`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`
`- vs. –
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`Issued: September 12, 2017
`Inventor: Harold Edward Price
`Title: STREAMING MEDIA DELIVERY SYSTEM
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-01433
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`_____________
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`August 23, 2022
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal ....................... 6
`
`D.
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 6
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 6
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’636 PATENT ............................................................ 8
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 8
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 9
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 10
`
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`VII. CLAIMS 1-12 ARE OBVIOUS OVER CARMEL IN VIEW OF
`FEIG AND WILLEBEEK. ............................................................................ 12
`A. Overview of Carmel ............................................................................ 13
`Overview of Feig ................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Willebeek ........................................................................ 17
`
`C.
`D. Motivation to combine Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek ......................... 17
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 ............................................................ 18
`
`E.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Preamble Limitations ................................................................ 18
`Limitations reciting reading the live program .......................... 23
`Limitations reciting supplying media data elements ................ 26
`Limitations reciting serially identifying the media
`data elements ............................................................................. 30
`Limitations reciting storing the media data elements ............... 33
`Limitations reciting receiving requests at the server
`system ........................................................................................ 35
`Limitations reciting sending media data elements to
`the requesting user systems ....................................................... 40
`Limitations reciting that the data connection has a
`data rate more rapid than the playback rate .............................. 42
`Limitations reciting that “each sending is at a
`transmission rate as fast as the data connection
`between the server system and each requesting user
`system allow[s]” ........................................................................ 46
`10. Limitations reciting that the elements are sent without
`depending on the server system to maintain a record
`of the last element sent .............................................................. 50
`11. Limitations reciting that all of the elements are sent
`in response to the requests ........................................................ 53
`12. Limitations reciting that all of the elements are sent
`from the data structure as the elements were first
`stored therein ............................................................................. 56
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Claims 2, 6, and 10 are obvious over Carmel in view of Feig
`and Willebeek. ..................................................................................... 59
`Claims 3, 7, and 11 are obvious over Carmel in view of Feig
`and Willebeek. ..................................................................................... 60
`Claims 4, 8, and 12 are obvious over Carmel in view of Feig
`and Willebeek. ..................................................................................... 61
`VIII. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER §§ 314
`OR 325. .......................................................................................................... 63
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. WAG Acquisition LLC,
`IPR2022-01429 ................................................................................................... 63
`Amazon.com, Inc., v. M2M Solutions LLC,
`IPR2019-01204, Paper No. 14 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020) ....................................... 66
`Amgen Inc. v. Alexion Pharm., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00739, Paper No. 15 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2019) ...................................... 66
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 63, 64, 65
`Arunachalam v. IBM,
`759 F. App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 22
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper No. 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .................................. 65, 66
`Duodecad IT Servs. Luxembourg S.a r.l. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2015-01036, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 17 at 9
`(Oct. 20, 2016) .................................................................................................... 12
`Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co.,
`854 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 22
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`6-21-cv-00816 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 39, 13-14 .........................................passim
`WAG Acquisition v. WebPower, Inc.,
`781 F. App’x 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 12, 42
`WebPower v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2016-01238, Paper No. 22 (Dec. 26, 2017) ...........................................passim
`WebPower v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2016-01238, Paper No. 28 (July 16, 2020) ...........................................passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 8, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................... 8, 63
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ............................................................................................ 63, 65, 66
`America Invents Act .................................................................................................. 7
`Rule 42.22 .................................................................................................................. 6
`Rule 42.104 .......................................................................................................... 6, 12
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 11
`M. H. Willebeek-LeMair, et al., Bamba-Audio and Video Streaming
`Over the Internet ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Memorandum: Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA
`Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation
`(June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Memo”) ................................................................ 63
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum vitae of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 (Abridged)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473
`
`Willebeek-LeMair et al. “Bamba—Audio and video streaming over the
`Internet,” published in 1998
`
`Declaration of Rachel Watters re Willebeek
`
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 37), No. 6:21-cv-
`00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Declaration of Dan Schonfeld (Dkt. 37.1), No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 38), No. 6:21-cv-
`00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`1011
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya (Dkt. 38.1), No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 42),
`No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 47), No. 6:21-cv-
`00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 1997/044942
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,668,088
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 - Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,138
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,469,212
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,137
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,848,004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,763
`
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. 35), No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 30), No. 6:21-cv-00815-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`United States District Courts Statistics
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 39), No. 6:21-cv-
`00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya (Dkt. 39.1), No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 43), No. 6:21-cv-
`00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 45), No. 6:21-cv-
`00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`“Transmission Control Protocol,” IETF RFC793, published in
`September 1981
`
`TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 1, The Protocols,” W. Richard Stevens,
`published in 1994
`
`1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,862
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services
`
`I.
`
`LLC (collectively “Petitioner”) petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-12 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,762,636 (“’636 patent”). EX1001. The ’636 patent is assigned to WAG
`
`Acquisition, LLC (“Patent Owner”) according to assignment records at the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office.1 The ’636 patent expired on March 28, 2021.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Further, Petitioner certifies that no other party exercised control or could exercise
`
`control over the filing of this petition or Petitioner’s participation in any proceeding
`
`instituted on this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner asserts the ’636 patent against Petitioner in a related case: WAG
`
`Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA
`
`(W.D. Tex., August 6, 2021) (the “parallel litigation”).
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to challenge in any litigation WAG Acquisition’s
`
`standing to assert the ’636 patent and any related patents.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following additional related matters:
`
`No.
`1
`
`Case Caption
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Flying
`Crocodile, Inc. et al., No. 2:19-cv-
`01278-BJR
`
`Court
`WDWA
`(transferred
`from DNJ)
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google
`LLC et al., 6:21-cv-00816-ADA
`
`WDTX
`
`Patent(s)
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`8,185,611
`8,364,839
`9,742,824
`9,729,594
`9,762,636
`9,742,824
`9,729,594
`9,742,824
`9,729,594
`9,762,636
`9,742,824
`9,729,594
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`WDTX
`
`CDCA
`
`CDCA
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Netflix,
`Inc., 6:21-cv-01083-ADA
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The
`Walt Disney Company et al., 2:21-
`cv-08230-JAK-E
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Hulu
`LLC, 2:21-cv-08242-JAK-E
`
`The Hulu case has been
`consolidated into the Walt Disney
`case above.
`Ex Parte Reexamination, Control
`Number: 90/014,833.
`Ex Parte Reexamination, Control
`Number: 90/014,834.
`Ex Parte Reexamination, Control
`Number: 90/014,835
`Ex Parte Reexamination, Control
`Number: 90/014,836.
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Gattyàn
`Group S.à r.l. et al., No. 2:14-cv-
`2832-ES-MAH
`
`2
`
`USPTO
`
`8,327,011
`
`USPTO
`
`8,122,141
`
`USPTO
`
`8,185,611
`
`USPTO
`
`8,364,839
`
`DNJ
`
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`8,185,611
`8,364,839
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`No.
`11
`
`Case Caption
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`Vubeology, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-
`00805-LY
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Data
`Conversions, Inc. et al., No. 3:19-
`cv-00489-MMD-CLB
`WAG Acquisition L.L.C. v.
`WebPower, Inc. et al., No. 9:19-cv-
`81155-RAR
`
`Court
`WDTX
`(transferred
`from DNJ)
`DNV
`(transferred
`from DNJ)
`SDFL
`(transferred
`from DNJ)
`
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi
`Media, L.L.C. et al., No. 2:19-cv-
`07076-JAK-GJS
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`Sobonito Investments, Ltd. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-1661-ES-MAH
`
`CDCA
`(transferred
`from DNJ)
`DNJ
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`Gamelink Int’l Ltd. et al., No. 2:15-
`cv-3416-ES-MAH
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v.
`MFCXY, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-
`3196-ES-MAH
`
`DNJ
`
`DNJ
`
`SDNY
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. XM
`Satellite Radio, Inc. et al., No. 1:08-
`cv-06357-RMB-MHD
`WebPower et al. v. WAG
`Acquisition LLC, IPR2016-012382
`
`
`
`Patent(s)
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`8,364,839
`8,185,611
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`8,185,611
`8,364,839
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`
`8,122,141
`8,327,011
`8,185,611
`8,364,839
`6,766,376
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`PTAB
`
`8,122,141
`
`2 IPR2017-00820 and IPR2017-00786 were joined with IPR2016-01238.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`No.
`20
`
`Court
`PTAB
`
`Patent(s)
`8,364,839
`
`Case Caption
`WebPower et al. v. WAG
`Acquisition L.L.C., IPR2016-012393
`Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg
`S.à r.l. et al. v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2015-01036
`Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg
`S.à r.l. et al. v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2015-01035
`FriendFinder Networks Inc. et al. v.
`WAG Acquisition L.L.C., IPR2015-
`01037
`FriendFinder Networks Inc. et al.
`v. WAG Acquisition L.L.C.,
`IPR2015-01033
`WebPower v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-01161
`WebPower v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-01162
`I.M.L. SLU v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-01655
`I.M.L. SLU v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-01656
`I.M.L. SLU v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-01657
`I.M.L. SLU v. WAG Acquisition
`L.L.C., IPR2016-016584
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`PTAB
`
`8,364,839
`
`PTAB
`
`8,185,611
`
`PTAB
`
`8,122,141
`
`PTAB
`
`8,327,011
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`8,327,011
`
`8,185,611
`
`8,327,011
`
`8,122,141
`
`8,185,611
`
`8,364,839
`
`
`
`3 IPR2017-00784 and IPR2017-00785 were joined with IPR2016-01239.
`
`4 IPR2017-01179 was joined with IPR2016-01658.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`No.
`31
`
`Court
`PTAB
`
`Patent(s)
`9,762,636
`
`Case Caption
`The Walt Disney Company et al. v.
`WAG Acquisition LLC, IPR2022-
`01227
`The Walt Disney Company et al. v.
`WAG Acquisition LLC, IPR2022-
`01228
`The Walt Disney Company et al. v.
`WAG Acquisition LLC, IPR2022-
`01346
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition,
`LLC, IPR2022-01411
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition,
`LLC, IPR2022-01412
`Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition,
`LLC, IPR2022-01413
`Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. WAG
`Acquisition LLC, IPR2022-01430
`Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. WAG
`Acquisition LLC, IPR2022-01429
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`
`
`PTAB
`
`9,742,824
`
`PTAB
`
`9,729,594
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`9,729,594
`
`9,742,824
`
`9,762,636
`
`9,762,824
`
`9,729,594
`
`C. Counsel
`Petitioner designates J. David Hadden (Reg. No. 40,629) as lead counsel, and
`
`Saina Shamilov (Reg. No. 48,266), Brian M. Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713), and
`
`Johnathan Chai (Reg. No. 75,690) as backup counsel, all with Fenwick & West LLP,
`
`801 California Street, Mountain View, CA 94041, telephone: (650) 988-8500, fax:
`
`(650) 938-5200.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal
`Service of any documents may be made to the postal mailing address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at WAG-IPR@fenwick.com. A Power of
`
`Attorney is being filed concurrently with the designation of counsel in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges claims
`
`1-12 of the ’636 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The ’636 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/283,544 (“’544
`
`application”), filed on October 3, 2016. The ’544 application is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 13/815,040, filed on Jan 25, 2013, which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 13/385,375, filed on February 16, 2012, which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 12/800,177, filed on May 10, 2010, which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 10/893,814, filed on July 19, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of Application No. 09/819,337, filed on March 28, 2001, which claims the benefit
`
`of Application No. 60/231,997 (“’997 application”), filed on September 12, 2000
`
`(the “Critical Date”). See EX1002, ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`Petitioner applies prior art with a priority date earlier than the Critical Date
`
`but reserves the right to challenge the priority date (and chain) in any litigation.
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability:5
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 6,389,473 (“Carmel”), filed as Application No. 09/275,703
`
`on March 24, 1999, which is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`EX1005.
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 6,175,862 (“Feig”), filed as Application No. 09/098,706
`
`on June 17, 1998, which is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`EX1031.
`
`3. M. H. Willebeek-LeMair, et al., Bamba-Audio and Video Streaming Over
`
`the Internet (“Willebeek”), IBM J. RES. DEVELOP., Vol. 42, No. 2
`
`(1998), which is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). EX1006.
`
`
`
`5 Because the ’636 patent issued from an application filed prior to enactment of the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”), the pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`This petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay (“Jeffay
`
`Decl.”) (EX1002), requests cancellation of claims 1-12 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The grounds include the following:
`
` Grounds
`1
`§ 103
`
`References
`Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek
`
`Challenged Claims
`1-12
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’636 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`The ’636 patent, titled “Streaming Media Delivery System,” was filed on
`
`October 3, 2016.
`
`The ’636 patent relates to “multimedia computer communication systems; and
`
`more particularly, to systems and methods for delivering streaming media, such as
`
`audio and video, on the Internet.” EX1001, 1:52-55; see also EX1002, ¶¶ 33-35.
`
`The ’636 patent relates to streaming live or pre-recorded media data elements
`
`stored in a server’s data structure. The server receives requests for the media data
`
`elements from a user system, where the requests specify the elements using serial
`
`identifiers. The server sends the identified media data elements from the data
`
`structure to the user system in response to the requests. EX1001, claim 1, 3:65-4:12.
`
`This is known in the prior art as a client-pull system because the client requests the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`data from the server. EX1002, ¶¶ 36-39. This contrasts with a “server-push” system,
`
`where the server initiates the streaming to the client. Id.
`
`Against this backdrop of well-known techniques, the ’636 patent asserts that
`
`“[t]here is a need for improved systems and methods . . . which facilitate continuous
`
`transmission of streaming content, respond on demand without objectionable
`
`buffering delay, and perform without disruption or dropouts.” EX1001, 3:45-50.
`
`The ’636 patent attempts to address these concerns through use of a “data connection
`
`between the server system and each requesting user system [having] a data rate more
`
`rapid than the playback rate” and by “sending [media data elements] at a
`
`transmission rate as fast as the data connection between the server system and each
`
`requesting user system allow[s].” Id., claim 1; see also EX1002, ¶¶ 39-46. This
`
`alleged solution, however, was also well known in the art, as described in detail
`
`below.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or the equivalent, and at least two
`
`years of work experience in streaming media systems for delivering audio and video.
`
`Additional education could have substituted for professional experience, and
`
`significant work experience could have substituted for formal education. EX1002,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`¶ 51. The PTAB previously adopted a similar level of skill for its analysis of the
`
`’141 patent (EX1015). Final Written Decision on Remand, WebPower v. WAG
`
`Acquisition, LLC, IPR2016-01238, Paper No. 28 (July 16, 2020) (“IPR2016-01238,
`
`Paper No. 28”) at 12-13.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’544 application was filed on October 3, 2016, and included claims 1-12,
`
`of which claims 1, 5, and 9 were independent. EX1004, 365-370. On December 29,
`
`2016, the pending claims were rejected based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of “Hooper
`
`et al. (Patent number US 5414455 A) . . . Omoigui (Patent number US 7237254
`
`B1) . . . Tobias et al. (Patent number US 6981050 B1) . . . Hodgkinson et al. (Patent
`
`number US 7209437 B1) . . . Chen et al. (Patent number US 5822524 A).” Id. at
`
`237-248. Additionally, claims 9-12 were rejected as being “directed to nonstatutory
`
`subject matter.” Id. at 239; see also EX1002, ¶ 47.
`
`Applicant responded on March 29, 2017, amending claims 1, 5, and 9 to recite
`
`“said serial identification indicating a time sequence of the media data
`
`elements”6 and argued that this claim amendment would be sufficient to overcome
`
`the prior art of record. EX1004, 202-211; see also EX1002, ¶ 48.
`
`
`
`6 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’544 application was allowed on June 20, 2017, stating that the “prior
`
`art . . . does not disclose . . . that 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.” EX1004, 50-56. The ’544
`
`application issued as the ’636 patent on September 12, 2017. Id. at 4; see also
`
`EX1002, ¶ 49.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims subject to inter partes review are to be “construed using the same
`
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioner submits that the Challenged Claims should be interpreted according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meanings as established in prior proceedings before this
`
`Board and the Federal Circuit. EX1002, ¶¶ 53-54. No district court has construed
`
`the terms of the ’636 patent or related patents. Patent Owner and their expert Keith
`
`J. Teruya contend in the parallel litigation that various terms should be accorded
`
`their “plain and ordinary meaning.” See EX1010, iv (“playback rate” and “data
`
`rate”); EX1011, 7-10.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Federal Circuit previously construed the term “rate” in the phrase “to send
`
`media data elements to the user system responsive to said requests, at a rate more
`
`rapid than the” playback rate in claim 10 of the ’141 patent as “the rate at which each
`
`requested data element is transmitted from the server to the user computer.” WAG
`
`Acquisition v. WebPower, Inc., 781 F. App’x 1007, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Additionally, the PTAB in the context of U.S. Patent No. 8,364,839 construed
`
`“playback rate” as “a rate at which the data is encoded for playback to a user.”
`
`Duodecad IT Servs. Luxembourg S.a r.l. v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2015-01036,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper No. 17 at 9 (Oct. 20, 2016) (adopting constructions in
`
`Paper 8).
`
`VII.
`
` CLAIMS 1-12 ARE OBVIOUS OVER CARMEL IN VIEW OF FEIG
`AND WILLEBEEK.
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections, as supported by the
`
`Jeffay Decl. (EX1002), detail the grounds of unpatentability, the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’636 patent, and how these claims are obvious in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`Carmel, Feig, and Willebeek were not substantively considered during
`
`prosecution of the ’636 patent and are highly relevant to claims 1-12 of the ’636
`
`patent. EX1002, ¶¶ 57-63.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Overview of Carmel
`Carmel, entitled “Network media streaming,” was filed March 24, 1999, and
`
`issued on May 14, 2002. Carmel teaches a method for streaming live or prerecorded
`
`media from a server to multiple client computers over the Internet. EX1005, 2:1–
`
`21, 6:24-26, 6:57-60, 2:29-31; EX1002, ¶ 64. FIG. 2 of Carmel, below, illustrates a
`
`computer system (32) for broadcasting of a multimedia sequence of a network (28).
`
`EX1005, 6:24-26; EX1002, ¶ 65.
`
`
`
`System 32 comprises a transmitting computer 34 (which receives audiovisual
`
`input from devices 22), a plurality of clients 30, and network server 36. EX1005,
`
`6:28-35; EX1002, ¶ 66. The transmitting computer 34 generates a multimedia data
`
`sequence (data stream 40), which comprises a series of data slices 42, 44, 46, 48,
`
`etc., with each slice containing a segment of video and/or audio data that corresponds
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to a respective, successive time interval T1, T2, T3, etc. EX1005, 7:22-25, FIG. 3A
`
`(shown below); EX1002, ¶ 67.
`
`
`
`After preparing a multimedia sequence, computer 34 uploads the sequence
`
`over network 28, thereby allowing clients 30 connected with server 36 to receive the
`
`multimedia sequence in substantially real time using Internet protocols such as
`
`HTTP. EX1005, 5:25-28, 6:28-31, 6:36-38; EX1002, ¶ 68; see IPR2016-01238,
`
`Paper No. 28 at 23-24 (finding Carmel discloses TCP).
`
`Clients 30 connected with server 36 read an index file containing such
`
`numbered slices and request or pull the sequential slices by identifier at a fast rate
`
`over the network. EX1005, 10:25-48, FIG. 6A, 7:39-8:5, 2:51-59, 11:9-22; EX1002,
`
`¶ 68.
`
`Carmel “contains instructions for sending media data elements at a rate more
`
`rapid than the playback rate.” IPR2016-01238, Paper No. 28 at 21; see also EX1005,
`
`2:51-59 (“the data rate should be generally equal to or faster than the rate at which
`
`the data are generated at the transmitting computer”); EX1002, ¶ 68.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Overview of Feig
`Feig, entitled “Hot objects with sequenced links in web browsers,” was filed
`
`June 17, 1998, and issued on January 16, 2001. EX1031. Feig is directed toward a
`
`method for causing an Internet browser to “induce a non-streaming server to
`
`simulate a streaming server.” Id. at 1:9-10; EX1002, ¶ 69.
`
`Feig operates by partitioning the video to be streamed into sequenced
`
`segments. Id. at 6:17-19. Feig describes a data type it calls a “Uniform Resource
`
`Locator Sequence (URLS). A URLS consists of a Header, containing a header file,
`
`and an ordered list URLS(j), where j is an index ranging from 1 to n.” Id. at 3:19-
`
`22. Feig shows a URLS in FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 1; EX1002, ¶ 70. The header file describes the data contained in the
`
`subsequent URLS, such as video data. A URLS(j) within the URLS contains a
`
`URL(j), which “is the URL for the jth entry of the URLS.” Id. at 3:32-37. A
`
`URLS(j) also includes a time duration parameter T(j) and a value describing the size
`
`of the data B(j). Id. Feig shows a URLS(j) in FIG. 2.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 2; EX1002, ¶ 71.
`
`In operation, a user using a browser executing on a computer launches a
`
`hyperlink by clicking a link on a web page. This action causes the browser to
`
`recognize the URLS data type and stream the video. Id. at 4:20-26, 4:27-5:54. To
`
`do this, Feig’s method “partitions the URLs comprising the URLS into segments.”
`
`Id. at 4:66-67. In other words, it forms segments of video, with each segment
`
`including data referenced by one or more URLs. EX1002, ¶ 72.
`
`Feig’s method allocates two client buffers for storing the segments, BUFF_A
`
`and BUFF_B. EX1031 at 5:14-15. The method “fetches the first segment and stores
`
`it in BUFF_A. This involves making requests for URL(l), URL(2), and so on, until
`
`URL(Al).” Id. at 5:16-18. “As soon as all the data for the first segment arrives,” the
`
`method begins fetching the second segment and storing it in BUFF_B while
`
`simultaneously displaying the video of the first segment from BUFF_A. Id. at 5:16-
`
`23. Feig’s method continues fetching and displaying the segments until “there are
`
`no more segments left to fetch.” Id. at 5:37-40. The end result is that a “video will
`
`be displayed from beginning to end in a continuous manner as is typical when using
`
`a streaming server and a stream capable player.” Id. at 5:47-50; EX1002, ¶¶ 73-74.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,762,636 – Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Overview of Willebeek
`Willebeek, published in 1998, discloses a method of displaying streamed
`
`digital video data on a client computer using low-bandwidth modem connections.
`
`EX1006, 1, 9-10, FIG. 6;