UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALTICE USA, INC.
`
`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.: IPR2024-01262
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... ix
`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. Danciu.................................................................................................... 4
`1.
`Danciu is Entitled to a Priority Date of November 8, 2010 ....... 8
`B. Mahajan ................................................................................................. 9
`C.
`Calvert .................................................................................................11
`D. Aldrey ..................................................................................................13
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) .....................................................................................................16
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested and Grounds on Which
`Challenge Is Based ..............................................................................16
`314(a) Discretion Does Not Apply......................................................17
`B.
`325(d) Discretion Does Not Apply .....................................................18
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill .......................................................................18
`D.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................19
`E.
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ...................................20
`A. Grounds A-B: Danciu-Mahajan or Danciu-Mahajan-Calvert
`Render Claims 1-26 Obvious ..............................................................20
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................20
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................43
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................45
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................47
`
`i
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................48
`5.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................48
`6.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................49
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................49
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................50
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................50
`11.
`Independent Claim 11 ...............................................................51
`12. Dependent Claims 12-21 ...........................................................54
`13.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................54
`14. Dependent claim 23 ..................................................................58
`15. Dependent claim 24 ..................................................................58
`16. Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................59
`17. Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................59
`B. Ground C: Aldrey-Mahajan Renders Claims 1-26 Obvious ...............59
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................59
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................73
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................74
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................75
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................76
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................77
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................77
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................77
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................78
`10. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................78
`11.
`Independent Claim 11 ...............................................................79
`12. Dependent Claims 12-21 ...........................................................81
`13.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................82
`14. Dependent claim 23 ..................................................................86
`15. Dependent claim 24 ..................................................................87
`
`ii
`
`

`

`16. Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................87
`17. Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................87
`VII. GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT .....................................88
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................88
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) .....................................................89
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................90
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ...............................................................................91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (“the ʼ251 Patent”)
`Ex. 1101:
`Expert Declaration of David B. Lett
`Ex. 1102:
`Curriculum Vitae of David B. Lett
`Ex. 1103:
`Certified Prosecution History of the ’251 Patent
`Ex. 1104:
`Ex. 1105-1110: Reserved
`Ex. 1111:
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0078812 (“Calvert”)
`Ex. 1112:
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,490,998 (“Danciu”)
`Ex. 1113:
`
`U.S. Prov. App. No. 61/411,386 (“Danciu Provisional”)
`Ex. 1114:
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0248802 (“Mahajan”)
`Ex. 1115:
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0172757 (“Aldrey”)
`Ex. 1116-1119: Reserved
`Ex. 1120:
`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”)
`
`Ex. 1123-29:
`Ex. 1130:
`
`Ex. 1131:
`
`Ex. 1132:
`
`Ex. 1133:
`
`
`Ex. 1121:
`
`Ex. 1122:
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1134:
`
`Ex. 1135:
`
`Ex. 1136:
`
`Ex. 1137:
`Ex. 1138-40:
`Ex. 1141:
`
`Ex. 1142:
`
`Ex. 1143:
`
`Ex. 1144:
`
`Ex. 1145:
`
`Ex. 1146:
`
`Ex. 1147:
`
`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. 1148:
`
`Ex. 1149:
`
`Ex. 1150:
`
`Ex. 1151:
`
`Ex. 1152:
`
`Ex. 1153:
`
`Ex. 1154:
`
`Ex. 1155:
`
`Ex. 1156:
`
`Ex. 1157:
`
`Ex. 1158:
`
`Ex. 1159:
`
`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. 1160:
`
`Ex. 1161:
`
`Ex. 1162:
`
`Ex. 1163:
`
`Ex. 1164:
`Ex. 1165:
`Ex. 1166:
`Ex. 1167:
`
`Ex. 1168:
`
`Ex. 1169:
`Ex. 1170:
`Ex. 1171:
`Ex. 1172:
`
`Ex. 1173:
`Ex. 1174:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,767,195 (“the ’195 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No.
`9,767,195
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1175:
`Ex. 1176:
`
`Ex. 1177:
`Ex. 1178:
`
`Ex. 1179:
`Ex. 1180:
`Ex. 1181:
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,048,751 to Strober (“the ’751 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No.
`11,048,751
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,356,251 to Strober (“the ’251 Patent”)
`Certified Copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No.
`8,356,251
`Reserved
`Lett analysis of Danciu Claim 1 in view of Danciu Provisional
`Annotated Copy of Danciu Provisional in view of Danciu
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this petition are (i) Altice USA, Inc., (ii) Cequel
`
`Communications, LLC, (iii) CSC Holdings, LLC, and (iv) Friendship Cable of
`
`Texas, Inc.
`
`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 Altice USA,
`
`Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, and Friendship Cable of
`
`Texas, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York in Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`v. Altice USA, Inc. et al 2-24-cv-03186 (“EDNY Litigation”). The EDNY Litigation
`
`was transferred from Touchstream Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Shodogg v. Altice USA,
`
`Inc. et al, 2-23-cv-00060 (“EDTX Litigation”) on April 29, 2024. The earliest date
`
`of service on any of the Altice entities named in the EDTX Litigation was February
`
`17, 2023, however the ’751 and ’934 Patents were first asserted in a First Amended
`
`Complaint served on May 12, 2023.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`The ’251, ’751, and ’934 Patents are also presently being asserted against
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), 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; and against Charter
`
`Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum
`
`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). The ’251, ’751, and ’934
`
`Patents were the subject of requests for inter partes review filed by Comcast in
`
`IPR2024-00321; IPR2024-00322; IPR2024-00323; IPR2024-00324; IPR2024-
`
`00325; and IPR2024-00326. Altice is currently seeking to join IPR2024-00322,
`
`challenging the claims of the ’251 Patent, which was instituted on July 18, 2024.
`
`The Board also instituted review of IPR2024-00324, challenging the claims of the
`
`’751 Patent, on July 24, 2024. The real parties-in-interest in this Petition are not
`
`presently involved in any of those IPRs.
`
`The ’251 Patent is also presently 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
`
`x
`
`

`

`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 presently involved in any of 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.
`
`No other petitions for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered
`
`business method review have been filed against the ’251 Patent.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner is also filing a petition for inter partes review against the related
`
`’751 Patent along with a motion for joinder of Comcast’s IPR2024-00324.
`
`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.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Scott Border (Reg. # 77,744)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1901 L Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`sborder@winston.com
`T: 202-282-5100
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Krishnan Padmanabhan (pro hac vice
`to be submitted)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`kpadmanabhan@winston.com
`T: 212.294.6700
`
`Christopher T. Gresalfi (Reg. #78,949)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`cgresalfi@winston.com
`T: 212.294.6700
`
`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: Altice-Touchstream@winston.com.
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Altice USA, Inc., (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review and
`
`cancellation of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (“the ’251 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1101).
`
`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, in view of the declaration of Mr. Lett. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 1-32, 64-81.
`
`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; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 40-42.
`
`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.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 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. Ex. 1001, 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. 1104, pp. 61-81; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 43-63. 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. 1101, cover.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
` Danciu
`Danciu (Ex. 1112) is a U.S. Patent, No. 9,490,998, filed March 7, 2011, that
`
`claims priority to and incorporates by reference U.S. Provisional Application
`
`61/411,386, filed November 8, 2010, in its entirety. Ex. 1112, cover. Danciu is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Danciu was not considered during prosecution. Ex.
`
`1101, cover; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 82-84.
`
`Danciu is directed to techniques for exchanging information to control
`
`playback of content on a web-enabled device such as a network-enabled television.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ex. 1112, 1:39-50. Danciu’s networked device is disclosed as a controlled device 18
`
`(red), which may be a computing device such as an Internet-connected television
`
`connected via network 22, including servers 24A-24N (green), to a remote control
`
`14 (blue), which may be any portable computing device such as a cell phone, tablet,
`
`laptop, or even a portable desktop computer. Ex. 1112, 3:21-28, 5:1-12, 5:42-63,
`
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 85-90.
`
`Ex. 1112, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Danciu contemplates that the network may comprise a large number of
`
`devices under control, including multiple remote controls and controlled devices.
`
`Ex. 1112, 7:41-8:58, Fig. 2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Ex. 1112, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`Danciu discloses that a “network service may assign each remote device and
`
`each controlled device a unique identifier” that is used in pairing. Ex. 1112, 4:4-13,
`
`4:36-45, 6:40-7:10, 8:23-49, 13:16-32, 15:28-58. Danciu’s remote control provides
`
`commands for content being played on controlled device. Ex. 1112, 5:29-37. In
`
`doing so, the controlled device receives commands from the remote control to alter
`
`content displayed on the display of the controlled device. Ex. 1112, 5:64-6:2, 10:45-
`
`53; Ex. 1102, ¶ 91.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ex. 1112, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`Danciu teaches that commands received by the controlled device are
`
`understood and operated upon. Figure 9 is a flowchart illustrating an example
`
`operation of a network server communicating with a controlled device. Ex. 1112,
`
`3:7-8, 5:29-37, 7:17-29, 18:55-19:22, Fig. 9; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 92-100. For example, the
`
`controlled device may have the ability to select a program to view content from
`
`YouTube, Netflix, or Hulu based on received commands. Ex. 1112, 11:22-35, 12:32-
`
`49, 16:55-67, 17:21-43. Figure 9 depicts a process beginning with the server
`
`receiving messages from a controlled device. Ex. 1112, 18:55-19:20, Fig. 9.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1112, Fig. 9
`
`Danciu is Entitled to a Priority Date of November 8, 2010
`1.
`As shown below, U.S. Provisional Application 61/411,386 (“Danciu
`
`Provisional”) provides written description support for at least claim 1 of Danciu. Ex.
`
`1102, ¶ 82; Ex. 1180. This entitles Danciu to its provisional’s filing date. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Danciu
`Claim 1
`[1 Pre]
`
`Ex. 1113, [0006].
`
`Danciu Provisional
`
`8
`
`

`

`Danciu
`Claim 1
`
`[1a]
`[1b]
`[1c]
`[1d]
`[1e]
`[1f]
`[1g]
`
`[1h]
`
`[1i]
`
`Danciu Provisional
`
`
`Ex. 1113, Claim 13, [0021], [0024], [0038], [0065], [0069], [0073].
`Ex. 1113, Claim 2, [0005], [0037], [0065], [0069], [0073].
`Ex. 1113, Claim 2, [0065].
`Ex. 1113, [0022], [0037], [0065], [0084].
`Ex. 1113, Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 16, [0005], [0022], [0065], [0084].
`Ex. 1113, Claim 2, [0084].
`Ex. 1113, Abstract, Claim 1, Claim 16, Claim 17, [0005],- [0007],
`[0074], [0078], Fig. 7.
`Ex. 1113, Abstract, Claim 1, Claim 16, Claim 17, [0005]- [0007],
`[0078], Fig. 5, Fig. 7.
`
`Ex. 1113, Abstract, Claim 1, Claim 16, Claim 17, [0005]-[0007],
`[0078], Fig. 7.
`
`
`
` Mahajan
`Mahajan (Ex. 1114) is a U.S. Published Application, No. 2009/0248802, that
`
`published on October 1, 2009. Ex. 1114, cover. Mahajan is thus prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Mahajan was not considered during prosecution. Ex. 1102, ¶ 124.
`
`Mahajan discloses a client-server collaboration session wherein a user may
`
`enter commands (orange) to a server (blue) for controlling content (purple) that is
`
`playing on a client device (red). Ex. 1114, [0011]-[0013]; Figs. 1-2, 4; Ex. 1102, ¶¶
`
`9
`
`

`

`125-128. The platform translates generic commands to platform specific media
`
`playback commands that can be understood by the client’s media platform. Ex. 1114,
`
`[0012]-[0013], [0022], [0035]-[0036], [0041], Figs. 3, 5.
`
`Ex. 1114, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Mahajan’s server translates specific commands of a first type to genericized
`
`commands, the genericized commands are transmitted, and then Mahajan’s client
`
`translates those generic commands to specialized commands of a second type. Ex.
`
`1114, [0035]-[0036], Figs. 1-2; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 129-130. Command mappings are
`
`shown in Figure 3. Ex. 1114, [0036]-[0043], [0063], Figs. 3, 5.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ex. 1114, Fig. 3
`
`
`
` Calvert
`Calvert (Ex. 1111) is a U.S. Published Application, No. 2004/0078812,
`
`published April 22, 2004. Calvert is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
`
`was not considered during prosecution. Ex. 1101, cover; Ex. 1102, ¶ 111.
`
`Calvert describes a system for aggregating audio and video content from
`
`multiple sources into a unified listing for selection and delivery to a playback device.
`
`Ex. 1111, [0020]-[0044], Figs. 1-11 Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 112-119. Content aggregator 102
`
`(green) has multiple media services available to it that include audio and/or video
`
`content. Ex. 1111, [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0025], Figs. 1-2. Upon request, content
`
`aggregator 102 provides a listing of available services to playback device 202 (red)
`
`11
`
`

`

`which displays the listing on display device 222. Ex. 1111, [0025]-[0027], [0033]-
`
`[0038], Figs. 2-4.
`
`Ex. 1111, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Following selection by a user of a particular media service, device 202
`
`requests the selected service directly from the media service provider, or through
`
`content aggregator 102. Ex. 1111, [0027], [0038]-[0040], Figs. 3-4; Ex. 1102, ¶¶
`
`120-123. Device 202 receives the media service in the form of a data transmission
`
`which device 202 analyzes to determine its format. Ex. 1111, [0027], [0040]-[0042],
`
`Figs. 3, 6. Based on this determination, the media service data is provided to the
`
`appropriate player application (e.g., RealPlayer, QuickTime player, Microsoft
`
`12
`
`

`

`Media Player) and output to the user. Ex. 1111, [0027], [0030]-[0032], [0043], Figs.
`
`3, 6. In the event that a new media player is needed to playback the media service,
`
`device 202 downloads the new media player. Ex. 1111, [0032].
`
` Aldrey
`Aldrey (Ex. 1115) is a U.S. Published Application, No. 2009/0172757,
`
`published July 2, 2009. Aldrey is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
`
`was not considered during prosecution. Ex. 1101, cover; Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 101-102.
`
`Aldrey is directed to a system that integrates television and other computing
`
`devices “thereby broadening the scope of devices available to consumers for remote
`
`interaction with STBs 101a-101n.” Ex. 1115, [0018], [0011]-[0015], Fig. 1. For
`
`example, a user at an end terminal 107 may be able to remotely access one or more
`
`STBs in order to control them. Id. For example, Aldrey discloses a STB 101 (red)
`
`connected via a media service provider (MSP) 117 (green) to a remote application
`
`running on an end terminal 107 (blue). Ex. 1115, [0018]-[0022], [0025], Fig. 1; Ex.
`
`1102, ¶ 103.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`ArmcoATION |
`ian|7BROADCAS)
`al
`SYSTEMSJat
`ee /
`PROVIDER,
`“CONTENT
`SYSTEMS
`
`ISiON
`
`ee
`SERVICE PROVIDER
`NETWORK
`
`
`
`An individual may use a web-based application in order to access the STB.
`
`MEDIASERVICE
`PROVIDER
`(EG. IPTV SYSTEM)
`
` SET-TOP BOX
`
`101b
`
`Ex. 1115, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1115, [0067]-[0072].
`
`14
`
`

`

`Ex. 1115, Fig. 4
`
`
`
`Using the interface, “an individual may generate a command for controlling a
`
`plurality of STBs 101a-101n, and transmit that command to the STBs 101a-101n to
`
`configure the devices 101a-101n.” Ex. 1115, [0019], [0073]-[0074], Fig. 4; Ex.
`
`1102, ¶¶ 104-110.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Ex. 1115, Fig. 5
`
`
`
`This allows the user to control STBs including setting configuration information or
`
`playing content. Ex. 1115, [0020]-[0023]. Thus, using commands comprising
`
`metadata, the STB is controlled to display content. Ex. 1115, [0035]-[0056], [0060].
`
`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 the following grounds.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`References
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`Danciu-Mahajan
`
`Danciu-Mahajan-Calvert
`
`Aldrey-Mahajan
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-26
`
`1-26
`
`1-26
`
`None of the prior art listed in the table above was before the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’251 Patent. Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 131-135.
`
`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 favors institution. Petitioner has filed IPR petitions challenging
`
`two of three patents asserted in the District Court. Petitioner has filed a motion to
`
`stay in the District Court pending resolution of inter partes review of the ’251 and
`
`’751 Patents.
`
`Factor two favors institution. A trial date has not been set yet in the District
`
`Court case against Petitioner. Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc. et
`
`al, 2-24-cv-03186 (EDNY), Dkt Nos. 187-188. In fact, the Markman hearing is
`
`scheduled for February 20, 2025, or at the Court’s convenience, and the deadline for
`
`the parties will occur no earlier than thirty (30) days after the Markman hearing. Id.
`
`Likewise, factor three does not warrant denial as the District Court has not yet
`
`begun the claim construction process.
`
`17
`
`

`

`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.
`
`In addition, Petitioner stipulates that if the Board institutes, Petitioner will not pursue
`
`the same grounds in the district court litigation. This further weighs in favor of
`
`institution. See Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-01393,
`
`Paper 24, 12 (PTAB June 16, 2020).
`
`Factor five does not warrant denial as Petitioner is a defendant in the District
`
`Court case.
`
`Factor six favors institution. Petitioner seeks to join Comcast’s instituted
`
`petition in IPR2024-00322, which presents compelling unpatentability challenges.
`
`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