UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,356,251
`Filing Date: September 26, 2011
`Issue Date: January 15, 2013
`Title: PLAY CONTROL OF CONTENT ON A DISPLAY DEVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2024-00321
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................... viii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’251 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 4
`C.
`Earliest Priority Date for the Claims..................................................... 4
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 4
`A.
`Redford ................................................................................................. 4
`B. Gonze .................................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Chilvers ................................................................................................. 6
`D. Malik ..................................................................................................... 7
`E.
`Bartfeld ................................................................................................. 7
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ...................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based ............................................................................... 7
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply ....................................................... 8
`B.
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply ....................................................... 9
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 9
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`E.
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY .................................. 11
`A. Grounds A-D: Redford, Redford-Gonze, Redford-Bartfeld, and
`Redford-Gonze-Bartfeld Render Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 16, and 18-
`26 Obvious .......................................................................................... 11
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 11
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 37
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 40
`3.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 40
`4.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 41
`5.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 42
`6.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 43
`7.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 44
`8.
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 48
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 48
`11. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 49
`12. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 49
`13. Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................. 50
`14.
`Independent Claim 22 ............................................................... 51
`15. Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 58
`16. Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 58
`17. Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................. 60
`18. Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................. 61
`B. Grounds E-H: Grounds A-D in view of Chilvers Render Claims 2-
`4 and 12-15 Obvious ........................................................................... 62
`1.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 62
`2.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 68
`3.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 68
`4.
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 69
`5.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 70
`6.
`Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 70
`7.
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 71
`C. Grounds I-L: Grounds A-D in view of Malik Render Claims 6 and
`17 Obvious .......................................................................................... 72
`1.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 72
`2.
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 74
`VII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 74
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 74
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 75
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 76
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001:
`Ex. 1002:
`Ex. 1003:
`Ex. 1004:
`Ex. 1005:
`Ex. 1006:
`Ex. 1007:
`Ex. 1008:
`Ex. 1009-17:
`Ex. 1018:
`Ex. 1019:
`Ex. 1020:
`
`Ex. 1021:
`
`Ex. 1022:
`
`Ex. 1023-29:
`Ex. 1030:
`
`Ex. 1031:
`
`Ex. 1032:
`
`Ex. 1033:
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,356,251 (“the ʼ251 patent”)
`Expert Declaration of David B. Lett
`CV of David Lett
`Certified Prosecution History for U.S. Pat. No. 8,356,251
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,660,545 (“Redford”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0235588 (“Gonze”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,327,403 (“Chilvers”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0155506 (“Malik”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (“Bartfeld”)
`Reserved
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA
`(WDTX) (Feb. 8, 2022)
`Exhibit 1 to Joint Disputed Claim Terms Charts, Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-KNF
`(SDNY) (Aug. 6, 2018)
`Jury Instructions, Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Google
`LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX) (July 21, 2023)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104096 (“Cramer”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,575 (“Shapiro”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,842 (“Estipona”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0267899 (“Rahman”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1034:
`
`Ex. 1035:
`
`Ex. 1036:
`
`Ex. 1037:
`Ex. 1038-40:
`Ex. 1041:
`
`Ex. 1042:
`
`Ex. 1043:
`
`Ex. 1044:
`
`Ex. 1045:
`
`Ex. 1046:
`
`Ex. 1047:
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0098533 (“Henshaw”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0172656 (“Kim”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,343,419 (“Robinson”)
`Reserved
`CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO, MPEG-4 Overview
`(Int’l Org. Standardisation 2002)
`ROBERT GODWIN-JONES, DIGITAL VIDEO UPDATE: YOUTUBE,
`FLASH, HIGH-DEFINITION, 11 LANGUAGE LEARNING &
`TECH. 16, 17 (2007)
`John C. Paolillo et al., A Network View of Social Media
`Platform History: Social Structure, Dynamics and Content on
`YouTube, PROC. 52ND HAWAII INT’L CONF. ON SYS. SCIS., 1,
`(2019)
`
`YouTube Opens Internet Video to Masses; Serving 3 Million
`Videos Daily and Growing, YouTube Unveils a Fast, Fun, and
`Easy Service for Consumers to Broadcast Original Video,
`MARKET WIRE, Dec. 15, 2005
`
`Hulu Debuts via Private Beta and on Distribution Partners
`AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo!; Company
`Announces Major Licensing Deals with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
`Studios Inc. and Sony Pictures Television; Providence Equity
`Partners Makes Strategic Investment in News
`Corporation/NBC Universal Online Video Joint Venture, BUS.
`WIRE, Oct. 29, 2007
`Blockbuster Offers Cheaper Online Rental, ASSOCIATED PRESS,
`Jun. 13, 2007
`
`Adobe Delivers Flash Player 9 With H.264 Video Support; HD
`Quality Web Video and Audio Now Available With Adobe Flash
`Player Update, BUS. WIRE, Dec. 4, 2007
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1048:
`
`Ex. 1049:
`
`Ex. 1050:
`
`Ex. 1051:
`
`Ex. 1052:
`
`Ex. 1053:
`
`Ex. 1054:
`
`Ex. 1055:
`
`Ex. 1056:
`
`Ex. 1057:
`
`Ex. 1058:
`
`Ex. 1059:
`
`Microsoft Unveils Silverlight to Power the Next Generation of
`Media Experiences on the Web; Leading Media Companies and
`Solution Providers Announce Support for New Solution for
`Video and Interactivity on Mac- and Windows-Based Web
`Browsers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Apr. 16, 2007
`
`Former Apple Multimedia Pioneers Unveil WebTV; New
`Company Brings Internet to Television Viewers, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jun. 12, 1996
`Netflix, TiVo Team Up After 4-Year Courtship, ASSOCIATED
`PRESS, Oct. 30, 2008
`
`TiVo and Amazon.com Announce New Service Enabling
`Amazon Unbox Video Download to TiVo; TiVo Subscribers
`Will Soon Be Able to Watch Amazon Unbox Movies and TV
`Shows on Their TVs, BUS. WIRE, Feb. 7, 2007
`Wall Crumbling Between Televisions and Computers, AGENCE
`FRANCE PRESSE – ENGLISH, Jan. 8, 2009
`ENHANCED TV BINARY INTERCHANGE FORMAT 1.0, ETV
`(OpenCable Specifications, Nov. 25, 2009)
`
`Award-Winning Sonos™ Digital Music System Begins Shipping
`to Customers, PR NEWSWIRE US, Jan. 27, 2005
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos™ ZonePlayer ZP80, PR
`NEWSWIRE, Jan. 4, 2006
`
`Sonos Introduces the Sonos Controller for iPhone; Free
`Application Lets Music Lovers Control Leading Multi- Room
`Music System from Their iPhone, PR NEWSWIRE, Oct. 28, 2008
`AT&T Opens R&D Lab in Cambridge, England, BUS. WIRE,
`Feb. 10, 1999
`Microsoft Releases Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition,
`M2 PRESSWIRE, Jun 16, 1998
`
`TeamViewer: TeamViewer 3.0 Beta Published; Next
`Generation of the Popular Remote Support Software, M2
`PRESSWIRE, Aug. 27, 2007
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1060:
`
`Ex. 1061:
`
`Ex. 1062:
`
`Ex. 1063:
`
`Ex. 1064:
`Ex. 1065:
`Ex. 1066:
`Ex. 1067:
`
`Ex. 1068:
`
`Ex. 1069:
`Ex. 1070:
`Ex. 1071:
`Ex. 1072:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1073-81:
`Ex. 1082:
`
`3am Labs Announces $10 Million Series A Financing;
`McNamee Lawrence & Co. Acts as Exclusive Financial Advisor
`to 3am Labs, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 16, 2004
`
`Expertcity's GoToMyPC Product Wins A People's Choice
`Award At Upside Events' Showcase 2001, INTERNET WIRE, Feb.
`1, 2001
`
`TV2Me(R) Goes Global By Partnering With Leading Asian
`Online Entertainment Company; Manila-Based ESL Adds Sales
`and Marketing Muscle to Bring Pioneering Place Shifting
`Technology to Wider Market, PR NEWSWIRE US, May 16, 2006
`
`CES Innovations 2005 Award and Red Herring Finalist for 100
`Most Innovative Companies are Latest Commendations for
`Sling Media, BUS. WIRE, Nov. 11, 2004
`Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00795 (Sep. 27, 2023)
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2022-00795 (Jan. 13, 2023)
`Reserved
`
`Progressive Networks Launches the First Commercial Audio-
`On-Demand System Over the Internet, BUS. WIRE, Apr. 10,
`1995
`
`Progressive Networks’ RealVideo Launched With Wide
`Industry Support, PR NEWSWIRE EUROPE, February 10, 1997
`Reserved
`U.S. Pat. Application No. 61/477,998
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,904,289 to Strober (“the ’289 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat No.
`8,904,289
`Reserved
`Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Defenses
`
`vii
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC and (ii) Comcast Corporation.
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter
`
`partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (“the ’251 Patent”), or otherwise
`
`has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in
`
`any resulting IPR.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’251 Patent, along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 11,048,751 (“the ’751
`
`Patent”) and 11,086,934 (“the ’934 Patent”), is being asserted against Comcast Cable
`
`Communications, LLC, d/b/a Xfinity, Comcast Cable Communications
`
`Management, LLC, and Comcast of Houston, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a
`
`Xfinity et al., 2:23-cv-00062-JRG (“EDTX Litigation”). The earliest date of service
`
`on the Comcast entities named in the EDTX Litigation was March 1, 2023, however
`
`the ’934 and ’751 Patents were first asserted in a First Amended Complaint served
`
`on May 25, 2023.
`
`The ’251, ’751, and ’934 Patents are also being asserted against Charter
`
`Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Management Holding Company, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, and
`
`Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter
`
`Communications, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-00059-JRG (EDTX); and against Altice USA,
`
`Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, and Friendship Cable of
`
`Texas, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-
`
`00060-JRG (EDTX).
`
`The ’251 Patent is also being asserted against Google LLC in Touchstream
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:21-cv-00569-ADA (WDTX) along with related
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,782,528 (“the ’528 Patent”) and 8,904,289 (“the ’289 Patent”).
`
`The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were the subject of requests for inter partes review
`
`filed by Google LLC in IPR2022-00795, IPR2022-00793, and IPR2022-00794
`
`(presently on appeal). The real parties-in-interest in this Petition are not involved in
`
`those IPRs. The ’251, ’528, and ’289 Patents were previously asserted against
`
`Vizbee, Inc. in Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., 1:17-cv-06247-PGG-
`
`KNF (SDNY) which was terminated by stipulated dismissal on January 24, 2020.
`
`According to the Office’s records, the ’251 Patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Pat. App. No. 13/157,821, filed June 10, 2011 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,904,289),
`
`which claims priority to Provisional App. No. 61/477,998, filed April 21, 2011.
`
`No other prior petitions for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered
`
`business method review have been filed against the ’251 Patent.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`This is the first of two petitions for inter partes review filed by Petitioner
`
`against the ’251 Patent. Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review
`
`against the related ’751 and ’934 Patents.
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner designates counsel listed below. A power of attorney for counsel
`
`is being concurrently filed.
`
`x
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Frederic M. Meeker (Reg. No. 35,282)
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`pqualey@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John R. Hutchins (Reg. No. 43,686)
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`John Fleming (Reg. No. 56,536)
`jfleming@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Joshua L. Davenport (Reg. No. 72,756)
`jdavenport@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at this address shown above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the following address and the
`
`above emails: ComcastIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes
`
`review and cancellation of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (“the ’251
`
`Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The ’251 Patent claims methods for translating commands among associated
`
`devices to control media. A server controls presentation of video content, using one
`
`of various media players, via messages transmitted from a computer. The messages
`
`are converted into commands for the selected media player and then transmitted to
`
`a display device. In one embodiment, the display device is assigned a
`
`synchronization code used to associate the computer with the display device and
`
`stored in the server.
`
`The ’251 Patent claims are disclosed and rendered obvious by the prior art
`
`relied on herein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’251 PATENT
` Brief Description
`The ’251 Patent describes a system 10 for using a server system 24 (green) to
`
`facilitate a connection between a personal computing device 20 (blue) for selecting
`
`content, and a television/display device 22 (red) for displaying the selected content.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:11.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, a personal computing device connects to and “acts as a
`
`controller” for a display 23 that receives and plays content selected by a user. The
`
`display “respond[s] to commands that originate at the personal computing device.”
`
`Id., 3:2-7. For example, television 22 can be commanded “to access a content
`
`provider 30 through the Internet 21, load a specific media player, load the media
`
`player-specific content (e.g., a video) and play the content on the television display
`
`23.” Id., 3:19-23.
`
`2
`
`

`

`The connection between the personal computing device (e.g., a mobile phone)
`
`and the display may be established by the user selecting from a list of devices or
`
`entering a synchronization code on the mobile phone uniquely associated with the
`
`display. Id., 5:8-16. The code can be, e.g., a text or QR code displayed on the screen
`
`of the display device. Id., 5:16-23. The server system may then store the association
`
`between the personal computing device and display in a look-up table. Id., 5:29-35.
`
`Personal computing device 20 controls the selection of and playback of
`
`content on the display through server system 24, rather than directly. Id., 3:10-18,
`
`3:36-41. The signal which selects content or controls playback is formatted and
`
`transmitted by personal computing device 20 in a message sent via the Internet to
`
`server system 24. Id., 4:27-42, Fig. 3. Server system 24 then converts the incoming
`
`commands from the mobile device 20 into the correct code used by the display to
`
`control the specific player. Id., 5:67-6:3. Server system 24 “interpret[s] and
`
`convert[s] a standard or universal command (e.g., play, pause, etc.) into the specific
`
`command recognized by the media player” playing content on the display. Id., 5:58–
`
`62. Then, server system 24 “copies the converted version of the message to the
`
`database 34 associated with the [television set] 22.” Id., 6:3-6. The display receives
`
`and executes the converted message (id., 6:23–33), e.g., “load[s] and unload[s]
`
`different video players.” Id., 6:34-48.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Prosecution History
`
`During prosecution, all claims were rejected as anticipated by U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2011/00600998 to Schwartz or as obvious over Schwartz alone or
`
`in view of a non-patent publication. Ex. 1004, pp. 61-81. In response, Applicant
`
`stated, “[i]n the context of the present application, it is clear that a ‘media player’
`
`refers to application software for playing back the video content.” Id., p. 190,
`
`footnote 2. The Notice of Allowance included an Examiner’s Amendment that the
`
`display device “loads any one of a plurality of different media players” to place the
`
`claims in condition for allowance. Id., pp. 272-287.
`
` Earliest Priority Date for the Claims
`The earliest possible priority date for the claims of the ’251 Patent is April 21,
`
`2011. Ex. 1001, cover.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
` Redford
`Redford, U.S. Patent No. 8,660,545 (Ex. 1005), issued on an application filed
`
`on January 6, 2010, and is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex. 1002, ¶ 82.
`
`Redford discloses a computer system 250 (green) including various video
`
`content provider computers 281A-281N and a computer 282 that authorizes transfer
`
`of video based on a user’s request. Ex. 1005, 2:59-67, Fig. 2B; Ex. 1002, ¶ 83.
`
`Computer system 250 responds to requests from a handheld device 200 (blue) by
`
`sending a signal carrying user-selected video, for presentation, to an internet-enabled
`
`4
`
`

`

`television 303 (red). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 11:37-12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46, Figs. 2B,
`
`3A-3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 84-100.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
` Gonze
`Gonze, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0235588 (Ex. 1006), published on
`
`September 25, 2008, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 101.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Gonze discloses a system for making content available from multiple
`
`providers such that a playback device can request, receive, and present the content
`
`utilizing a playlist and a consistent user interface. Ex. 1006, Abstract, [0009]-[0010],
`
`[0034]-[0035], [0040], [0049], [0051], [0056], [0060]. Gonze describes that a
`
`browser and/or an operating system (OS) may use information from a file to
`
`determine software to be loaded to play the file. Id., [0035]. The browser may
`
`determine whether the selected file can be played by any plug-ins. Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`102-109.
`
` Chilvers
`Chilvers, U.S. Patent No. 8,327,403 (Ex. 1007), issued from an application
`
`filed on September 7, 2007, and is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 110.
`
`In Chilvers, user equipment identification information is used to select an
`
`appropriate format for commands that will be used by an application program
`
`interface (API) associated with the user equipment. Requests sent from a remote
`
`device in a generic format allow remote access to various user equipment having
`
`various APIs. A server uses a lookup table to convert the generic instructions to an
`
`appropriate format for a particular user equipment. Ex. 1007, 27:57-65, 28:9-19,
`
`28:29-37, 28:64-29:6, Fig. 13A; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 111-122.
`
`6
`
`

`

` Malik
`Malik, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0155506 (Ex. 1008), published on July 5,
`
`2007, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 123.
`
`Malik discloses control of an interactive game playing on a set-top box (STB)
`
`and hosted on a network server. Ex. 1008, Abstract, [0005], [0015], [0025]-[0028].
`
`Malik describes a method to bind the STB and wireless devices for game control
`
`wherein the game server provides a unique identifier communicated by the devices.
`
`Id., [0005]-[0007], [0015], [0021], [0022], [0027], [0030], [0035], [0036], [0043],
`
`[0051]-[0052], Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 124-126.
`
`Bartfeld
`
`Bartfeld, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0107299 (Ex. 1018), published on May 18,
`
`2006, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 1002, ¶ 127.
`
`Bartfeld discloses a system for user-assisted association between a television
`
`and a telephony device. Ex. 1018, Abstract. A server generates a code, associates it
`
`with a set-top address, and transmits it back to the STB. Id. The STB displays the
`
`code on a television. Id., [0007], [0025]-[0026]; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 128-132.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
` Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1–26 on these grounds.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`References
`
`A
`
`B
`
`Redford
`
`Redford-Gonze
`
`C-D
`
`Each of Grounds A-B + Bartfeld
`
`E-H
`
`I-L
`
`Each of Grounds A-D + Chilvers
`
`Each of Grounds A-D + Malik
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-2, 5, 7-11,
`16, 18-21
`
`1-2, 5, 7-11,
`16, 18-21
`
`1-2, 5, 7-11,
`16, 18-26
`
`2-4, 12-15
`
`6, 17
`
`None of the prior art was cited during prosecution of the ’251 Patent.
`
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Fintiv factors as set forth in the Director’s June 21, 2022 Guidance
`
`Memorandum do not warrant discretionary denial.
`
`Factor one appears neutral. Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging all
`
`three patents asserted in the District Court. If trial is instituted, Petitioner expects to
`
`request a stay, as decisions in Petitioner’s favor would resolve the dispute in its
`
`entirety.
`
`Factor two does not warrant denial. The District Court case against Petitioner
`
`is consolidated with the cases against Charter and Altice with the Altice case
`
`designated as the lead case. Trial in all three cases is set for October 28, 2024;
`
`Petitioner’s trial will occur on or after that date. Furthermore, motions to transfer
`
`are awaiting ruling.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Factor three does not warrant denial. The District Court has not yet begun the
`
`claim construction process and fact discovery does not close until June 2024.
`
`Factor four strongly favors institution. The petition challenges all claims in
`
`the ’251 Patent while only claims 1-2, 5, and 7-9 are asserted in the District Court.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the District Court any ground that
`
`utilizes the same combination of prior art references relied upon in the instituted
`
`petition. Ex. 1082.
`
`Factor five does not warrant denial as Petitioner is a defendant in the District
`
`Court case.
`
`Factor six favors institution. Petitioner presents compelling unpatentability
`
`challenges that merit institution, relying on entirely different prior art than that of
`
`the previously-considered Google petition.
`
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply
`
`The Board should not exercise its 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) discretion to deny
`
`institution. The grounds raised herein are not the same or substantially the same as
`
`the art and arguments raised during prosecution, and if they are, Examiner erred in
`
`a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer
`
`9
`
`

`

`science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with three-to-four years
`
`of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content
`
`delivery systems, such as video-on-demand cable systems and Internet video
`
`streaming. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 30-32.
`
` Claim Construction
`For purposes of this petition only, all claim terms herein are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). No terms
`
`need be specifically construed in order to resolve any controversy in the instant
`
`Petition. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Petitioner does not contend
`
`that the claims include any means-plus-function limitations.
`
`In the Touchstream-Google case involving the ’251 Patent, Patent Owner
`
`advocated that plain and ordinary meaning applies for all claim terms1, and the Court
`
`agreed. Ex. 1020, pp. 2-4; Ex. 1022, p. 22. In the earlier Touchstream-Vizbee case
`
`involving the same patents, Patent Owner advocated that plain and ordinary meaning
`
`applies for certain claim terms but for other terms proposed constructions which it
`
`seems to have now abandoned. Ex. 1021, pp. 1-14.
`
`
`
`1 For some terms, Patent Owner provided its view as to what that meaning is.
`
`10
`
`

`

`In IPR2022-00795, involving the ’251 Patent, the Board noted that “the
`
`parties agree that the term ‘media player’ refers to software and not to a hardware
`
`device.” Ex. 1064, 13. The prior art relied on herein includes software media
`
`players.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
` Grounds A-D: Redford, Redford-Gonze, Redford-Bartfeld, and
`Redford-Gonze-Bartfeld Render Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 16, and 18-26
`Obvious
`Independent Claim 1
`1.
`[1A]: “A machine-implemented method of controlling
`a.
`presentation of video content on a display device that
`loads any one of a plurality of different media players,
`the method comprising:”
`If limiting, each of Redford and Gonze disclose the preamble. Redford
`
`discloses a computer system 250 (green) including various video content provider
`
`computers 281A-281N and a computer 282 that authorizes transfer of video
`
`(“machine-implemented method of controlling presentation of video content”). Ex.
`
`1005, 2:59-67, Fig. 2B; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 159-160. Specifically, computer system 250
`
`responds to requests 301 from a handheld device 200 (blue) by sending a signal
`
`carrying user-selected video 302, for presentation, to an Internet-enabled television
`
`303 (red) (“display device”). Ex. 1005, 6:40-52, 11:37-12:12, 21:20-30, 22:5-46,
`
`Figs. 2B, 3A-3C, 6A-6B, 8A-8B, 11A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 161.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`Television 303 is a display device that loads any of a plurality of different
`
`media players (“display device that loads any one of a plurality of different media
`
`players”). Ex. 1002, ¶ 162. Television 303 executes predetermined software, called
`
`authority-compatible set-top interface software, to display video 302 retrieved from
`
`a specific service provider, via the Internet, in response to user request 301. Ex. 1005,
`
`12
`
`

`

`12:5-12. Specifically, Figure 9A illustrates television 303 as including a
`
`microcontroller 901 and processor 911 that runs software stored in memory. Id.,
`
`30:23-61, Figs. 9A-9B; Ex. 1002, ¶ 162.
`
`Redford describes, in a set-top SDK API, a function, VideoPlay, that allows
`
`video content to be played using protocols such Real Time Streaming Protocol
`
`(RTSP), User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`
`Streaming, including media player codecs needed for decoding the content for
`
`display. Ex. 1005, 40:24-29, 40:56-58, 40:66-41:2, 41:53-54. Redford teaches that
`
`RTSP has varying implementations depending on the content provider and service;
`
`therefore, several implementations of VideoPlay may exist to support various RTSP
`
`players. Id., 40:56-41:2; Ex. 1002, ¶ 163. Since different RTSP players are
`
`supported, a POSITA would have understood that Redford teaches that television
`
`303 was configured to load any of the plurality of different RTSP application
`
`software for playing back the video content for a particular VideoPlay
`
`implementation. Id. Redford discloses limitation [1A].
`
`Additionally, Redford teaches that video plays on screen 307. A POSITA
`
`would understand that different media players would be loaded to support the media
`
`player format for different streaming video providers, “respective content providers
`
`A-N”, as shown by example in Figure 2A, Netflix, YouTube, ZillionTV, and
`
`Paramount Pictures. Ex. 1005, 2:65, 7:27-43, Fig. 2A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 165.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Further, if it is determined that Redford does not expressly disclose that
`
`television 303 may load any of a plurality of different media players, it would have
`
`been obvious to implement television 303 to include the claimed capability given
`
`Redford’s teaching of multiple, different RTSP players being supported in Internet-
`
`enabled television 303, which was well-known in the art, and the general knowledge
`
`of the POSITA that different content providers would use different players. Ex.
`
`1005, 4:18-20, 30:23-61, Fig. 9A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 166. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that the function of presenting video content from Netflix (e.g., content
`
`provider A, 281A) as opposed to YouTube (content provider B, 281B), ZillionTV
`
`(content prover I, 281I), or Paramount Pictures (content prover N, 281N), would be
`
`accomplished by a different RTSP player (“any one of a plurality of different media
`
`players”) to be loaded onto the television. Ex. 1005, Figs. 2B, 9A; Ex. 1002, ¶ 166.
`
`Redford renders obvious limitation [1A].
`
`It was generally known before the priority date of the ’251 Patent that display
`
`devices were enabled with the capability to load any of a plurality of different media
`
`players as shown by Gonze. Ex. 1002, ¶ 168.
`
`Gonze discloses a system for making content availabl