Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 88
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`Google LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289
`Filing Date: September 26, 2011
`Issue Date: December 2, 2014
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00794
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  THE ’289 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3 
`A.  Overview of the ’289 Patent .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 7 
`A.  Muthukumarasamy ................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`Hayward .............................................................................................. 12 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14 
`V. 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`VII.  GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN
`VIEW OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 15 
`A. 
`Summary of Grounds I and II ............................................................. 15 
`1. 
`Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8 ..................................................... 15 
`Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would
`Have Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8 ........................... 16 
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`Element 1(pre) ........................................................................... 20 
`2. 
`Element 1(a)(i) .......................................................................... 28 
`3. 
`Element 1(a)(ii) ......................................................................... 30 
`4. 
`Element 1(a)(iii) ........................................................................ 35 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 4 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`5. 
`Element 1(a)(iv) ........................................................................ 45 
`Element 1(b) .............................................................................. 53 
`6. 
`Element 1(c)(i) .......................................................................... 54 
`7. 
`Element 1(c)(ii) ......................................................................... 58 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 61 
`Independent Claim 6 ........................................................................... 62 
`1. 
`Elements 6(pre) through 6(b) and Element 6(d)(ii) .................. 62 
`2. 
`Element 6(c) .............................................................................. 63 
`3. 
`Element 6(d)(i) .......................................................................... 66 
`Dependent Claims 7 and 8 .................................................................. 71 
`E. 
`VIII.  DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 71 
`IX.  DENIAL UNDER § 314(a) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 72 
`A. 
`Factor 1: Whether the district court granted a stay or a stay may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted ............................................... 73 
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date ........................................ 73 
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding .................................. 74 
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues ........................................................ 75 
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 75 
`Factor 6: Other circumstances ............................................................. 75 
`F. 
`X.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 76 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 76 
`B. 
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 76 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 5 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 77 
`XI.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 77 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 6 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ............................................. 77
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc.,
`949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 18
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00862, Paper 35 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 73, 74, 76
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 (PTAB July 31, 2020), aff’d, 859 F.
`App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 18
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................. 74
`AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00167, Paper 16 (PTAB May 14, 2019), aff’d, 825 F.
`App’x 909 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................................................................passim
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 72
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 18
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00133, Paper 15 (J. Crumbley dissenting) (PTAB May
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 76
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 7 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01251, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) ............................................... 73
`Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann,
`IPR2020-00915, Paper 29 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 14
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 74, 75, 76
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 75
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 2, 12
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 2, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 72, 77
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 73
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 8 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`Ex-1007
`Ex-1008
`Ex-1009
`Ex-1010
`
`Ex-1011
`Ex-1012
`Ex-1013
`Ex-1014
`
`Ex-1015
`
`Ex-1016
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289 to Strober (“the ’289 Patent”)
`The ’289 Patent Prosecution History (U.S. App. No. 13/157,821)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 8,782,528 to Strober (“the ’528 Patent”) Prosecution
`History (U.S. App. No. 13/736,590)
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0241699 (“Muthukumarasamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,918,812 (“Hayward”)
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-6247-
`PGG-KNF (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 4, 2018)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0301737 (“Almas”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110074 (“Getchius”)
`RESERVED
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Joint Claim Construction Statement (W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022)
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Scheduling Order (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2021)
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Redacted Motion to Transfer Venue (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 9 of 88
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,904,289 (“the ’289 Patent”). The claims recite a system including a personal
`
`computing device, a server, and a content presentation device. ’289 Patent, Abstract.
`
`When the personal computing device sends a request to the server identifying media
`
`content to play, the server causes the content to be played by the media player on the
`
`display device and controls content presented. Id., 6:41-46, 5:8-35, 6:51-62; Ex-
`
`1005 (“Bederson”), ¶49.
`
`Server-mediated control of content presentation was known before April 21,
`
`2011, the earliest-claimed priority date of the ’289 Patent. Muthukumarasamy
`
`describes a system that includes a personal computing device, a server system, and
`
`a display device. Muthukumarasamy, [0044]-[0045]. In Muthukumarasamy’s
`
`system, the personal computing device sends a message to the server system
`
`identifying content for presentation on the display device, and the server system
`
`sends a message to the display device, causing the content to be presented at the
`
`display device. Id. Presentation of content through specified media players was
`
`likewise known. Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content
`
`and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content
`
`according to a media type of the selected media content.” Id., [0048], [0057]-[0058].
`
`Hayward also describes presenting internet-received media content having different
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 10 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`formats using media players. Hayward, Abstract, 3:53-63. Hayward teaches a media
`
`player that is transferred to a client based on a user’s selection of the media content.
`
`Id., 3:53-63, Abstract, 5:38-74, FIG. 2; Bederson, ¶50.
`
`Because the claims of the ’289 Patent were known before its earliest priority
`
`date, they are invalid. Bederson, ¶¶48, 51.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims in view of the following references, which are prior art under at
`
`least one of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e):
`
`Name
`
`U.S. Pat./Pub.
`Number
`Muthukumarasamy 2010/0241699 A1 March 22, 2010
`
`Filing Date
`
`Hayward
`
`8,918,812 B2
`
`October 24, 2000
`
`Publication
`Date
`September 23,
`2010
`June 20, 2002
`
`The following proposed obviousness grounds render the challenged claims obvious.
`
`Ground
`
`Combined References
`
`Claims
`
`I
`
`II
`
`Obvious over Muthukumarasamy
`
`1-2 and 6-8
`
`Obvious over Muthukumarasamy in view
`of Hayward
`
`1-2 and 6-8
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 11 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`III. THE ’289 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’289 Patent
`The ’289 Patent allows a user to control the presentation of content from the
`
`internet on a display device using a personal computing device (e.g., smartphone).
`
`’289 Patent, Abstract, 1:21-38, 3:56-62. Because “different media players are
`
`required to present different content” from the internet, the computing device’s
`
`control of content at the display device is mediated by a server system. Id., 2:27-34;
`
`3:56-62; Bederson, ¶29.
`
`The computing device, content presentation device, and server system are
`
`illustrated in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 12 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated); Bederson, ¶30.
`
`The computing device displays controls content on the content presentation
`
`device from various internet sources. Id., 3:7-15, 3:64-67, 4:23-27. The computing
`
`device sends signals through the server system to cause presentation of the content
`
`at the content presentation device. Id., 3:10-18. The signals from the computing
`
`device also specify a particular media player. Id., 4:29-35; 3:33-36.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 13 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated); Bederson, ¶31.
`
`The computing device “control[s] how the content is displayed (e.g., play,
`
`pause, stop, rewind, fast forward, etc.)” at the display device. Id., 3:36-39. Sgnals
`
`from the computing device are passed through the server system to the display
`
`device. Id., 3:39-41. This is because “[v]arious types of [media] players may use
`
`different … commands to control their respective playback.” Id., 5:57-58. The
`
`computing device sends to the server system a universal playback control command
`
`that is not specific to any media player. Id., 5:58-62. The server system translates the
`
`universal playback control command into the appropriate playback control
`
`command for the media player and provides this media-player-specific playback
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 14 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`control command to the content presentation device. Id., 5:62-6:3. One media-
`
`player-specific playback control command controls a media player playing content
`
`from YouTube®, while another may be used to control a media player playing
`
`content from Ted.com. Id., 6:9-17; Bederson, ¶32.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The patent application that issued as the ’289 Patent (the “Application”) was
`
`filed on June 10, 2011, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/477,998
`
`filed April 21, 2011.1
`
`The Examiner rejected all claims over Almas (US 2008/0301737, Ex-1011)
`
`that teaches a server system receiving from a personal computing device a command
`
`for controlling content on a content presentation device. Ex-1002, 176-214. In
`
`response, the Applicant added the limitation that messages received by the server
`
`system “specify a file to be acted upon”; “include information associated with a
`
`unique identification code assigned to the content presentation device”; “identify a
`
`location of the media player”; include an action control command that “is
`
`independent of the particular media player”; and “identify a location of the particular
`
`media player.” Id., 151-57.
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not admit the ’289 Patent is entitled to an earlier date of priority,
`
`but the Board need not resolve any priority dispute in this case.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 15 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
`A. Muthukumarasamy
`Muthukumarasamy was filed on March 22, 2010, and published on September
`
`23, 2010. It is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Bederson, ¶33.
`
`Like the ’289 Patent, Muthukumarasamy allows a user to use an internet-
`
`enabled device (“IED”), such as a smartphone, to control the presentation of content,
`
`including internet content, on a display device. Muthukumarasamy, Abstract,
`
`[0005], [0026], [0031], [0041], [0047]. Just like the ’289 Patent (’289 Patent, 5:57-
`
`58), Muthukumarasamy provides a “device-agnostic and source-agnostic
`
`entertainment experience” in which the IED controls, through a Device-Based
`
`Control System (“DBCS”), the presentation of content from different sources
`
`(Muthukumarasamy, Abstract, [0005], [0027], [0047], [0134]). The IED, content
`
`presentation device, and DBCS are illustrated in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 16 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated); Bederson, ¶34.
`
`The IED displays content from various internet sources (see, e.g., FIGs. 2 and
`
`3), and a user selects content to be presented on the display device. Id., [0048].
`
`Signals to control presentation of the content are sent from the IED to the display
`
`device through the DBCS, so the DBCS can translate commands into those specific
`
`to the current content presentation. The IED’s signal is sent to the content
`
`presentation device through a server system, as shown in Figure 1. Id., [0057]-
`
`[0058]; Bederson, ¶35.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 17 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`Muthukumarasamy also describes server-system-mediated control of internet
`
`content presented at a content presentation device. As Figure 18 shows, the DBCS
`
`includes remote-controlled internet browser software (“RCIBS”) that is “optimized
`
`for internet-media consumption.” Id., [0083]. Examples of internet-media platforms
`
`are Netflix and Amazon Video On Demand. Id., [0134].
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 18 (annotated); Bederson, ¶36.
`
`Muthukumarasamy recognizes that different media players are needed to
`
`present different internet content. As Figure 19 shows, the RCIBS “[p]lay[s] [a]
`
`video at [a] given URL,” and plays a video “using 3rd Party APIs [application
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 18 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`programming interfaces] and Video Players.” The RCIBS must “load[] the 3rd Party
`
`Video Player specified” for the video. Id., FIG. 19.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 19 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 20 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`Id.; Bederson, ¶37.
`
`B. Hayward
`Hayward was filed on October 24, 2001, published on June 20, 2002 and
`
`claims priority to a provisional application, filed on Oct. 24, 2000. It is prior art at
`
`least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Bederson, ¶38.
`
`Hayward describes the presentation of internet content on a client, such as an
`
`internet-enabled television. Hayward, 3:20-32, 3:35-47. Internet content may take
`
`“a variety of streaming media file formats” and media files must be presented using
`
`an appropriate “media player[].” Id., 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-47. Hayward’s method
`
`identifies a media player to present internet content on a client and controls media-
`
`player-specific content. Bederson, ¶39.
`
`Presentation of internet content is facilitated by a customer system that
`
`identifies the media player needed to present a media file. Hayward’s customer
`
`system provides the client with “access to a wide variety of information through a
`
`common interface.” Id., 4:15-19. Through the customer system, the client selects a
`
`media file, causing the customer system to provide the client with an “embedded
`
`media player page.” Id., 5:24-28. The embedded media player page includes “a
`
`reference to a functional media player object (such as a RealPlayer plug in).” Id.,
`
`5:38-40, 8:39-41. The reference refers to a memory location on the client or
`
`“trigger[s] a download of a media player applet to control the output of a media file.”
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 21 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`Id., 5:40-47, 6:35-38. Hayward’s content may be in one of “a variety of streaming
`
`media file formats,” and the media player called is the appropriate media player for
`
`playing the media file format, such as the RealPlayer plug in for playing internet
`
`content. Id., 1:8–10, 3:56–60, 5:4–47.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1A (annotated); Bederson, ¶40.
`
`Through the embedded media player page, a user can control the presentation
`
`of the media file. Id., 5:63-66. The embedded media player page provides “a play
`
`button, pause button, stop button, slider bar, [or] forward and rewind buttons”
`
`through which the user can control presentation of the media file. Id., 5:66-6:4;
`
`Bederson, ¶41.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 22 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and
`
`two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with
`
`networked media or media playback systems. Bederson, ¶¶42-46. With more
`
`education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed
`
`to attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Id. Similarly, more experience can
`
`substitute for formal education. Id.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board construes claims consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claims should only be
`
`construed to the extent necessary to resolve a controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Because
`
`the prior art renders obvious all limitations of the challenged claims under any
`
`reasonable interpretation, the Board need not construe any claims to resolve a
`
`controversy. See Bederson, ¶47. Moreover, Touchstream proposed plain and
`
`ordinary meaning for all terms in the parallel district court action, confirming that
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 23 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`Patent Owner does not believe any terms of the ’289 Patent require construction. Ex-
`
`1014. Petitioner adopts these interpretations for purposes of this Petition.2
`
`VII. GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN VIEW
`OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`The Challenged Claims are obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone (Ground
`
`I) or in view of Hayward (Ground II). See Bederson, ¶52.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Grounds I and II
`1. Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8
`Muthukumarasamy provides a user with “a device-agnostic and source-
`
`agnostic
`
`entertainment
`
`experience.”
`
`Muthukumarasamy,
`
`[0027].
`
`Muthukumarasamy uses a DBCS, including a server system, to mediate control by
`
`a phone or other personal computing device (called IED in the reference) of content
`
`presented at a content presentation device. Bederson, ¶53.
`
`Muthukumarasamy expressly describes how the DBCS-mediated control can
`
`create a “device-agnostic” experience: by translating (e.g., using a zHub and a
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to propose alternate constructions before the district
`
`court, including assertions of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
`
`(pre-AIA), which cannot be raised in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 24 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`zNode) commands sent by the IED into device-specific commands interpretable by
`
`the display device. Id., [0057]-[0058], [0066]-[0067]; Bederson, ¶54.
`
`Muthukumarasamy creates a “source-agnostic” experience for internet
`
`sources. Muthukumarasamy describes presenting content from various internet
`
`sources, and recognizes that, to do so, the RCIBS will need to load an appropriate
`
`“Video Player” for presenting the content on the content presentation device. Id.,
`
`FIG. 19. In particular, Muthukumarasamy teaches that the IED sends commands to
`
`“play[] the video present at [a] given URL” on the internet and the RCIBS “loads
`
`[a] 3rd Party Video Player specified” for the video to “play[] the video.” Id. From
`
`this, a POSA would have understood Muthukumarasamy to achieve source-agnostic
`
`presentation of internet content because various “Video Player[s]” can be loaded to
`
`present the internet content at the content presentation device, irrespective of its
`
`source. Bederson, ¶55.
`
`2. Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would Have
`Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8
`To the extent Muthukumarasamy does not expressly teach source-agnostic
`
`presentation of internet content by loading the Video Player on the display device,
`
`Hayward does. Hayward provides source-agnostic presentation of content at a
`
`display device through embedded media player pages. Recognizing that internet
`
`content may have “a variety of streaming media file formats” and media files must
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 25 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`be presented using an appropriate “media player[],” Hayward proposes using
`
`embedded media player pages through which internet content is presented at a user’s
`
`display device using an appropriate media player. Hayward, 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-
`
`47. Because the embedded media player page includes an identification of a selected
`
`media file together with “a reference to a functional media player object (such as a
`
`RealPlayer plug in),” a display device may present the selected media file in the
`
`appropriate media player, irrespective of the media file’s source. Id., 5:38-40, 8:39-
`
`41. Because the embedded media player facilitates control of presentation, a user of
`
`the display device controls the presentation regardless of the media file’s source. Id.,
`
`5:63-6:4; Bederson, ¶56.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated and found it obvious to implement
`
`Hayward’s embedded media player pages to facilitate the source-agnostic
`
`presentation of internet content that Muthukumarasamy envisions Bederson, ¶57. A
`
`POSA would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to
`
`implement the RCIBS to present internet content at the display device using
`
`embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward. Id. Muthukumarasamy
`
`expressly envisions using web-based video players, such as those taught by
`
`Hayward. Muthukumarasamy’s DBCS enables a user to browse “web-based
`
`merchant
`
`stores” and make “purchases
`
`from web-based merchants.”
`
`Muthukumarasamy, [0138]. Muthukumarasamy’s RCIBS discloses using “3rd Party
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 26 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`APIs and Video Players,” including Adobe Flash, a well-known web-based player.
`
`Id., FIG. 19. A POSA would have looked to web-based, embedded media player
`
`references, such as Hayward, for implementation details. Bederson, ¶57.
`
`A POSA implementing Muthukumarasamy would have been motivated by
`
`Muthukumarasamy’s stated goal to provide source-agnostic content presentation at
`
`the display device. Muthukumarasamy, [0027]; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
`
`v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (evidence of a motivation
`
`to combine “may flow from the prior art references themselves”). A POSA would
`
`have recognized from Hayward that embedded media player pages, which allow a
`
`display device to seamlessly present media files having a variety of file formats
`
`through a variety of media players, are a tool to provide such source-agnostic content
`
`presentation. Hayward, 1:8-10, 3:56-60, 5:4-47; Bederson, ¶58. See, e.g., Acoustic
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(holding that a POSA would have been motivated to use a secondary reference’s
`
`technique that was “‘well known’ among skilled artisans as a way to achieve [the]
`
`goals” stated in the primary reference (citation omitted)); Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`
`IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 at 32-36 (PTAB July 31, 2020) (finding a POSA would
`
`have been motivated to implement a primary reference using a technique described
`
`in a secondary reference “to fulfill [the primary reference’s] goal,” citing the primary
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 207-2 Filed 04/20/23 Page 27 of 88
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`reference’s “express motivation” (citation omitted)), aff’d, 859 F. App’x 579 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021).
`
`Embedded media player pages were widely used and implemented using well-
`
`known technologies at the time of the ’289 Patent, for example, by using JavaScript
`
`as Hayward discloses. Bederson, ¶59. A POSA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in implementing such a widely known and commonly used
`
`feature within the system of Muthukumarasamy. Id. Muthukumarasamy itself
`
`discloses using web-based embedded media players,
`
`such as Flash
`
`(Muthukumarasamy, FIG. 19), which Hayward also discloses as one possible media
`
`player (Hayward, 3:53-63). Because of this overlapping disclosure, a POSA would
`
`have found the two references compatible and had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining them. Bederson, ¶59.
`
`A POSA would have been motivated by the ability of Hayward’s embedded
`
`player pages to improve Muthukumarasamy’s stated goals of “dynamic presentation
`
`of advertisements,” “gathering data on user behavior,” and “learn[ing] the media
`
`preferences from a viewing history of [a] user.” Muthukumarasamy, [0091], [0139],
`
`[0142]; Bederson, ¶60. See, e.g., Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, IPR2020-00915,
`
`Paper 29 at 22-23 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2021) (finding as support for a motivation to
`
`combine the