`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN FITNESS DEVICES, STREAMING
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND SYSTEMS
`CONTAINING SAME
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1265
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND
`RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney
`
`(September 9, 2022)
`
`Pursuant to the notice of investigation, 86 Fed. Reg. 27106 (May 19, 2021), this is the
`
`initial determination in Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems
`
`Containing Same, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1265.
`
`A violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, has occurred in the importation
`
`into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after
`
`importation, of certain fitness devices, streaming components thereof, and systems containing
`
`same, with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564; U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554; U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,469,555; and U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 1 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`A.  Procedural History .............................................................................................................. 1 
`B.  The Private Parties .............................................................................................................. 4 
`1.  Complainant DISH........................................................................................................ 4 
`2.  Respondent Peloton ...................................................................................................... 4 
`3.  Respondent iFit ............................................................................................................. 5 
`4.  Respondent MIRROR ................................................................................................... 5 
`C.  Overview of the Technology .............................................................................................. 5 
`D.  The Asserted Patents ........................................................................................................... 8 
`1.  U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564........................................................................................... 10 
`2.  U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156......................................................................................... 11 
`3.  U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554......................................................................................... 13 
`4.  U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555......................................................................................... 15 
`E.  The Accused Products ....................................................................................................... 16 
`1.  Models Accused by DISH .......................................................................................... 17 
`2.  Technology in the Accused Products .......................................................................... 20 
`F.  The Domestic Industry Products ....................................................................................... 23 
`Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................ 25 
`A.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 25 
`B.  Personal Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 26 
`C.  In Rem Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................... 26 
`Standing ............................................................................................................................ 27 
`Importation ........................................................................................................................ 27 
`Legal Principles ................................................................................................................ 28 
`A.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 28 
`B.  Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 29 
`1.  Direct Infringement ..................................................................................................... 29 
`2.  Inducement of Infringement ....................................................................................... 31 
`C.  Validity ............................................................................................................................. 31 
`1.  Anticipation................................................................................................................. 31 
`2.  Obviousness ................................................................................................................ 32 
`3.  Indefiniteness .............................................................................................................. 33 
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 2 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`4.  Inventorship ................................................................................................................ 34 
`5.  Inequitable Conduct .................................................................................................... 34 
`D.  Domestic Industry ............................................................................................................. 35 
`1.  Economic Prong .......................................................................................................... 35 
`2.  Technical Prong .......................................................................................................... 36 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................................................... 37 
`VI. 
`VII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 38 
`A.  Agreed Constructions........................................................................................................ 38 
`B.  Disputed Constructions ..................................................................................................... 38 
`1.  “streamlet(s)” (’554 patent, claims 16, 17, and 20; ’555 patent, claims 10, 11, and
`15; ’156 patent, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5) ......................................................................... 38 
`2.  “place a streamlet request to the server over the one or more network connections
`for the selected stream; receive the requested streamlets from the server via the
`one or more network connections” (’555 patent, claim 10) ........................................ 43 
`3.  “quality” terms: “low/medium/high quality stream” (’554 patent, claims 16, 17,
`and 20; ’555 patent, claims 10, 11, and 15) ................................................................ 46 
`4.  “factor” terms (’564 patent, claim 1; ’156 patent, claim 1) ....................................... 53 
`5.  “device” terms: “An end user station,” “the content player device,” and “client
`module” ....................................................................................................................... 65 
`VIII.  Representative products for domestic industry (technical prong) .................................... 76 
`A.  DISH Set-Top Boxes ........................................................................................................ 76 
`B.  Sling TV Apps .................................................................................................................. 78 
`IX. 
`The ’564 Patent ................................................................................................................. 80 
`A.  Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 80 
`1.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................................................ 80 
`2.  Claim 3 ........................................................................................................................ 99 
`3.  Claim 4 ...................................................................................................................... 100 
`4.  Claim 5 ...................................................................................................................... 101 
`B.  Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ............................................................................. 101 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................................................... 102 
`2.  Claim 3 ...................................................................................................................... 113 
`3.  Claim 5 ...................................................................................................................... 114 
`The ’156 Patent ............................................................................................................... 114 
`A.  Infringement .................................................................................................................... 114 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 3 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................................................... 115 
`2.  Claim 2 ...................................................................................................................... 127 
`3.  Claim 4 ...................................................................................................................... 127 
`4.  Claim 5 ...................................................................................................................... 128 
`B.  Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ............................................................................. 129 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................................................... 129 
`2.  Claim 4 ...................................................................................................................... 134 
`The ’554 Patent ............................................................................................................... 135 
`XI. 
`A.  Infringement .................................................................................................................... 135 
`1.  Claim 16 .................................................................................................................... 135 
`2.  Claim 17 .................................................................................................................... 144 
`3.  Claim 20 .................................................................................................................... 145 
`B.  Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ............................................................................. 145 
`1.  Claim 16 .................................................................................................................... 146 
`2.  Claim 17 .................................................................................................................... 152 
`XII.  The ’555 Patent ............................................................................................................... 153 
`A.  Infringement .................................................................................................................... 153 
`1.  Claim 10 .................................................................................................................... 153 
`2.  Claim 11 .................................................................................................................... 157 
`3.  Claim 14 .................................................................................................................... 158 
`4.  Claim 15 .................................................................................................................... 159 
`B.  Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ............................................................................. 159 
`1.  Claim 10 .................................................................................................................... 160 
`2.  Claim 11 .................................................................................................................... 166 
`3.  Claim 14 .................................................................................................................... 166 
`Indirect Infringement ...................................................................................................... 167 
`XIII. 
`A.  Knowledge of the Patent ................................................................................................. 167 
`B.  Inducement ...................................................................................................................... 168 
`XIV.  Validity ........................................................................................................................... 169 
`A.  Priority Date .................................................................................................................... 169 
`B.  Validity Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 ...................................................................... 172 
`1.  Anticipation – Carmel ............................................................................................... 172 
`2.  Anticipation – Akiyama ............................................................................................ 186 
`iii
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 4 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3.  Obviousness – Carmel .............................................................................................. 192 
`4.  Obviousness – Akiyama ........................................................................................... 196 
`5.  Obviousness – RealNetworks ................................................................................... 201 
`6.  Secondary Considerations ......................................................................................... 211 
`C.  Public Use ....................................................................................................................... 217 
`D.  Inventorship .................................................................................................................... 217 
`E.  Inequitable Conduct ........................................................................................................ 219 
`1.  Carmel and Related Materials ................................................................................... 219 
`2.  Public Use ................................................................................................................. 222 
`3.  Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 222 
`F.  Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101................................................................................... 222 
`XV.  Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement ............................................... 230 
`A.  Findings of Fact Relating to the Domestic Industry ....................................................... 232 
`B.  DISH’s Allocation Methodology .................................................................................... 235 
`C.  DISH’s Investments in Plant and Equipment ................................................................. 237 
`1.  Buildings, Land, and Improvements ......................................................................... 237 
`2.  Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment .......................................................................... 239 
`3.  Rent, Utilities, and Maintenance ............................................................................... 241 
`4.  Leased Equipment ..................................................................................................... 243 
`5.  Third-Party CDN Servers ......................................................................................... 245 
`6.  Total Allocated Investments in Plant and Equipment ............................................... 245 
`D.  DISH’S Investments in Labor and Capital ..................................................................... 246 
`1.  Salaries and Benefits ................................................................................................. 246 
`2.  Total Allocated Investments in Labor and Capital ................................................... 249 
`E.  DISH’S Investments in Exploiting the Asserted Patents ................................................ 250 
`F.  Significance Analysis...................................................................................................... 251 
`XVI.  Conclusions of Law ........................................................................................................ 254 
`XVII.  Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond ..................................................... 256 
`A.  Limited Exclusion Order ................................................................................................. 256 
`B.  Cease and Desist Order ................................................................................................... 258 
`C.  Bond During Presidential Review .................................................................................. 260 
`XVIII. Initial Determination on Violation .................................................................................. 262 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 5 of 269
`
`

`

`XIX. Order ............................................................................................................................... 262 
`
`
`
`v
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 6 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Table of Abbreviations
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Complainants’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Complainants’ Physical Exhibit
`
`
`
`Complainants’ Exhibit
`
`Complaint
`
`Complainants’ Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Deposition
`
`Direct Witness Statement
`
`Electronic Document Imaging System
`
`Joint Physical Exhibit
`
`Joint Exhibit
`
`Prehearing
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Respondents’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Physical Exhibit
`
`Rebuttal Witness Statement
`
`
`
`Respondents’ Exhibit
`
`Respondents Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Commission Investigative Attorney’s Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Transcript
`
`vi
`
`ALJ
`
`CDX
`
`CPX
`
`CX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compl.
`
`Compls. Br.
`
`Dep.
`
`DWS
`
`EDIS
`
`JPX
`
`JX
`
`P.H.
`
`PTO
`
`RDX
`
`RPX
`
`RWS
`
`RX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Resps. Br.
`
`Staff Br.
`
`Tr.
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 7 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on May 19, 2021, pursuant to subsection
`
`(b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted this
`
`investigation to determine:
`
`[W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale
`within the United States after importation of certain products identified in
`paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3-8, 10,
`and 13-15 of the ’564 patent [U.S. Patent No. 9,407,564]; claims 16-25 and
`30 of the ’554 patent [U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554]; claims 10-17 and 26-27
`of the ’555 patent [U.S. Patent No. 10,469,555]; claims 1-12 of the ’156
`patent [U.S. Patent No. 10,757,156]; and claims 14-16, 18-21, and 28-29 of
`the ’680 patent [U.S. Patent No. 10,951,680]; and whether an industry in
`the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 27106 (May 19, 2021).
`
`The Commission named as complainants DISH DBS Corporation (“DDBS”) of
`
`Englewood, Colorado; DISH Technologies L.L.C. (“DTL”) of Englewood, Colorado; and Sling
`
`TV L.L.C. (“STL”) of Englewood, Colorado. Id. DDBS, DTL, and STL are referred to
`
`collectively herein as “DISH” or “complainants.”
`
`The Commission named as respondents ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (“ICON”) of Logan,
`
`Utah;
`
` FreeMotion Fitness, Inc. (“FreeMotion”) of Logan, Utah; NordicTrack, Inc.
`
`(“NordicTrack”) of Logan, Utah; lululemon athletica inc. (“lululemon”) of Vancouver, Canada;
`
`Curiouser Products Inc. d/b/a MIRROR (“Curiouser”) of New York, New York; and Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”) of New York, New York (collectively, “respondents”). Id.
`
`The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) was also named as a party to this
`
`investigation. Id.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 8 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`The target date for completion of this investigation was set at November 19, 2022, which
`
`
`
`
`
`is 18 months from institution. Order No. 4 (Initial Determination) (June 9, 2021), unreviewed, see
`
`Notice of Commission Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Setting an 18-Month
`
`Target Date (EDIS Doc. ID No. 745716) (June 29, 2021). An evidentiary hearing was originally
`
`scheduled for March 21-25, 2022. Order No. 6 (June 28, 2021).
`
`On September 8, 2021, the investigation was reassigned to Administrative Law Judge
`
`David P. Shaw. See Notice to the Parties (Sept. 8, 2021) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 751195).
`
`On September 22, 2021, in view of the reassignment of the investigation, the parties jointly
`
`moved to amend the procedural schedule, and to reschedule the evidentiary hearing to take place
`
`from March 9-15, 2022. The administrative law judge granted the motion. Order No. 13 (Sept.
`
`24, 2021).
`
`On September 24, 2021, ICON moved to amend the notice of investigation such “that the
`
`name ‘ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.’ be replaced with ‘iFIT Inc.’” The administrative law judge
`
`granted the motion in an initial determination. Order No. 14 (Nov. 4, 2021), unreviewed, Notice
`
`of a Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Granting Respondent
`
`Icon’s Motion to Amend the Notice of Investigation (EDIS Doc. ID No. 758005) (Dec. 6, 2021).
`
`On October 14, 2021, DISH filed a motion to terminate the investigation in part and to
`
`withdraw allegations in its complaint that any respondents infringe claims 6, 11, and 12 of the ’156
`
`patent; claim 22 of the ’554 patent, and claim 17 of the ’555 patent. In addition, DISH withdrew
`
`allegations that iFIT Inc.; Free Motion; NordicTrack; and Peloton infringe claims 9 and 12 of the
`
`’156 patent, claim 19 of the ’554 patent, claims 12 and 13 of the ’555 patent, and claim 6 of the
`
`’564 patent. The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial determination. Order
`
`No. 15 (Nov. 19, 2021), unreviewed, Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
`
`2
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 9 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`Determination Granting Complainants’ Motion for Partial Termination of Investigation (Dec. 20,
`
`
`
`
`
`2021) (EDIS Doc. No. 758930).
`
`On February 18, 2022, DISH filed a motion to terminate the investigation in part and to
`
`withdraw allegations in its complaint that any respondents infringe claims 6-8, 10, and 13-15 of
`
`the ’564 patent, claims 18-19, 21, 23-25, and 30 of the ’554 patent, claims 12-13, 16, and 26-27 of
`
`the ’555 patent, claims 3, and 7-10 of the ’156 patent, and all asserted claims of the ’680 patent.
`
`The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial determination. Order No. 21 (Mar.
`
`3, 2022), unreviewed, Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination
`
`Granting Complainants’ Motion for Partial Termination of the Investigation (Mar. 23, 2022)
`
`(EDIS Doc. No. 766127).
`
`A prehearing conference was held on March 9, 2022, with the evidentiary hearing in this
`
`investigation commencing immediately thereafter. DISH, iFIT Inc., FreeMotion, NordicTrack,
`
`lululemon, Curiouser, and Peloton participated in the hearing. The hearing concluded on March
`
`14, 2022. See Order No. 20 (Mar. 1, 2022); P.H. Tr. 1-26; Tr. 1-656. The parties were requested
`
`to file post-hearing briefs not to exceed 300 pages in length, and to file reply briefs not to exceed
`
`90 pages in length. Order No. 20 at 4.
`
`On March 29, 2022, DISH filed its post-hearing brief, which asserts, against all
`
`respondents, claims 1 and 3-5 of the ’564 patent (Compls. Br. at 47), claims 16, 17, and 20 of the
`
`’554 patent (id. at 82), claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the ’555 patent (id. at 93), and claims 1, 4 and
`
`5 of the ’156 patent (id. at 103). DISH also asserts claim 2 of the ’156 patent against Peloton. See
`
`id. at 111.
`
`3
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 10 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 2 (Ground Rules), the parties also submitted a joint outline of the
`
`
`
`
`
`issues to be decided in the Final Initial Determination. See Joint Outline of Issues to Be Decided
`
`in the Final Initial Determination (EDIS Doc. ID No. 768188) (“Joint Outline”).
`
`On June 23, 2022, the investigation was reassigned to Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`Clark S. Cheney. See Notice to the Parties (June 23, 2022) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 773712).
`
`On July 19, 2022, July 28, 2022, and August 12, 2022, I issued three initial determinations
`
`extending the target date, and setting a due date of September 9, 2022 for this final initial
`
`determination. See Order No. 23 (July 19, 2022) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 775744); Order No. 24 (July
`
`28, 2022) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 776430); Order No. 25 (Aug. 12, 2022) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 777802).
`
`B.
`
`The Private Parties
`
`1.
`
`Complainant DISH
`
`Complainant DDBS is a Colorado corporation with a principal place of business at 9601
`
`South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. Compl., ¶ 3.1 (EDIS Doc ID 739751).
`
`DDBS is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. Id., ¶ 3.2.
`
`Complainants DTL and STL are Colorado limited liability companies with their principal place of
`
`business at 9601 South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. Id., ¶¶ 3.12, 3.17. DTL
`
`and STL are indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of DDBS. Id., ¶¶ 3.13, 3.18.
`
`2.
`
`Respondent Peloton
`
`Respondent Peloton is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 125
`
`West 25th Street, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10001. Peloton Resp. to Compl. (EDIS Doc
`
`ID 745054), ¶ 3.45.
`
`4
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 11 of 269
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Respondent iFit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent iFit Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1500
`
`South 1000 West, Logan, Utah 84321. ICON Health & Fitness Resp. to Compl. (EDIS Doc ID
`
`745068), ¶ 3.25. Respondents FreeMotion and NordicTrack are Utah corporations with their
`
`principal place of business located at the same address. Id., ¶¶ 3.29, 3.33. Respondents iFit Inc.,
`
`FreeMotion and NordicTrack are referred to collectively herein as “iFit.”
`
`4.
`
`Respondent MIRROR
`
`Respondent lululemon is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`1818 Cornwall Ave., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6J 1C7. MIRROR Resp. to Compl.
`
`(EDIS Doc ID 745062), ¶ 3.38. Respondent Curiouser is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 1261 Broadway, # 208, New York, New York 10001. Id., ¶ 3.40. Respondents
`
`lululemon and Curiouser are referred to collectively herein as “MIRROR.”
`
`C.
`
`Overview of the Technology
`
`The technology at issue generally relates to streaming video and audio content over the
`
`Internet. The parties stipulated to the following general description of the relevant technology:
`
`The technology at issue in this Investigation is the delivery of video over
`networks such as the Internet using adaptive bitrate streaming. Streaming refers to
`technology that delivers audio/video content from a server to a client at a bitrate
`that allows the user to view the content contemporaneous with its receipt. The
`higher the bitrate of the video, the more data (in bits) it takes to represent and stream
`that video. The delivery of the content may be limited by the speed of the
`end-user’s network connection. The network speed can change during the course
`of content delivery resulting in buffering and stalling. Adaptive bitrate streaming
`systems may shift the bitrate of the audio/video content based on the network speed
`in an attempt to avoid stalling.
`
`Joint Technology Stip. at 2 (Oct. 15, 2021), EDIS Doc. ID 754337.
`
`The parties also stipulated to definitions of four terms from the asserted patents:
`
`5
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 12 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bandwidth: the maximum rate of data transfer across a given
`network path.
`Bitrate: the amount of data (in bits) transferred per unit of time,
`such as one second.
`TCP/IP: Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)
`refers to the set of communication protocols used in the Internet and
`similar computer networks.
`HTTP: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application layer
`protocol in the Internet protocol that allows the fetching of
`resources.
`
`Id. at 3-4.
`
`The asserted patents relate to “adaptive bitrate” streaming, which is a technique for
`
`delivering content, such as video, over the Internet. See JX-0001 (’564 patent) at 1:31-41. The
`
`adaptive bitrate streaming technology includes encoding the content file into at least three different
`
`“quality” streams, as shown in Figure 2b of the ’564 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`JX-0001 (’564 patent) at Fig. 2b.
`
`As shown in Figure 2b, the plurality of streams 202 have varying degrees of quality and
`
`bandwidth, and include a low-quality stream 204, a medium-quality stream 206, and a high-quality
`
`stream 208. See JX-0001 (’564 patent) at 6:46-50. Each of the streams 204, 206, 208 is a copy of
`
`the content file encoded and compressed to varying bit rates. See id. at 6:51-52.
`6
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 13 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`Each of the streams 204, 206, 208 (referred to generally as stream 210 in the figure below)
`
`
`
`
`
`is then further subdivided into discrete portions called “streamlets” 212, as shown in Figure 2c of
`
`the ’564 patent, reproduced below. See id. at 6:58-60.
`
`
`
`JX-0001 (’564 patent) at Fig. 2c.
`
`Each streamlet 212 comprises a portion of the content contained in stream 210. See id. at
`
`6:61-62. Streamlets are aligned by starting time and duration across the different quality streams
`
`such that a particular streamlet in, e.g., a low-quality stream and a medium-quality stream
`
`correspond to the same portion of the content file. See id. at 6:62-7:7. This allows end users to
`
`switch between different quality streamlets in response to changing network conditions.
`
`Figure 7 of the ’564 patent depicts a method whereby the determination of which quality
`
`streamlets to use is based upon a factor relating to network performance:
`
`7
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`WAG, Exhibit 2012
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2022-01433
`Page 14 of 269
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JX-0001 (’564 patent) at Fig. 7.
`
`If the performance factor indicates that a higher-quality stream (comprised of
`
`higher-quality streamlets) can be used, for example, then the system shifts to the higher-quality
`
`stream. See id. at 12:53-60. If the fa