Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: March 9, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`____________
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: March 9, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`____________
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`In a Decision rendered on November 13, 2019, we denied institution
`of trial with respect to claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 19, 23‒25, 27‒30, 32, 33, and 41
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468 (“the ’468 patent”) on any ground of
`unpatentability asserted in the Petition. Paper 11 (“Dec.”). The Decision
`stated that the Petition asserted the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`1, 23, 24, 25, 30
`103(a)
`Hoang ’980
`
`6, 28
`
`13, 27
`
`19, 29
`
`15, 32
`
`33
`
`41
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Hoang ’980, Venkatesh
`
`Hoang ’980, Hoang ’267
`
`Hoang ’980, Hoang ’561
`
`Hoang ’980, OpenCable
`
`Hoang ’980, Cameron
`
`Hoang ’980, Shteyn
`
`Dec. 7.
`On December 13, 2019, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing
`(“Request” or “Req. Reh’g”) (Paper 12). Petitioner requests that we
`reconsider the denial of ground one (obviousness over Hoang) and institute
`this proceeding. Id. at 1, 12.
`On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether
`to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the
`decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`§ 42.71(c). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`For reasons discussed below, we decline to modify the Decision.
`Thus, Petitioner’s Request is denied.
`II. DISCUSSION
`Petitioner argues in the Request that the Board misapprehended the
`argument set forth in the Petition, incorrectly characterizing Ground 1 as
`requiring redundant access control. Req. Reh’g 2‒9. Petitioner argues the
`Petition instead proposed adding a bidirectional communication link to
`Hoang ’980’s unidirectional embodiment, which would permit the disclosed
`unidirectional access control technique to also be used to access
`programming that requires a bidirectional link, such as user-initiated video
`on demand (VOD) programming. Id. Petitioner argues combining the
`embodiments in this manner would allow a user to control when
`programming is delivered. Id. Petitioner contends the Petition set forth a
`reasonable likelihood of establishing that claim 1 is unpatentable over these
`teachings of Hoang ’980. Id. at 9‒12.
`Petitioner has not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked
`in the Petition the argument that Petitioner now sets forth. In the Decision,
`we explained that the Petition relies on a combination of Hoang ’980’s
`bidirectional and unidirectional systems to meet the limitations of claim 1.
`Dec. 12. We explained that the Petition “relies on the unidirectional
`embodiment that employs a central controlling server to generate
`subscription data packets to be transmitted to client’s set top boxes for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`limitation ‘a controller node coupled to the service provider network.’” Id. at
`12‒13 (citing Pet. 20‒25). We explained that the Petition “relies on the
`bidirectional embodiment that transmits content requests to the cable system
`service provider network for the limitation ‘at least a second processor
`coupled to the second one or more network interfaces, wherein the second
`processor is to selectively transmit content requests to the service provider
`network in accordance with the controller instructions.’” Id. at 13 (citing Pet.
`37‒44). Petitioner’s argument that we misapprehended its reliance on
`bidirectional access control techniques is unpersuasive because the cited
`portions of the Petition indeed rely on an embodiment incorporating
`bidirectional access techniques (see Pet. 37‒44), not merely a bidirectional
`link as Petitioner now proposes (see Req. Reh’g 2‒9).
`In particular, the Petition relies on Hoang ’980’s teaching of QAM
`demodulator 602 to establish that the embodiment disclosed in Figure 8,
`which relates to unidirectional access control, “supports a bidirectional
`interface to the cable system service provider network.” Pet. 39 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 166). The Petition explains that the user may select a data-on-
`demand (DOD) service to access using the electronic programming guide
`(EPG) user interface taught in Figure 8. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 39). The
`Petition explains how the set top box checks the user’s permission levels in
`the subscription data packet before allowing the user to access the selected
`program. Id. at 39‒40. This explanation comports with the unidirectional
`access control embodiment, which Petitioner asserts included a bidirectional
`communication link.
`However, the Petition explains that the preferred embodiment of
`Hoang ’980 does not explicitly disclose “transmit[ting] the content requests
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`to the service provider network.” Pet. 41. The Petition states gaining access
`via transmission of a content request “is obvious over the combination of
`Hoang ’980’s preferred embodiment system in Figs. 7 and 8 with the bi-
`directional on-demand systems of Hoang ’980’s Figs. 3 and 4.” Pet. 41. The
`Petition then explains how content requests are transmitted in the
`bidirectional system taught in Figs. 3 and 4. See id. at 42‒44.
`The Petition specifically relies on the “demand that server provide
`requested client specific data” of Hoang ’980’s bidirectional system as part
`of the “access selected DOD service” at step 706 of Hoang ’980’s
`unidirectional access system. Pet. 42. The “demand that server provide
`requested client specific data” step in Hoang ’980’s bidirectional access
`system is part of a back-and-forth process of bidirectional communication
`involving both the client and the server, as described in more detail in Hoang
`’980’s description of the prior art bidirectional systems. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15‒
`25. In this process, the DOD server makes a determination as to whether a
`client is authorized to receive the requested data. Id. ¶ 21. In other words,
`combining these embodiments in the manner set forth in the Petition would
`result in redundant access control, as noted in the Decision. See Dec. 16‒17.
`Petitioner now asserts that the Petition only relies on a bidirectional
`link to access additional features, such as VOD programming, and not on the
`bidirectional access control techniques. See Req. Reh’g 2‒9. But the Petition
`set forth evidence that the unidirectional embodiment described in Figures 7
`and 8 included a bidirectional link, relying on QAM demodulator 602, as
`noted above. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 166). Petitioner’s additional reliance
`on the “demand that server provide requested client specific data” step
`(Pet. 42) requires reliance on a combination of the unidirectional
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`embodiment with Hoang ’980’s prior art bidirectional access control system.
`Notably, the Petition does not propose adding a demand for content alone,
`out of the context of the bidirectional system. See Pet. 40‒42. Instead, the
`Petition asserts “[g]aining access via transmission of a content request is
`obvious over the combination of Hoang ’980’s preferred embodiment
`system in Figs. 7 and 8 with the bi-directional on-demand systems of Hoang
`’980’s Figs. 3 and 4.” Pet. 41. Thus, the Petition asserts a combination of the
`embodiments beyond merely adding a content request transmitted to the
`server, as Petitioner now proposes.
`Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments in the Request, the Petition relied
`on a combination of two embodiments that would result in redundant access
`control systems and did not provide adequate reasoning why one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined the embodiments. Thus, Petitioner has
`not persuaded us that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters raised
`in the Petition.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden of
`demonstrating that the Decision denying instituting trial (Paper 11) should
`be modified.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`Patent 8,799,468
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot Williams
`Hopkins Guy
`Ali Dhanani
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`Eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`Hop.guy@bakerbotts.com
`Ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Benjamin Johnson
`Jeffrey Toler
`TOLER LAW GROUP, PC
`bjohnson@tlgiplaw.com
`jtoler@tlgiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
