Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`Issue Date: September 12, 2017
`
`Title: STREAMING MEDIA DELIVERY SYSTEM
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`II. Mandatory Notices under § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest under § 42.8.(b)(1) ........................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters under § 42.8(b)(2) .................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under § 42.8(b)(3) .................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................... 3
`Fee Payment Under § 42.103 ....................................................................... 3
`III.
`IV. Requirements under §§ 42.104 and 42.108 .................................................. 3
`A. Grounds for Standing ......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested .......................................................................................... 3
`Discretionary Denial is Not Appropriate Here ................................... 4
`1.
`Discretionary Denial Under General Plastic Is Not
`Appropriate .............................................................................. 4
`Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is Not
`Appropriate .............................................................................. 6
`Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is Not
`Appropriate .............................................................................. 8
`V. Overview of the ’636 Patent ........................................................................ 8
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 8
`B.
`Priority Date ...................................................................................... 9
`C.
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 9
`D.
`Claim Listing ..................................................................................... 9
`VI. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 9
`VII. The Challenged Claims are Obvious .......................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ............................ 10
`1.
`Carmel [EX1003] ................................................................... 10
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Narayan [EX1005] ................................................................. 13
`2.
`Ravi [EX1004] ....................................................................... 13
`3.
`Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Carmel ........................................... 13
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................. 13
`a.
`“A method for distributing a live audio or video
`program over the Internet from a server system to
`a plurality of user systems.” (Claim 1 [preamble]) ....... 13
`“receiving at the server system a continuous
`digitally encoded stream for the audio or video
`program, via a data connection from a live source,
`in real time, the server system comprising at least
`one computer;” (Claim 1[a]) ........................................ 15
`“upon receipt of the stream by the server system,”
`(Claim 1[b]) ................................................................. 18
`“supplying, at the server system, media data
`elements representing the program, each media
`data element comprising a digitally encoded
`portion of the program and having a playback
`rate,” (Claim 1[b(i)]) .................................................... 18
`“serially identifying the media data elements, said
`serial identification indicating a time sequence of
`the media data elements, and” (Claim 1[b(ii)] .............. 22
`“storing the media data elements in a data structure
`under the control of the server system;” (Claim
`1[b(iii)]) ....................................................................... 24
`“receiving requests at the server system via one or
`more data connections over the Internet, for one or
`more of the media data elements stored in the data
`structure,” (Claim 1[c]) ................................................ 25
`“each received request specifying one or more
`serial identifiers of the requested one or more
`media data elements,” (Claim 1[c(i)] ........................... 27
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`“each received request originating from a
`requesting user system of a plurality of user
`systems;” (Claim 1[c(ii)] .............................................. 29
`“responsive to the requests, sending, by the server
`system, the one or more media data elements
`having the one or more specified serial identifiers,
`to the requesting user systems corresponding to the
`requests; wherein” (Claim 1[d]) ................................... 31
`“the data connection between the server system
`and each requesting user system has a data rate
`more rapid than the playback rate of the one or
`more media data elements sent via that
`connection;” (Claim 1[d(i)]) ........................................ 33
`“each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as
`the data connection between the server system and
`each requesting user system allows;” (Claim
`1[d(ii)]) ........................................................................ 37
`“the one or more media data elements sent are
`selected without depending on the server system
`maintaining a record of the last media data element
`sent to the requesting user systems;” (Claim
`1[d(iii)]) ....................................................................... 40
`“all of the media data elements that are sent by the
`server system to the plurality of user systems are
`sent in response to the requests; and” (Claim
`1[d(iv)]) ....................................................................... 42
`“all of the media data elements that are sent by the
`server system to the requesting user systems are
`sent from the data structure under the control of
`the server system as the media data elements were
`first stored therein.” (Claim 1[d(v)]) ............................ 44
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1 wherein the serial
`identifiers are sequential.” ...................................................... 47
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein the sending is
`via a reliable transmission protocol.” ..................................... 48
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 3, wherein the reliable
`transmission protocol is TCP.” ............................................... 49
`Claim 5 (Independent) ........................................................... 49
`5.
`Dependent Claims 6-8............................................................ 53
`6.
`Claim 9 (Independent) ........................................................... 53
`7.
`Dependent claims 10-12......................................................... 54
`8.
`Ground 2: Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Carmel in view of
`Narayan. .......................................................................................... 54
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Carmel in view of
`Ravi. ................................................................................................ 59
`Ground 4: Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Carmel in view of
`Narayan and Ravi. ........................................................................... 64
`VIII. Secondary Considerations .......................................................................... 65
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 65
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2 to Harold Edward Price (filed October
`3, 2016, issued September 12, 2017)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel Polish (“Polish”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 to Sharon Carmel et al. (filed March 24,
`1999, issued May 14, 2002) (“Carmel”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,292,834 to Hemanth Srinivas Ravi et al. (filed March
`14, 1997, issued September 18, 2001) (“Ravi”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,008,853 to Ajai Narayan et al. (filed November 12,
`1997, issued December 28, 1999) (“Narayan”)
`1006 Reserved
`1007 Reserved
`1008 Reserved
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,230 to Feng Chi Wang et al. (filed June 30, 1997,
`issued February 2, 1999)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,637,031 B1 to Phillip A. Chou (filed December 4,
`1998, issued October 21, 2003)
`
`1011
`
`Shanwei Cen et al., Flow and Congestion Control for Internet Media
`Streaming Applications (1997)
`
`1012
`
`Jian Lu, Signal Processing for Internet Video Streaming: A Review
`(2000)
`1013 H. Schulzrinne et al., Network Working Group Request for Comments:
`2326, Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (1998)
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 B1 to Yevgeniy Eugene Shteyn (filed
`November 4, 1999, issued May 5, 2009)
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,721,878 to Hal Hjalmar Ottesen et al. (filed June 7,
`1995, issued February 24, 1998
`1016 R. Fielding et al., Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (1999)
`1017
`Sam Iren and Paul D. Amer, The Transport Layer: Tutorial and Survey
`(1999)
`1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,980 to Robert D. Glaser et al. (filed November
`30, 1994, issued August 11, 1998)
`
`1019 M.H. Willebeek-Lemair et al., Bamba – Audio and video streaming over
`the Internet (1998)
`1020 Excerpts from David Austerberry, The Technology of Video and Audio
`Streaming (2004)
`1021 Cannon DV Format,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19991013131445/http://canondv.com:80/s
`hared/dvinfo/dvinfo2.html (1999)
`1022 Alan T. Wetzel and Michael R. Schell, Consumer Applications of the
`IEEE 1394 Serial Bus, and a 1394/DV Video Editing System (1996)
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,568,192 to Eric C. Hannah (filed August 30, 1995,
`issued October 22, 1996)
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 5,402,170 to Kenneth A. Parulski et al. (filed August
`31, 1992, issued March 28, 1995)
`
`1025
`
`Jean-Phillipe Martin-Flatin, Push vs. Pull in Web-Based Network
`Management (1999)
`1026 Lixin Gao et al., Catching and Selective Catching: Efficient Latency
`Reduction Techniques for Delivering Continuous Multimedia Streams
`(1999)
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,822,524 to Huey-Shiang Chen et al. (filed July 21,
`1995, issued October 13, 1998)
`
`Description of Document
`
`1028
`
`Sriram S. Rao et al., Comparative Evaluation of Server-push and Client-
`pull Architectures for Multimedia Servers (1996)
`
`1029
`’636 Patent Prosecution History File
`1030 Reserved
`1031 Reserved
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 7,237,254 B1 to Nosakhare D. Omoigui (filed March
`29, 2000, issued June 26, 2007)
`1033 WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.’s Proposed Claim Constructions from WAG
`Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.), dated February 18, 2022
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,488,433 to Kinya Washino et al. (filed March 1, 1995,
`issued January 30, 1996)
`
`1035
`
`Panasonic DV-PV910,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990505044020/http://www.panasonic.c
`om:80/consumer_electronics/video/pv_dv910.htm (archived May 5,
`1999)
`1036 Canon Elura,
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990424171105/http://www.canondv.co
`m:80/elura/index.html (archived April 24, 1999)
`1037 Canon XL1
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990420230845/http://canondv.com:80/
`xl1/index2.html (archived April 20, 1994)
`1038 Anthony D. Mercando, Multimedia Mania (1994)
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1039 Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia (1997)
`1040 Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief from WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No.
`6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 37, filed March 14, 2022
`1041 Declaration of Keith J. Teruya from WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google
`LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), filed April 1, 2022
`
`Jonathan C. Soo, Live Multimedia over HTTP (1994)
`
`1042
`1043
`
`from WAG
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.), filed April 1, 2022
`1044 Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief from WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No.
`6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 43, filed April 15, 2022
`
`1045
`
`Phil Karn and Craig Partridge, Improving Round-Trip Time Estimates
`in Reliable Transport Protocols (1988)
`1046 Hari Balakrishnan et al., Improving TCP/IP Performance over Wireless
`Networks (1995)
`
`1047 WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`from WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.), dated November 15, 2021
`1048 Reserved
`1049 Reserved
`1050 Reserved
`1051 Reserved
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1052 Reserved
`1053 Reserved
`1054 Reserved
`1055 Reserved
`1056 Reserved
`1057 Reserved
`1058 Opening Claim Construction Brief of Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web
`Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services, LLC from WAG Acquisition,
`L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt.
`No. 37, filed March 11, 2022
`1059 Reserved
`1060 List of Claims
`1061 U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 to Harold Edward Price (filed May 10, 2010,
`issued February 21, 2012)
`
`1062 Reserved
`1063
`’636 YouTube Amended Infringement Contentions from WAG
`Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.), served February 8, 1022
`1064 Reserved
`1065
`Service of Complaint on YouTube, Inc., WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 13,
`served
`
`1066
`
`Service of Complaint on Google LLC, WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 14
`-ix-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1067 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nathaniel Polish
`
`Description of Document
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner Google LLC respectfully submit this Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-12 (“the Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`(“’636 patent”) (EX1001). Petitioner requests institution of Inter Partes review
`
`(“IPR”) and a finding that all challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest under § 42.8.(b)(1)
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) and YouTube, LLC, are the real parties-in-interest
`
`to this IPR petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’636 patent is asserted in pending litigation involving the Petitioner:
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`The complaint in this related case which was first served on August 12, 2021.
`
`(EX1065, EX1066.) The ’636 patent is also the subject of two pending litigations
`
`listed below:
`
`• WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 2:21-cv-08230
`
`(C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 18, 2021)
`
`• WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00815 (W.D.
`
`Tex., filed Aug. 6, 2021)
`
`The ’636 patent is also the subject of The Walt Disney Company et al v. WAG
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01227 (P.T.A.B.) (filed July 13, 2022).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Eamonn Gardner (Reg. No. 63,322)
`egardner@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (858) 550-6086
`Fax: (720) 566-4099
`
`Orion Armon (Reg. No. 65,421)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (720) 566-4119
`Fax: (720) 566-4099
`
`Joseph Drayton Pro hac vice (application
`to be filed)
`jdrayton@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (212) 479-6539
`Fax: (212) 479-6275
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`Sravan Tumuluri Pro hac vice (application
`to be filed)
`stumuluri@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 776-2998
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’636 patent, Ernest D. Buff and ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES LLC, 231
`
`Somerville Road, Bedminster, NJ 07921. Petitioner consents to electronic service
`
`at the addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`III. FEE PAYMENT UNDER § 42.103
`Petitioner requests review of 12 claims, with a $41,500 payment.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’636 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests the Board institute IPR of claims 1-12 based on:
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-12
`
`Carmel
`
`Basis for Challenge under §103(a)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`Carmel in view of Narayan
`
`Carmel in view of Ravi
`
`Carmel in view of Narayan and Ravi
`
`Submitted with this Petition is a Declaration of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D.,
`
`(EX1002) (“Polish”), a qualified expert.
`
`C. Discretionary Denial is Not Appropriate Here
`Discretionary Denial Under General Plastic Is Not
`1.
`Appropriate
`Petitioner has never before filed a Patent Office challenge to the ’636 patent.
`
`PO may argue that the ’636 patent is already at issue in proceedings initiated by
`
`different parties. The facts here, however, do not support a discretionary denial
`
`based on those proceedings.
`
`The Board has set forth seven factors that it considers in determining whether
`
`to exercise its discretion to deny a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to an earlier
`
`proceeding involving the same patent. General Plastic Industrial v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15-19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)
`
`(precedential) (“General Plastic”). The General Plastic factors confirm that this
`
`Petition should be considered on the merits.
`
`As to the first factor, Petitioner is not a party, real party-in-interest, or privy
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`to the other Patent Office proceedings and this is Petitioner’s first challenge to the
`
`’636 patent, which “weighs especially heavily against a discretionary denial.” See
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC, IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 at 7-
`
`8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018).
`
`The second to fifth factors “bear little relevance” here because Petitioner has
`
`never before challenged the ’636 patent. Id. (“Once resolution of factor 1 indicates
`
`that Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the same patent, factors 2-
`
`5 bear little relevance unless there is evidence in the record of extenuating
`
`circumstances such as a showing that there was a previous petitioner who challenged
`
`the same patent and that the previous petitioner and the current petitioner planned
`
`the staggered petitions.”) (internal citation omitted). Petitioner has no relationship
`
`to the other challenge to the ’636 patent. And while the Carmel reference is common
`
`to both petitions, this petition includes additional prior and different grounds than
`
`the other petition.
`
`As to the sixth factor, while the Board certainly has finite resources, instituting
`
`this petition would be no more a burden on these finite resources than instituting any
`
`other petition.
`
`And as to the seventh factor, there is no readily identifiable roadblock for the
`
`Board to issue a final determination within the statutory one-year limit. This petition
`
`is only being filed a few weeks after the other petition, and there is no reason both
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`cannot be addressed according to the statutory deadlines.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should reach the merits of this Petition, and institute
`
`trial.
`
`2.
`
`Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is Not
`Appropriate
`The Board should not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) for two
`
`reasons.
`
`First, in accordance with the USPTO’s most recent guidance, the Board
`
`should not deny institution because this “petition presents compelling evidence of
`
`unpatentability.” (Memorandum from USPTO Director K. Vidal to Members of the
`
`PTAB, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
`
`with
`
`Parallel
`
`District
`
`Court
`
`Litigation,
`
`June
`
`21,
`
`2022,
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_d
`
`enials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf.) Indeed, the
`
`fact that a related patent within the same family as the ’636 patent—with numerous
`
`claim limitations similar in substance to those challenged here—was subject to inter
`
`partes review and found unpatentable in view of some of the same prior art, supports
`
`the compelling nature of this petition. See Webpower Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-01238, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2020).
`
`Second, taken as a whole, the “Fintiv” factors weigh against exercising
`
`discretion. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20,
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`2020). Fintiv Factors 3, 4, and 6 Favor Institution: To the extent the Board does
`
`not deem the compelling evidence of obviousness controlling, at a minimum the
`
`strength of the obviousness case weighs in favor of institution under Factor 6. See
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 14-16; Sand Revolution II, LLC v.
`
`Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 13
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020). Moreover, the early status of the district court litigation
`
`(Factor 3) and Petitioner’s willingness to enter into a stipulation to not pursue the
`
`same grounds in the district court litigation (Factor 4), also favor institution. Sand
`
`Revolution II, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11, 12. Indeed, other than exchanging
`
`initial contentions and claim construction briefing, the only discovery in the case
`
`thus far has related to venue. A claim construction hearing will not occur until at
`
`least August 31, 2022, and no expert discovery has begun.
`
`Fintiv Factors 1 and 2 are Neutral and Even When Combined with Factor
`
`5 Do Not Warrant Discretionary Denial: The parties to the district court litigation,
`
`which is preliminarily set for trial May 22, 2023, includes the petitioner here.
`
`However, if the Board institutes, Petitioner intends to move for a stay in the co-
`
`pending litigation. Given that Petitioner have not filed such a stay motion, and given
`
`that Petitioner is still waiting resolution of a pending motion to transfer, any
`
`discussion of a stay (Factor 1) or the trial date (Factor 2) is speculative. Sand
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`Revolution II, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7-10. Accordingly, these factors are
`
`neutral.
`
`Finally, even if Petitioner’s transfer motion is denied and a stay is not granted,
`
`the strength of this petition, Petitioner’s willingness to forego pursuing the same
`
`grounds in the district court litigation, and the fact that the parties will be able to
`
`avoid any duplication of resources in the district court case given its early status, the
`
`overall weight of the factors weighs in favor of not exercising discretion to deny
`
`institution.
`
`The merits of the Petition warrant consideration, and this IPR should be
`
`instituted.
`
`3.
`
`Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is Not
`Appropriate
`This Petition does not present a situation in which “the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d). Although Carmel and Ravi were included in the Information Disclosure
`
`Statements submitted by the applicant, neither reference was discussed or otherwise
`
`acknowledged by the examiner during prosecution.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’636 PATENT
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the alleged priority date
`
`would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or an
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work
`
`experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video,
`
`over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical
`
`experience. Conversely, additional practical experience could compensate for less
`
`education. (Polish, ¶¶21-23.)
`
`Priority Date
`B.
`PO has asserted November 11, 1999 is the priority date for the challenged
`
`claims. (EX1047, 1.) Petitioner uses this date without conceding the claims are
`
`entitled to that date.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`This Petition challenges claims 1-12 of the ʼ636 patent.
`
`D. Claim Listing
`Exhibit 1060 lists the claims, enumerating each element. Bracketed notations
`
`(e.g., [a], [b], etc.) will be used to refer to individual limitations.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms have been proposed for construction by Petitioner, as
`
`summarized in the below table. For purposes of this petition, Petitioner does not
`
`presently contend that any term requires express construction. Petitioner’s analysis
`
`accommodates even the narrowest versions of the constructions set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`Disputed Term
`
`Petitioner’s
`Construction
`Indefinite
`
`
`is at a
`“each sending
`transmission rate as fast as
`the
`data
`connection
`between the server system
`and each requesting user
`system allows”
`“all of the media data
`elements that are sent by
`the server system to the
`requesting user systems
`are sent from the data
`structure under the control
`of the server system as the
`media data elements were
`first stored therein”
`
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“all of the media data
`elements that are sent by
`the server system to the
`requesting user systems
`are sent from the same
`data structure under the
`control of the server
`system and in the same
`format as the media data
`elements were first stored
`therein”
`“creating, at the server
`system, media data
`elements representing the
`program”
`
`“supplying, at the server
`system, media
`data
`elements representing the
`program”
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`As detailed below, claims 1-12 of the ’636 patent are obvious in view of the
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`identified prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
`Carmel [EX1003]
`1.
`Carmel, U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473, is titled “Network Media Streaming” and
`
`was filed on March 24, 1999. Carmel relates to network data communications, and
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`specifically to “real-time multimedia broadcasting over a network.” (Carmel, 1:11-
`
`13).
`
`Carmel discloses a method for generating a stream of media data and
`
`broadcasting the stream via a network (such as the Internet) to client devices. Carmel
`
`discloses a system 32 comprising “a transmitting computer 34, which generates the
`
`sequence, a plurality of clients 30, and a network server 36, all which communicate
`
`over network 28, preferably using the well-known Internet protocol.” (Carmel, 6:24-
`
`35.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`Carmel teaches computer 34 “receives audiovisual input from input devices
`
`22,” such as a microphone or video camera. (Carmel, 6:30-34.) Computer 34
`
`produces a “stream of broadcast data 40…typically corresponding to a multimedia
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`data sequence.” (Id., 7:18-22.) The data stream 40 “comprises a series of data slices
`
`42, 44, 46, 48, etc.,” with each slice having a corresponding slice index. (Id., 7:22-
`
`28.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3A.)
`
`The data slices of data stream 40 are stored in server 36 in a “first-in-first-out”
`
`sequence. (Carmel, 7:50-57.) Client computers connect to server 36 “to start
`
`receiving the data stream substantially in real time.” (Id., 8:1-6.) The client can also
`
`select where in the stream to begin receiving the data. (Id., 7:59-8:11.)
`
`Clients connect to server 36 and begin downloading and consuming data
`
`stream 40 using a well-known Internet protocol, such as HTTP, UDP, TCP, or other
`
`Internet protocols. (Carmel, 7:4-17, 10:24-54.) The client “monitors the rate of data
`
`coming in over…its links with server 36.” (Id., 10:55-56.) Carmel teaches multiple
`
`means of maintaining a consistent and sufficient transmission rate between server
`
`36 and clients 30. Carmel explains the data rate between server 36 and clients 30
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`“should be generally equal to or faster than the rate at which the data are generated
`
`at the transmitting computer.” (Id., 2:57-59.) Additionally, Carmel teaches clients
`
`can “open[] additional links with server 36 in order to increase the overall data rate.”
`
`(Id., 10:55-63.) Finally, Carmel discloses users may select lower quality levels for
`
`the slices, which permits faster transmission speed. (Id., 11:1-22.)
`
`Narayan [EX1005]
`2.
`Narayan, U.S. Patent No. 6,008,853, is titled “Sub-Frame Decoder with Area
`
`Dependent Update Rate for Digital Camcorder Transmission Standard” and was
`
`filed on November 12, 1997. A brief summary of Narayan is provided in Dr.
`
`Polish’s declaration. (Polish, ¶¶83-85.)
`
`Ravi [EX1004]
`3.
`Ravi, U.S. Patent No. 6,292,834, is entitled “Dynamic Bandwidth Selection
`
`for Efficient Transmission of Multimedia Streams in a Computer Network” and was
`
`filed on March 14, 1997. A brief summary of Ravi is provided in Dr. Polish’s
`
`declaration. (Polish, ¶¶86-91.)
`
`B. Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Carmel
`Claim 1
`1.
`“A method for distributing a live audio or video
`a.
`program over the Internet from a server system to a
`plurality of user systems.” (Claim 1 [preamble])
`Carmel discloses a method for distributing a live audio or video program over
`
`the internet from a server system to a plurality of user systems. (E.g., Carmel, 2:1-
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`4; see also Abstract; 1:11-13.) Carmel discloses a system that comprises “a
`
`transmitting computer 34, which generates the [multimedia] sequence, a plurality of
`
`clients 30, and