Paper No. 9
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Filed: October 27, 2017
`
`571.272.7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Filed: October 27, 2017
`
`571.272.7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.,”
`Paper 3) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,775,661 B2
`(“the ’661 patent,” Ex. 1001), filed January 25, 2013.1 The Petition is
`supported by the Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee (“Bhattacharjee
`Declaration” or “Bhattacharjee Decl.,” Ex. 1002). Limelight Networks, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.,” Paper 8).
`The Preliminary Response is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Kevin C.
`Almeroth (“Almeroth Declaration” or “Almeroth Decl.,” Ex. 2001).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1–20. The Board has not made a final determination of the
`patentability of any claim.
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner advises that Patent Owner has asserted the ’661 patent
`against Akamai in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`No. 1:16-cv10253 (D. Mass) (“District Court Lawsuit”). Pet. 63; see also
`Paper 6, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). Petitioner also advises us
`that Patent Owner also asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,645,539 (“the ’539
`
`
`1 The cover page of the ’661 patent alleges it is a continuation of two
`applications in a chain, the earliest application was a provisional application
`filed November 5, 2007. Ex. 1001 (60); see also Pet. 4 (alleging same
`priority date). At this time, the parties’ papers do not raise an issue as to
`whether or not any of the asserted references are prior art.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`patent”) against Petitioner in the District Court Lawsuit. Pet. 63. Petitioner
`also has filed a petition seeking inter partes review of claims of the ’539
`patent.2 Id.
`B. The Technology
`The ’661 patent relates to data delivery over the Internet. Ex. 1001,
`col. 1, ll. 22–28.
`1. Background Technology
`Data delivery may be by “traditional origin download and end user
`originated download.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 28–30. “Either type of download
`can be used for content delivery such its [sic] file uploads and downloads or
`streaming delivery.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 30–32.
`“In a traditional origin download, a centralized server (such as an
`origin server), a traditional content delivery network or a traditional cache
`operates as a source of the content for the end users . . . .” Ex. 1001, col. 1,
`ll. 32–35. “[I]n a user originated download, one end user sources content to
`another end user.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 35–36.
`In traditional origin download, a content provider utilizes a content
`delivery network (CDN) to outsource delivery of its content. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 59–61. By contrast, in user originated download
`systems, often referred to as first generation peer-to-peer (P2P), an
`individual end user seeks to find content available from its peers. Id. at
`
`
`2 Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., IPR2017-01322.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`col. 1, ll. 37–40. Xu3 and Saroiu4 describe more specifically how one user
`sources content to another in “peer-to-peer file sharing applications such as
`Gnutella and Napster.” Ex. 1005, 156; see Ex. 1003, 398.
`2. The ’661 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`Figure 1 of the ’661 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Dongyan Xu et al., Analysis of a CDN-P2P Hybrid Architecture for Cost-
`Effective Streaming Media Distribution, 11 MULTIMEDIA SYS. 383–399
`(2006) (“Xu,” Ex. 1003).
`4 Stefan Saroiu et al., A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing
`Systems, 4673 PROC. SPIE: MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND NETWORKING
`156–170 (2002) (“Saroiu,” Ex. 1005).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a data transfer
`system described in the ’661 patent. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 64–65. The data
`transfer system shown in Figure 1 “allows end users in home networks 132
`or business networks 136 to request and source content downloads from/to
`other end users directly.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 44–46. The end user “is typically a
`personal computer but may be any user controlled device capable of
`communicating over the Internet.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 47–49. Data transfer
`system 100 shown in Figure 1 “also allows for traditional origin download
`between the end user 132 and a content provider 128.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 53–
`56.
`
`A universal resource locator (URL) may reference a content object
`available from content provider 128 in content database 116. Ex. 1001,
`col. 4, ll. 56–59, Fig. 1. “In many cases, the content provider 128 contracts
`with a content delivery network (CDN) to outsource delivery of content
`objects.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 59–61.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, independent claims 1 and 5 are method
`claims, and independent claim 13 is a system claim. Claims 2–4 depend
`directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 6–12 depend from claim 5.
`Claims 14 –20 depend from claim 13. Independent claims 1 and 13 are
`reproduced below.
`1. A method for transferring content across a content delivery
`network (CDN), the method comprising:
`
`
`
`receiving a notification of a request, wherein the request
`comprises:
`
`
`
`a client identifier, and
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`
`
` a
`
` content identifier;
`
`
`accessing one or more global policies applicable to the request,
`wherein
`the one or more global policies
`identify
`circumstances under which clients are authorized to receive
`content objects from other clients instead of from servers
`associated with the CDN;
`
`
`determining, using the one or more global policies, that a client
`associated with the client identifier is eligible to receive
`content associated with the content identifier from another
`client;
`
`
`identifying, using the one or more global policies and the content
`identifier, one or more authorized transfers of at least a
`portion of the content;
`
`
`identifying one or more eligible clients that are associated with
`the one or more authorized transfers; and
`
`
`sending a set of client identifiers that are associated with the one
`or more eligible clients.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, l. 57–col. 18, l. 11.
`
`
`13. A data transfer system configured to allow transfer of content
`through a content delivery network (CDN) to a client device,
`the data transfer system comprising:
`
`one or more processors; and
`
`one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors,
`wherein the one or more processors and one or more
`memories are configured to, upon receiving a request from
`the client device for electronic content:
`
`
`
`identify the client;
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`identify one or more global policies from a plurality of global
`policies that are applicable to the request, the plurality of
`global policies indicating whether particular clients are
`authorized to access particular electronic contents, the one
`or more global policies controlling a behavior or activity
`of the client and identifying circumstances under which
`the client is authorized to receive the content;
`
`
`
`evaluate the request for content, the evaluation being based
`on the one or more policies; and
`
`
`identify one or more authorized transfers of the content based
`on the evaluation, each of the one or more authorized
`transfers of the content comprising a transfer from an
`eligible source;
`
`
`wherein the request specifies a content identifier as a source
`of the content.
`
`
`Id. at col. 19, ll. 8–32.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’661 patent as unpatentable
`as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)5 on the following specific grounds. See
`Pet. 3, 16–63.
`References
`Xu, Norris,6 and Saroiu
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1–6, 9–13, 15–20
`
`
`5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. The ’661 patent has an effective filing date of November 5, 2007,
`prior to the effective date of the AIA. Thus, the grounds asserted are under
`the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`6 Charles L. Norris, U.S. Patent No. 6,718,328 B1, filed on Feb. 28, 2000,
`issued Apr. 6, 2004 (“Norris,” Ex. 1004).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Basis
`References
`§ 103(a) 7, 8
`Xu, Norris, Saroiu, and Tu7
`Xu, Norris, Saroiu, and Leighton8 § 103(a) 14
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification in which they appear. Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056,
`1061–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning
`is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.” (citation
`omitted)); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`special definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into
`the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`7 Yi-Cheng Tu et al., An Analytical Study of Peer-to-Peer Media Streaming
`Systems, Purdue University Dept. of Computer Science, Computer Science
`Technical Reports, Paper 1626 (May 2005),
`http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cstech/1626 (“Tu,” Ex. 1006).
`8 F. Thomson Leighton et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, filed on May 19,
`1999, and issued Aug. 22, 2000 (“Leighton,” Ex. 1007).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`The parties identify the term “origin server” from claim 8 for
`construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Both parties agree that the
`Specification includes a definition, i.e., “[a]n origin server is any server
`cache etc. which is used to service a request for content in a conventional
`non-point-to-point fashion.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 47–49; see also id. at
`col. 16, ll. 22–26 (“In another embodiment, one eligible source may be an
`origin server, such as any server cache etc. which is used to service a request
`for content in a conventional, non-point-to-point fashion and may be the
`content provider 128.”); Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 3–4.
`Neither party, however, adopts the exact definition as its proposed
`interpretation. Petitioner omits “cache etc.” from the column 6 definition.
`Pet. 15 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 58 (“Origin server” means “any server
`that can service a request for content in a conventional non-point-to-point
`fashion.”)). Patent Owner’s proposal is similar, changing Petitioner’s “any
`server” to “a server or server cache,” but otherwise repeating Petitioner’s
`proposal. Prelim. Resp. 4.
`The papers do not indicate any present dispute over “origin server,”
`and construction is unnecessary. See Vivid Techs. Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms that are in
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.). Thus, there is no need to construe “origin server” at this
`time.
`
`B. Obviousness Analysis
`A patent claim is invalid as obvious if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`The ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law,
`but
`that determination
`is based on underlying factual
`findings. . . . The underlying factual findings include (1) “the
`scope and content of the prior art,” (2) “differences between the
`prior art and the claims at issue,” (3) “the level of ordinary skill
`in the pertinent art,” and (4) the presence of secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness such “as commercial success,
`long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,” and unexpected
`results.
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing inter alia
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
`“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, in assessing the prior art, the
`Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
`motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1381. As stated in Personal Web Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991–992 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (parallel citations
`omitted):
`
`The Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398 (2007), explained that, “because inventions in most, if
`not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered,
`and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations
`of what, in some sense, is already known,” “it can be important
`to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
`way the claimed new invention does.” Id. at 418–19.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill
`would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or
`Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and one to two years of
`experience in the field of computer networking and/or distributed
`systems, particularly as those systems relate to Internet content
`delivery.
`
`Pet. 15 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 149). Patent Owner does not dispute
`Petitioner’s proposal nor provide a separate position. We find Petitioner’s
`proposal supported by the references reflected in the record and adopt it for
`purposes of this Decision.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–20 over Xu, Norris, and
`Saroiu (Ground 1)
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–20 would have been
`obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art over Xu, Norris, and Saroiu.
`Pet. 16–57. Petitioner cites the Bhattacharjee Declaration in support of its
`positions. See Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 42–148.
`For various reasons discussed below, Patent Owner alleges the person
`of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Norris’s token authentication
`and the hybrid CDN-P2P system of Xu. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Thus, Patent
`Owner denies the challenged claims would have been obvious. Id. at 7–19.
`Patent Owner supports its arguments with the Almeroth Declaration. See
`
`
`9 Petitioner mistakenly cites to “X” but correctly quotes paragraph 14.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 42–59. Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding,
`does not contest that the references teach the claim limitations.
`1. Xu (Ex. 1003)
`Xu describes CDNs and P2P content delivery systems (see section
`I.B.1 above) and explains that each system has drawbacks. Ex. 1003, 383–
`384. CDN servers are expensive, and server capacity (including processing
`power and out-bound bandwidth) allocated to the distribution of one media
`file is limited. Id. at 383. P2P’s drawbacks include: the need for “a
`sufficient number of seed supplying peers to jumpstart” streaming between
`peers. Id. at 384. As compared to a CDN, a P2P system has lower out-
`bound streaming rate and playback rate. Id. Xu questions “how much a
`peer should contribute back to the system in order to sustain the aggregated
`media distribution capacity, while maintaining fairness among peers,” and
`“it incurs a non-trivial cost to the provider and/or clients of this media file.”
`Id. at 383–84.
`To overcome the above drawbacks, Xu proposes a hybrid system that
`initially serves content from a CDN in a start-up phase and then hands
`delivery off to a P2P system. Ex. 1003, 384. “[W]hen the P2P streaming
`capacity grows to a certain level, the CDN server can even stop serving
`streaming sessions for this media file and let the peers take over the task.”
`Id.
`
`The CDN server, which is a “logical entity” and may consist of
`multiple servers, “maintains a list of clients registered for the media file, as
`well as a list of active supplying peers (among the registered clients) and
`their contribution fulfillment status.” Ex. 1003, 384–385. The CDN server
`receives streaming requests for a given media file. Id. at 385. The CDN
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`server determines if there are peers actively serving the requested file which
`are not serving another streaming session and “[t]he sum of their out-bound
`streaming rate is no less than the media playback rate.” Id. If the conditions
`are met, the request will be served by selected peers. Id. If the conditions
`are not met, “the request will be served by the CDN server itself.” Id. “If
`both CDN and P2P do not have enough streaming capacity, the request will
`be rejected.” Id.
`Parameters governing when requests may be served are governed by
`admission control where the CDN server may accept a subset of the
`requests. Ex. 1003, 385. Different admission policies are based on “the
`amount of out-bound bandwidth, number of sessions, or amount of service
`time promised by requesters.” Id.
`2. Norris (Ex. 1004)
`Norris teaches how an “owner of content” on a distributed network
`can control access “to content on a network computer.” Ex. 1004, Abstract.
`The computer may be stand-alone or part of a network, including the
`Internet. Id.
`A user first receives a token from the publisher. Id. at col. 3, ll. 11–
`14. The “token is attached to a URL string of a requested file and it
`becomes an integral and required part of the URL string.” Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 19–20. A content server “recognize[s] requests for content that require
`authentication, process[es] the token, and verif[ies] the validity of the
`token.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 28–31. If the token is valid, the content is delivered,
`and if invalid, user access is denied. Id. at col. 3, ll. 31–33.
`In one described embodiment, the token includes several components.
`Id. at col. 7, l. 49–col. 8, l. 3. Two of the components are the user’s IP
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`address and the URL for which the publisher wants to limit access. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 51–56. The user’s IP address “allows the publisher to restrict
`access to content to specific users authorized by the publisher.” Id. at col. 7,
`ll. 51–53. The URL is where the content is available and where access also
`may be limited. Id. at col. 7, ll. 54–56.
`3. Saroiu (Ex. 1005)
`Saroiu is a study of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing systems. Ex. 1005,
`156. Saroiu describes the Napster and Gnutella architectures as follows:
`Both Napster and Gnutella have similar goals: to facilitate the
`location and exchange of files (typically images, audio, or video)
`amongst a large group of independent users connected through
`the Internet. In these systems, files are stored on the computers
`of the individual users or peers, and exchanged through a direct
`connection between the downloading and uploading peers, over
`an HTTP-style protocol.
`
`Id. at 157. “In Napster, a large cluster of dedicated central servers maintain
`an index of the files that are currently being shared by active peers.” Id.
`4. Petitioner’s Arguments and Evidence on Ground 1
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–20
`would have been obvious over Xu, Norris, and Saroiu are discussed below.
`a. Claim 1
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “a method for transferring content
`across a content delivery network (CDN).”10 Xu teaches streaming media
`
`
`10 “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive
`antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a
`necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell
`Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 1 derives
`antecedent basis for “CDN” from the preamble and we determine it is
`limiting.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`over a hybrid architecture using both a CDN and P2P system. Ex. 1003,
`384. Petitioner cites to the preceding and Xu’s teaching that media files are
`distributed by a CDN server. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003, 384; Bhattacharjee
`Decl. ¶ 61).
`Limitation 1a11 recites “receiving a notification of a request, wherein
`the request comprises: a client identifier, and a content identifier.”
`Petitioner alleges the “notification of request” of the limitation is met by
`Xu’s requests for media files or streaming requests. Pet. 16–17 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 383, 385, 387; Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 62). Petitioner argues “client
`identifiers,” i.e., the “requesting peer,” are shown by Xu’s list of clients who
`are registered once they make a request for a media file. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003, 384–385, 387; Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 63).
`Petitioner addresses the “content identifier” language of limitation 1a
`by first arguing it would have been obvious to “add this implementation to
`Xu.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 64). Dr. Bhattacharjee relies
`on Norris’s teaching of both a “client identifier” and a “content identifier.
`Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 64. Norris discloses using a token to receive the
`requested content. Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 19–20, col. 1, ll. 57–62, col. 7, ll. 49–
`56. Petitioner cites to the preceding and argues Norris teaches a “client
`identifier” and a “content identifier” in the URL string of a requested file to
`which a token is attached. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 49–56;
`Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 66). According to Petitioner, Norris also teaches that,
`like the ’661 patent, a URL is used to request content. Id. (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`
`11 We adopt Petitioner’s format of labelling the limitations of each claim by
`claim number followed by an alphabetically ordered letter. Thus, “1a” is the
`first limitation of claim 1.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`col. 4, ll. 23–26). Relying on the Bhattacharjee Declaration, Petitioner
`argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a URL
`“identifies the requested content, and would be included in an HTTP
`request” carried over TCP/IP associated with an IP address that would
`identify the client making the request. Id. (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 65
`(citing RFC2616, 13 (Ex. 1008) (“HTTP communication usually takes place
`over TCP/IP connections. The default port is TCP 80 . . . . ”))).
`Limitation 1b recites “accessing one or more global policies
`applicable to the request, wherein the one or more global policies identify
`circumstances under which clients are authorized to receive content objects
`from other clients instead of from servers associated with the CDN.” Xu’s
`system determines P2P streaming capacity at which the CDN server can stop
`delivering the file and “let the peers [in the P2P network] take over the task.”
`Ex. 1003, 384. Petitioner relies on the preceding and Xu’s teaching of
`system parameters including k0, the “‘CDN-to-P2P’ handoff time.” Pet. 21
`(citing Ex. 1003, 387, Table 1; Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 70). In addition,
`Petitioner cites to Xu’s teaching of an “Initial Stage” or “Stage I” where the
`CDN is delivering all of the media files requested and of “Stage II” where
`the media files are served from the P2P system. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003,
`387); id. at 22 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 71). According to Petitioner,
`Stage I or II is determined by whether the handoff time k0 has elapsed. Id. at
`22 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 72). Petitioner also cites to Xu’s “admission
`policies” and/or “selection policies,” including parameters like the “amount
`of service time promised by requesters” and which supplying peers will
`serve the content. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 384, 385; Bhattacharjee
`Decl. ¶ 73). Petitioner summarizes its position that the limitation is met by
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`focusing on the determination in Xu of whether the handoff time has
`elapsed. Id. at 23 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 73, 74); see also
`Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 69 (overview).
`Limitation 1c recites “determining, using the one or more global
`policies, that a client associated with the client identifier is eligible to receive
`content associated with the content identifier from another client.” Xu
`teaches using admission policies to determine whether to serve a request for
`a media file. Ex. 1003, 393. Petitioner relies on the preceding disclosure of
`“admission policies” in Xu and repeats some of the showing made in
`connection with limitation 1b. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003, 385). Petitioner
`also cites Xu’s teaching that the “CDN server is in a good position to profile
`each peer’s contract fulfillment behavior so that free-riding peers can be
`identified and blocked in the system.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 393).
`Petitioner concludes that requesting peers “that are determined to be
`freeriders in the P2P network” are “determined not eligible to receive
`content from other clients in the P2P network.” Id. at 24–25 (citing
`Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 76). As it did for limitation 1a, Petitioner relies on
`Norris to teach the “client identifier” aspect of limitation 1c. Id. at 25 (citing
`Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 55–61, col. 7, ll. 49–57, col. 5, l. 61–col. 6, l. 13;
`Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 77); see also Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 75 (overview).
`Limitation 1d recites “identifying, using the one or more global
`policies and the content identifier, one or more authorized transfers of at
`least a portion of the content.” Petitioner argues its showing regarding
`limitation 1b meets this limitation, including handoff time (k0) and
`“admission policies” and “selection policies” to determine which requests to
`serve. Pet. 26 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 80). Xu also describes subsets
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`of a media file can be distributed by different supplying peers to a requesting
`peer. Ex. 1003, 385, Fig. 1. Petitioner contends “Xu identifies the different
`supplying peers to serve the request based on the information in the
`streaming request that identifies the media file.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003,
`385; Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 81). Relying on the Bhattacharjee Declaration,
`Petitioner concludes that the recited “global policies” are shown by Xu’s
`system parameters, admission policies, and selection policies; the recited
`content identifier is shown by Xu’s data in the streaming request that
`identifies the requested media file; and the recited one or more authorized
`transfers is shown by Xu’s transfers of the requested media file to the
`requesting user. Id. (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 82); see also Bhattacharjee
`Decl. ¶ 79 (overview).
`Limitation 1e recites “identifying one or more eligible clients that are
`associated with the one or more authorized transfers.” Xu’s CDN server
`“maintains a list of clients registered for the media file, as well as a list of
`active supplying peers (among the registered clients) and their contribution
`fulfillment status”. Ex. 1003, 384–385. Petitioner cites to the preceding and
`to Xu’s supplying peers as meeting the recited “one or more eligible clients,”
`and transfers using the P2P network as meeting the “one or more authorized
`transfer” language. Pet. 28–29 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 83–84).
`Limitation 1f recites “sending a set of client identifiers that are
`associated with the one or more eligible clients.” According to Petitioner,
`the “set of client identifiers” is met by Xu’s teaching that a request by Peer 5
`may be served by among “Peers 1, 2, 3 and 4[,] chosen to serve Peer 5.”
`Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003, 387). Similarly, Xu teaches “[d]ifferent selections
`of supplying peers lead to different progress of their contribution contract
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`fulfillment.” See Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 85 (quoting Ex. 1003, 387).
`Petitioner relies on Saroiu to meet the “sending such a set . . . of client
`identifiers,” citing to Saroiu’s teaching of “an index of files that are currently
`being shared by active peers.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 157, Fig. 1). The
`Bhattacharjee Declaration and Saroiu are cited to conclude, “[o]n receiving
`the results, the peer may choose to initiate a file exchange directly from
`another peer.” Id. at 30 (quoting Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 86; citing Ex. 1005,
`157).
`
`The rationale for combining Xu and Norris is set out at pages 19 and
`20 of the Petition. Relying on the Bhattacharjee Declaration, Petitioner
`argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to
`combine the requests disclosed in Norris with Xu’s hybrid CDN- and
`P2P-based architecture.” Id. at 19 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 67). The
`basis for the conclusion includes the fact that “Xu and Norris are in the same
`technical field and both address requests for content owned by one party but
`managed and delivered by another.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 383; Ex. 1004,
`col. 1, ll. 46–50, col. 1, ll. 19–24; see also Ex. 1003, 384–85; Ex. 1004,
`col. 1, ll. 57–61 (both describing use of content servers)).
`“Norris discloses a known way that a POSITA would implement
`requests in the system described in Xu depending on the particular design
`considerations.” Pet. 19 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 67). Norris describes
`HTTP, a communication standard used in CDNs, and the use of tokens, both
`of which would be implemented by the person of ordinary skill in the Xu
`system. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 39–41; Bhattacharjee Decl.
`¶ 68). For example, “the tokens described in Norris could be added to the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01306
`Patent 8,775,661 B2
`
`requests in Xu to enhance the eligibility checking in the system described in
`Xu.” Id. Petitioner concludes that:
`[U]sing the URL/token request syntax in Norris requires no more
`than a simple substitution of one known element (the URL
`request containing a token in Norris) for another (the streaming
`request in Xu) to obtain the predictable result of a content
`publisher being able “to control access to its content on the
`network by ensuring that only authorized users have access to the
`content.”
`Id. at 20.
`The rationale for combining Saroiu and Xu is set out at pages 30 and
`31 of the Petition. Petitioner first notes that Xu cites to Saroiu. Pet. 30
`(citing Ex. 1003, 398 (citing Saroiu as “Reference [11]”)). Petitioner notes
`that Xu’s P2P features are similar to the Napster system discussed in Saroiu
`and a person of ordinary skill would “look to Saroiu, which discusses how
`Napster operates, to understand the implementation details of Xu’s
`‘“Napster”-like’ CDN server.’” Id. (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 87).
`Petitioner also points to the fact that both references
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
