UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00394
`U.S. Patent 10,885,154
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,885,154
`
`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. 10,885,154
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ...................... 1
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’154 PATENT ..................................................... 3
`A. Disclosure................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Distributing Digital Media Content Using Fingerprints ............ 3
`2.
`Targeted Marketing ............................................................. 6
`Prosecution History...................................................................... 6
`B.
`Claims........................................................................................ 7
`C.
`D. Other Patents............................................................................... 8
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 8
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-2 AND 4-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER-LEVY. .................................................................... 9
`A. Overview of Brandstetter .............................................................. 9
`B. Overview of Levy .......................................................................10
`C. A POSA Would Have Combined Brandstetter and Levy. .................11
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Brandstetter’s
`platform with Levy’s content identification and fingerprinting
`framework. .......................................................................11
`A POSA would have known how to combine Brandstetter and
`Levy and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. 14
`D. Brandstetter-Levy Discloses Claim 1. ............................................14
`1.
`[1P]..................................................................................14
`2.
`[1A]: “a processor.” ...........................................................15
`3.
`[1B]: “a memory.” .............................................................16
`4.
`[1C]: “generate a first request ...” .........................................16
`5.
`[1D]: “identify the first media content item by determining a
`first media fingerprint …” ...................................................17
`[1E]: “extract first user data specific to the user when the user
`accepts to stream the first media content item.” ......................20
`
`2.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`[1F]: “generate a second request ...” .....................................21
`[1G]: “identify the second media content item by determining a
`second media fingerprint …”...............................................21
`[1H]: “extract second user data specific to the user when the
`user declines to stream the second media content item.” ..........22
`[1I]: “aggregate the extracted … data into a first[/second]
`statistics record …” ............................................................23
`[1J]: “transmit to a database the first[/second] statistics record
`… so that the summarized first and second user data is
`accessible to a third party online retailer …”..........................24
`[1K]: “retrieving the … statistics record with the identities of
`the first and second media content items …” .........................26
`[1L]: “analyzing the retrieved … statistics record to determine a
`target demographic …”.......................................................27
`[1M]: “providing the third party online retai[l]er the target
`demographic to market the media content item ...” .................29
`Claim 2 (audiovisual works). ........................................................30
`E.
`Claim 4 (“live version” and “studio version”). ................................30
`F.
`G. Claim 5 (first version “authorized for streaming” and second version
`“unauthorized for streaming”).......................................................31
`H. Claim 6 (“book in digital format”).................................................32
`I.
`Claim 7 (“geographic location”)....................................................32
`J.
`Claim 8 (user data includes “number of times the user requested to
`evaluate streaming” content). .......................................................33
`K. Claim 9 (“receive a license” and “prevent streaming … when the
`request is declined by the licensing system”). .................................33
`Claim 10 (“plurality of streaming parameters”). ..............................34
`L.
`M. Claim 11 (“digital watermark”).....................................................34
`N. Claim 12 (“digital watermark is metadata”). ...................................35
`O. Claim 13 (“load a first digital media file for reproduction”). .............36
`P.
`Claim 14 (“display query on the display asking the user whether the
`user would like to stream”)...........................................................39
`Q. Claim 15 (“collect and transmit user identification data”). ................40
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`R.
`Claim 16 (“transmit … fingerprints for confirmation …”). ...............41
`Claim 17 (“collect payment”). ......................................................42
`S.
`Claim 18 (“transmit … statistics record in real time”). .....................43
`T.
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 3 IS OBVIOUS OVER BRANDSTETTER-LEVY-
`RASSOOL. .........................................................................................44
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-2, 4-7, AND 9-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`PELED-POU.......................................................................................46
`A. Overview of Peled ......................................................................46
`B. Overview of Pou.........................................................................46
`C. A POSA Would Have Combined Peled and Pou. ............................47
`1.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve Peled’s
`distribution of content by including Pou’s licensing
`management and fingerprinting framework. ..........................47
`A POSA would have known how to combine Peled and Pou
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. ........48
`Peled-Pou Discloses Claim 1. .......................................................49
`1.
`[1P]..................................................................................49
`2.
`[1A]: “a processor.” ...........................................................50
`3.
`[1B]: “a memory.” .............................................................51
`4.
`[1C]: “generate a first request …” ........................................51
`5.
`[1D]: “identify the first media content item by determining a
`first media fingerprint …” ...................................................52
`[1E]: “extract first user data specific to the user when the user
`accepts to stream the first media content item.” ......................55
`[1F]: “generate a second request …” ....................................56
`[1G]: “identify the second media content item by determining a
`second media fingerprint …”...............................................56
`[1H]: “extract second user data specific to the user when the
`user declines to stream the second media content item.” ..........57
`[1I]: “aggregate the extracted … data into a first[/second]
`statistics record …” ............................................................58
`
`10.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`[1J]: “transmit to a database the first[/second] statistics record
`… so that the summarized first and second user data is
`accessible to a third party online retailer …”..........................59
`[1K]: “retrieving the … statistics record with the identities of
`the first and second media content items ...” ..........................61
`[1L]: “analyzing the retrieved … statistics record to determine a
`target demographic …”.......................................................62
`[1M]: “providing the third party online retai[l]er the target
`demographic to market the media content item ...” .................63
`Claim 2 (audiovisual works). ........................................................64
`E.
`Claim 4 (“live version” and “studio version”). ................................64
`F.
`G. Claim 5 (first version “authorized for streaming” and second version
`“unauthorized for streaming”).......................................................64
`H. Claim 6 (“book in digital format”).................................................65
`I.
`Claim 7 (“geographic location”)....................................................66
`J.
`Claim 9 (“receive a license” and “prevent streaming … when the
`request is declined by the licensing system”). .................................66
`K. Claim 10 (“plurality of streaming parameters”). ..............................67
`L.
`Claim 11 (“digital watermark”).....................................................67
`M. Claim 12 (“digital watermark is metadata”). ...................................68
`N. Claim 13 (“load a first digital media file for reproduction”). .............68
`O. Claim 14 (“display query on the display asking the user whether the
`user would like to stream”)...........................................................69
`Claim 15 (“collect and transmit user identification data”). ................70
`P.
`Q. Claim 16 (“transmit … fingerprints for confirmation …”). ...............70
`R.
`Claim 17 (“collect payment”). ......................................................71
`S.
`Claim 18 (“transmit … statistics record in real time”). .....................72
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIM 3 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED-POU-RASSOOL.....72
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIM 8 IS OBVIOUS OVER PELED-POU-
`BRANDSTETTER...............................................................................73
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. .............74
`XII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION. ................................................................................74
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`A.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`The Board Should Not Use its Discretion to Deny the Petition Under
`§ 314(a). ....................................................................................74
`1.
`This case is at its very earliest stages. ...................................74
`a.
`Factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of institution. ................75
`b.
`Factors 3-5 weigh in favor of institution. ......................75
`c.
`Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution..........................76
`The Board should not avoid the merits of the case under
`General Plastics because there is only one pending petition.....76
`This Case Does Not Implicate § 325(d). .........................................76
`B.
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ................................77
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................77
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................77
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................78
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................78
`XIV. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................78
`XV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................80
`APPENDIX A: LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS...................................81
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,154 to Estes (“’154 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman
`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. 10,860,154 (“’154
`Prosecution History”)
`Curriculum Vitae of John Tinsman
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,473 to Rassool et al. (“Rassool”)
`Mary Madden, The State of Music Online: Ten Years After
`Napster, 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”)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`Description
`“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+In eroperability+and+eInnovation.pdf;
`jsessionid =FEC1E2A0F87ABB7EB30E41EA93AC1CA
`C?sequence=2)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314378 A1 to Nijim et al.
`(“Nijim”)
`“Apple TV Coming to Your Living Room,”Apple.com (January
`9, 2007) (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-
`TV-Coming-to-Your-Living-Room/)
`Jaap Haitsma, et al., “A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting
`System,” 3rd International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Paris, France, October 13-17, 2002 (“Haitsma”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,554,176 to Gharaat et al. (“Gharaat”)
`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)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,306,976 to Handman et al. (“Handman”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0206478 to Glaser et al.
`(“Glaser”)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,081,579 to Alcade et al. (“Alcade”)
`Avery Li-Chun Wang, “An Industrial-Strength Audio Search
`Algorithm,” 4th International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, October 27-30, 2003.
`Bryan Jacobs, “How Shazam Works To Identify (Nearly) Every
`Song You Throw At It,” Gizmodo.com (September 24, 2010)
`https://gizmodo.com/how-shazam-works-to-identify-nearly-
`every-song-you-th-5647458
`European Patent Application Publication No. 1,558,032 to
`Widevine Technologies, Inc.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0051772 to Ramaswamy et al.
`(“Ramaswamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,223,924 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe924”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0056405 to Muyres et al.
`(“Muyres”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 to Halt, Jr. (“Halt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,447,564 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,583,089 to Ramer et al. (“Ramer”)
`Laurie J. Flynn, “Like This? You'll Hate That.” (Not All Web
`Recommendations Are Welcome.),” NYTIMES.com (January
`23, 2006)
`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
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`Description
`Richard Leeming, “DRM – ‘digital rights’ or ‘digital restrictions’
`management?”, EBU Technical Review, January 2007
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_309-digital_rights.pdf)
`Jordi Ribas-Corbera, “Windows Media 9 Series – a platform to
`deliver compressed audio and video for Internet and broadcast
`applications,” EBU Technical Review, January 2003
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_293-ribas.pdf)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Adrian Slywotzky, et al., “The Future of Commerce,” Harvard
`Business Review, January-February 2000
`(https://hbr.org/2000/01/the-future-of-commerce)
`Benno Stein, et al., “Near Similarity Search and Plagiarism
`Analysis,” 29th Annual Conference of the German Classification
`Society (GfKI), Magdeburg, Germany, 2006
`Chow Kok Kent, et al., “Features Based Text Similarity
`Detection,” Journal of Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 1, January 2010
`Benjamin Cohen, “How can publishers limit e-book piracy?”,
`Channel 4 News, October 18, 2009
`(https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment
`/books/how%2Bcan%2Bpublishers%2Blimit%
`2Bebook%2Bpiracy/3391502.html)
`John Timmer, “Publishers cut book sharing deal with Scribd,”
`Ars Technica, March 18, 2009
`Eric A. Robinson, “Digital Rights Management, Fair Use, and
`Privacy: Problems for Copyright Enforcement through
`Technology,” University of St. Augustine, December 2009
`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
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1065
`
`1066
`1067
`1068
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`1080
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`Description
`Order on Motion to Transfer, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`WDTX-1-21-cv-00027
`Scheduling Order, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-
`cv-00027
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 to Estes (“’191 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 to Estes (“’691 Patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`California Northern District Time to Milestones, Docket
`Navigator, accessed January 4, 2022
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`Roku petitions for IPR of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’154 patent claims are directed to a multimedia hardware device that
`
`identifies requested digital content using “fingerprints,” and provides, to third-
`
`party retailers, statistics summarizing collected demographic data for a user who
`
`accepts and declines to stream content. EX1001, 8:38-48, 11:63-12:15.
`
`But tracking demographic data and content using fingerprints in response to
`
`users accepting and declining to stream was already disclosed by several prior art
`
`references, including U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2011/0191246 (EX1004,
`
`“Brandstetter”), 2004/0010417 (EX1003, “Peled”), 2008/0140433 (EX1006,
`
`“Levy”), and 2005/0004873 (EX1005, “Pou”). This Petition thus demonstrates the
`
`unpatentability of all claims of the ’154 patent.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-2, 4-18
`3
`1-2, 4-7, 9-18
`3
`8
`
`II.
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`
`Prior Art
`Brandstetter-Levy
`Brandstetter-Levy-
`Rassool (EX1016)
`Peled-Pou
`Peled-Pou-Rassool
`Peled-Pou-Brandstetter
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`The earliest alleged priority date of the ’154 patent is November 4, 2011. 1
`
`The references qualify as prior art:
`
`• Brandstetter is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it was
`published on August 4, 2011.
`• Peled is prior art under § 102(b) because it was published on January 15,
`2004.
`• Levy is prior art under § 102(b) because it was published on June 12,
`2008.
`• Pou is prior art under § 102(b) because it was published on January 6,
`2005.
`• Rassool is prior art under § 102(b) because it issued on May 9, 2006.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time the ’154 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, ¶¶1-48.
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to challenge that priority date in other
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’154 PATENT
`The claims of the ’154 patent are generally directed to (1) licensing and
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`distributing digital media content, and (2) targeted marketing. However, these
`
`concepts were well-known in the art. EX1002, ¶¶49-80, 104-52.
`
`A.
`
`Disclosure
`Distributing Digital Media Content Using Fingerprints
`1.
`The ’154 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. 10,885,154
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`The platform includes a “licensing system 16” (green) and user “device 10”
`
`(red). Id., 3:26-34, 3:65-4:7. The patent broadly describes its functionality as
`
`capable of being implemented at either of these devices. Id., 8:8-19, 10:17-21,
`
`11:36-40; EX1002, ¶¶81-88. Figures 4-5 depict this functionality:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 4-5.
`
`
`
`“Licensing system 16” is loaded with a “catalog of media content items.”
`
`EX1001, FIG. 3, 7:39-43, 8:21-56, 13:27-32. The content items are analyzed to
`
`determine “identifying characteristics” that are “inherently present.” Id., 4:13-31,
`
`6:57-67, 8:27-50, 8:59-9:2, 9:17-31. This may be a “fingerprint” or “digital
`
`watermarking.” Id., 4:31-37, 13:26-32. A fingerprint embodies inherent properties
`
`of the media content so as to allow the system to distinguish between multiple
`
`versions of content and to ensure that the system can accurately identify content
`
`even if it has been remastered or modified. Id., 4:31-37, 9:24-32.
`
`A user may then request to evaluate streaming content, and if not licensed,
`
`acquire a license. Id., 4:2-11, 4:31-52, 9:22-38, 9:64-11:1; EX1002, ¶¶89-91.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`Targeted Marketing
`2.
`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, 5:30-48, 7:61-8:7, 9:50-57, 11:12-36, 11:61-12:26;
`
`EX1002, ¶¶92-94. Figure 7 depicts this process:
`
`EX1001, FIG. 7.
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`During prosecution of the ’154 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 that
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`user data 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 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.”2 Id., 376. The
`
`’154 patent, filed years later, quickly issued based on the Examiner’s similar
`
`determination. EX1014, 83-93. The Examiner was unaware, however, that this
`
`feature is disclosed in Brandstetter and Peled as further explained below. EX1002,
`
`¶¶102-03.
`
`Claims
`C.
`The ’154 patent contains eighteen claims and just one independent claim
`
`(claim 1). A Claim Appendix has been included with this Petition.
`
`Claim 1 recites a multimedia hardware device that identifies requested
`
`content based on fingerprints ([1A]-[1D], [1F]-[1G]) and collects user
`
`demographic data, for purposes of targeted marketing, when the user accepts to
`
`stream one content item and declines to stream another ([1E], [1H]-[1M]).
`
`EX1002, ¶¶95-98.
`
`
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`Other Patents
`D.
`Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging other patents in the same
`
`family. Claim features unique to the individual patents can be found, for example,
`
`at ¶¶99-101 of the Declaration of John Tinsman (EX1002).
`
`Each of these patents 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, ¶¶99-101. The ’154 patent likewise claims
`
`these concepts but refers specifically to streaming and “media fingerprints,” and
`
`involves a single user requesting two different media content items using a
`
`multimedia hardware device.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In IPRs, 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. 35 U.S.C. § 282(b); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); 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., [1H]) “does not require an affirmative act by a user,” and that “a
`
`user’s passive interaction with a device, such as navigating or scrolling past an
`
`offer to license or stream media content” was sufficient. EX1070, 3. Petitioner
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`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. 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, Sections IX.B.9, XI.B.9. 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. EX1002, ¶¶153-54.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-2 AND 4-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`BRANDSTETTER-LEVY.
`Overview of Brandstetter
`A.
`Brandstetter discloses an online platform where content creators can market
`
`and distribute digital content. EX1004, Abstract, ¶¶69, 118. The platform includes
`
`a central server communicating with user client devices via the Internet. Id., ¶¶91,
`
`109. Brandstetter’s platform licenses and distributes digital media content to its
`
`users. Id., ¶¶77, 98, 120, 126, 173; EX1002, ¶¶105-09.
`
`Brandstetter also includes a report module that “collects information about
`
`user activity with respect to media content on the platform.” EX1004, ¶¶71, 83, 96.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`This includes “user demographics (e.g., ages, geographical locations, ethnicities,
`
`genders),” as well as media characteristics and how users interacted with media
`
`content. Id., ¶¶65, 71. Brandstetter tracks user “activity up to and including a
`
`purchase” so that, “even if a purchase is not made, data related to audience
`
`interaction with content on the website can be indexed and used for later analysis.”
`
`Id., ¶130; EX1002, ¶¶110-17. The data is then used to generate activity reports that
`
`allow third parties to engage in targeted marketing of media content. EX1004, ¶¶8,
`
`65, 71, 73, 75-76, 78, 80, 84-86, 96-97, 130, 133, 172.
`
`Overview of Levy
`B.
`Levy describes “integrating content identifiers with digital rights
`
`management systems.” EX1006, ¶¶3, 5-6, 10, 17. To manage digital rights, Levy
`
`describes a “Media Server” user device, which may be a “cell phone, MP3 player,
`
`iPod® and personal computer[]” that includes “Client Player Application”
`
`software for playing content. Id., ¶¶83-84. When a “user selects raw content for
`
`playing,” the Media Server identifies a corresponding digital watermark (DWM)
`
`Content ID. Id., ¶108. A “fingerprint (e.g., a hash, derived signature or reduce-bit
`
`representation of content)” allows Levy’s system to “uniquely identify” media
`
`content. Id., ¶140. Levy’s Media Server “calculates or derives a fingerprint of
`
`content” and uses the fingerprint to identify corresponding “Usage Rights.” Id.,
`
`“Usage Rights” refers to a “License” and define the conditions for playing the
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154
`
`
`
`media content. Id., ¶87. The content is then distributed in accordance with the
`
`Usage Rights. Id., ¶¶90, 97-98, 110, 112, 115; EX1002, ¶¶131-42.
`
`C. A POSA Would Have Combined Brandstetter and Levy.
`A POSA would have been motivated to improve
`1.
`Brandstetter’s platform with Levy’s content identification
`and fingerprinting framework.
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Brandstetter with Levy
`
`because the resultant system would (1) provide an efficient mechanism for tracking
`
`purchased licenses, and (2) confirm adherence to license terms for downloaded
`
`media files. EX1002, ¶¶155-67.
`
`First, combining Brandstetter and Levy would have resulted in a system that
`
`efficiently tracks purchased licenses. Brandstetter tracks user purchase history and
`
`all “audience interaction” with Brandstetter’s platform. EX1004, ¶¶5-9, 130, FIGs.
`
`27-44. For example, Brandstetter describes tracking user license purchases via
`
`active rentals and a download history, an example of which is illustrated in Figure
`
`28 below. Id