002, ¶¶94-96 of the Declaration of John Tinsman
`
`(EX1002). Each of these patents recites identifying whether a user has accepted or
`
`declined an offer, recording user demographic data, and providing a summary of
`
`the user demographic data. EX1002, ¶¶94-96. The ’191 patent likewise claims
`
`these concepts except that it refers to two users and aggregating user data for the
`
`two users, where one has accepted a license and the other has declined a license.
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`In the parallel litigation, PO represented to the court that the “decline”
`
`limitation ([1D]) “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, Plaintiff’s Response, 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, ¶¶189-195. 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.
`
`Likewise, no other claim term requires construction—all terms should
`
`receive their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the ’191 patent
`
`specification. EX1002, ¶¶189-195.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191
`
`
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-21, AND 23 OF THE ’191
`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 c