Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: July 14, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIVX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Argument
`Held Virtually: June 14, 2021
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: July 14, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIVX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Argument
`Held Virtually: June 14, 2021
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`HARPER BATTS, ESQ.
`CHRIS PONDER, ESQ.
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
`379 Lytton Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94301
`(650) 815-2600
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KENNETH WEATHERWAX, ESQ.
`PATRICK MALONEY, ESQ.
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`1880 Century Park East Suite 815
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`(310) 307-4500
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, June 14,
`2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m., EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Hello, everyone. We are here
`for oral arguments in IPR2020-00647, HULU, LLC, and Netflix,
`Inc., versus DivX, LLC, and IPR2020-00648, which is Netflix,
`Inc., and HULU, LLC, versus DivX, LLC.
` I am Judge Gerstenblith, and appearing with me today
`are Judges Ullagaddi and Ahmed.
` Starting -- first, let me just say that I believe --
`if you're not speaking at the moment, please go on mute.
`I'll just put that out there, and I think I took the court
`reporter into the mix, so just make sure that you're also on
`mute please.
` Starting with Petitioner, will counsel please enter
`your appearance for the record.
` MR. PONDER: Good morning -- good afternoon, Your
`Honor. I'm Chris Ponder, and with me off screen is Harper
`Batts, our lead counsel, and we're here for Petitioners.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Great. Thank you.
` And for Patent Owner, please.
` MR. MALONEY: For Patent Owner, this Patrick Maloney,
`backup counsel. I have with me here my colleague, Ken
`Weatherwax, lead counsel.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Excellent. Welcome, everyone.
` We set forth a procedure for today's oral hearing in
`our order granting the parties' request for an oral hearing,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`which happens to be Paper 22 in each proceeding.
` Each party will have 104 minutes of total argument
`time. We will begin with Petitioner, who may present its
`case with regard to the challenged claims and grounds set
`forth in the petitions. Petitioner may reserve time for
`rebuttal. Thereafter, Patent Owner may respond to
`Petitioner's argument and may also reserve time for
`sur-rebuttal. Petitioner may then present its rebuttal,
`followed by Patent Owner's sur-rebuttal.
` In this video format, we do not have a timer that I
`can share; however, when it's your turn, if you would please
`let me know how much time you would like to reserve for
`rebuttal, I am happy to remind you when we reach that point
`in your opening argument.
` A few other things to please keep in mind.
` First, it's my understanding that we are not
`discussing any information that the parties deem
`confidential. This hearing is open to the public, and there
`may be someone listening on the phone, so please keep that in
`mind.
` Second, please be as clear as possible during your
`argument regarding what slide you may be referring to or
`which exhibit so that the record is clear and that we may
`follow along. We have electronic versions of all of your
`demonstratives and all of the documents in the record.
` Third, please remember to keep your line on mute when
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`it's not your turn to speak so that we can minimize any
`background noise.
` Fourth, before speaking, please use half a second or
`so to pause in case there is any lag in the transmission.
` And, finally and importantly, if either side
`experiences any technical or other difficulties that
`fundamentally undermine counsel's ability to participate,
`please let the Panel or the IT personnel with whom you have
`been in touch regarding this hearing know as soon as
`possible, and we will make any adjustments needed. So if you
`get frozen or cannot hear something, please let us know as
`soon as possible.
` Petitioner, do you have any questions about what I
`just discussed?
` MR. PONDER: No questions for Petitioner.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. And for Patent Owner, any
`questions about what I just discussed?
` MR. MALONEY: No questions, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. I anticipate that we will
`take two shorts break: one after Petitioner concludes its
`opening argument and the second after Patent Owner concludes
`its opening argument.
` Just -- before we proceed, I just want to make sure,
`Judge Ahmed, are you still on the -- the call?
` JUDGE AHMED: Yes, I'm here.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. I don't see --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
` JUDGE AHMED: Can you hear me?
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: I can hear you. I don't see
`your video.
` Will, are you seeing -- so for the court reporter, we
`can go off the record for this.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Petitioner, if you want to let
`me know how much time you'd like to reserve for rebuttal, we
`can go from there, and you may proceed.
` ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
` MR. PONDER: Thank you. We plan to reserve 35
`minutes for rebuttal.
` And I'd like to start my presentation with Netflix
`slide 2. Today, there are two -- two grounds in both
`petitions. Ground one in both petitions is the combination
`of Pyle with Marusi, and I will be presenting the argument
`for the Petitioners on that ground. My colleague, Mr. Batts,
`will take over for me and address the second ground, which is
`Lewis and Marusi.
` We could turn to slide 3. Just wanted to orient you
`to some of the claim language that we'll be talking about
`today. These are the independent claims from both the '515
`and the '720 patents, and they have largely a number of the
`same limitations.
` As you can see, we have the preambles. There are no
`disputes over the preambles.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
` There's a limitation, which you can see, 1[b],
`receiving a request from a playback device, a playback server
`system, that identifies a piece of content and includes a
`product identifier. There are no disputes over that
`limitation.
` Next, there is a requirement of retrieving. This is
`the retrieving limitation, which you can see is 1[c] for the
`'720 patent and 1[d] for the '515 patent, and you'll hear a
`lot of arguments today about that limitation.
` Next, there is a limitation that is the filtering
`limitation, and that's element 1[d] of the '720 patent and
`1[e], as in echo, for the '515 patent.
` Finally, we have a generating limitation, generating
`a top level index describing each asset in the filtered list.
`That appears in claim 1 at 1[e] for the '720 patent and 1[f]
`for the '515 patent.
` One thing I'd like to note is there are additional
`claims in the '515 patent, namely claim 16, which is a
`separate independent claim, and that claim does not have the
`retrieving and filtering limitations here. And I just wanted
`to point that out because for those claims 16, 17, and 19,
`the only argument you're going to hear today regarding the
`patentability of those claims is the argument over '515
`element [c], which is the software version argument, so that
`is the only argument that address claims 16, 17, and 19.
` If you turn to Netflix slide 7, this slide just gives
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`you a brief roadmap of the order in which we plan to address
`the arguments. We'll explain how Pyle and Marusi teaches
`generating a new manifest file in response to a request for
`content. We'll talk about how the top level index files
`describe the filtered assets, followed by the argument
`regarding the retrieving and filtering limitations, and then
`lastly we'll get to the '515 specific argument regarding
`element 1[c].
` Turning to Netflix slide 8, I wanted to talk a little
`bit about the Pyle reference, which is the primary reference.
`It's Exhibit 1004 in both proceedings. It's a U.S. Patent
`titled "Dynamic Composition of Media," and here on the slide
`we have the abstract, and what the abstract does is it tells
`us that the patent relates to dynamic composition, including
`the ability to create interoperable combinations of content
`by a publisher, determined to be an optimal combination, and
`offer such combinations to client devices in an operable way.
` And the Pyle patent teaches us that a composition is
`dynamic in that you can combine different audio, video, and
`subtitle tracks for a given composition without changing the
`substance of the different tracks by updating the
`composition's XML manifest file.
` And I also want to note that the abstract points out
`that their invention, the Pyle invention, enables random
`devices to contact the web server and find and play a
`composition matched to the given devices and users, example
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`given, an optimal composition for a given device and user.
` Turning to Netflix slide 9, there are a couple points
`I'd like to make about the Pyle reference. First of all, we
`have Figure 2, which I'm sure you've seen a lot of in the
`petition, depicts a system for HTTP delivery of streaming
`media using manifest files. And, importantly, Pyle teaches
`that manifest files can be an XML document. Pyle teaches
`that multiple manifest files can be maintained for each piece
`of content and multiple representations of content can be
`maintained and described with multiple attributes. And you
`can see some of those attributes, the different parameters by
`which you can organize, in -- illustrated in Figure 3 and its
`-- its accompanying text.
` Turning to Netflix slide 10, in the top quote shown
`here, he's referring to Figure 2, and, really, this portion
`makes quite clear that their different representations in
`Pyle are each different alternative streams of content and
`that these alternative streams can vary based upon things
`like bitrate, resolution, languages, or things like a
`theatrical cut or a different ratings cut, for example, PG-13
`or an R-rated cut.
` There's really no possible dispute that Pyle's
`manifest files teach the claimed top level index file. For
`example, the bottom quote, which comes from column 8 at lines
`3 to 9, explains the format of Pyle's manifest files. An XML
`document is a well-known format for changing data and format.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`It is both human readable and computer readable. Each
`manifest file, this quote tells us, includes the location and
`other attributes for at least one content segment associated
`with one or more representations.
` A number of the Patent Owner's arguments center on
`whether Pyle's manifest files teach a list of assets. And
`there are a few points to keep in mind concerning the
`manifest file.
` Let me turn to Netflix slide 42. I did want to bring
`to your attention Dr. Reader's further explanation at his
`deposition where he was asked a number of questions about the
`manifest files. In here, we put some of Dr. Reader's
`testimony that you may not have seen in the petition, because
`his deposition occurred later, where Patent Owner really
`pushed for his basis for contending that a single manifest
`file contains a list of assets.
` And he pointed out that a clear graphical way to see
`this is right there in Figure 2 where manifest 3 is an
`example of a representation -- I'm sorry, manifest 3 is an
`example of a manifest where it has more than one
`representation.
` And, notably, they ask him, And why would these
`representations be stored as a list?
` And you can see Dr. Reader's answer explaining, well,
`they naturally comprise a list. If you have multiple things,
`then they comprise a list.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
` 43, Netflix slide 43, is an enlargement of Figure 2,
`just so it's easier to see what Dr. Reader was talking about,
`and we highlighted in orange the manifest he pointed to,
`manifest 3. And you can see that manifest 3 shown in this
`figure is containing both representation 2 as well as
`representation M, and we know from Pyle that each of these
`representations are alternatives for the piece of content
`206.
` Turning to slide 45, the Patent Owner continued to
`press Dr. Reader to explain his basis for a manifest file
`being a list of representations, and here he explained how
`this is shown in Figure 2. And he points out how Figure 2
`suggests to a POSITA how manifest 3 would be laid out. They
`would have representation 2 and representation M.
` And turning to slide 46, they ask him, well, how
`could manifest 3 be laid out?
` And Dr. Reader explained, well, it would have a
`linear organization of the representations included in it,
`and one might very well then refer that -- refer to that as a
`list.
` That's testimony that's shown on Netflix slide 46.
` Now I'd like to get to our first argument, which is
`generating a manifest file in response to a request for
`content.
` The Patent Owner's arguments on the generating
`limitation are wrong. As you can see in their Patent Owner
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`sur-reply at 7, they try to argue that Pyle, unlike the
`patent, does not generate a customized top level index file
`in response to a request from a device and argue, also on
`sur-reply at 7, rather Pyle responds to a request for content
`by sending a preexisting manifest currently stored on the
`system.
` Well, there's no dispute between the parties that
`Pyle does teach storing manifest files, but what they choose
`to ignore is that -- that Pyle also teaches creating new
`manifest files, and there's nothing in the claims that
`precludes creating a new manifest file in response to a
`request for content, storing it and sending it in response to
`that request. There's nothing in the claims. We pointed out
`that argument in our reply; they never addressed it.
` And I'd note that in the institution decision for the
`'720 IPR at 34 to 35, the Board agreed that there was an
`example of a new manifest file created by a content provider,
`and the Board found that Pyle was not limited to that single
`example.
` And I point out that this is an area where the Patent
`Owner's arguments have been evolving. Their original
`argument was Pyle strictly -- that Pyle server doesn't
`generate new manifest files in response to a request for
`content, in other words, that Pyle does not teach creating a
`new manifest file, that it had to be an actual person
`creating a manifest file, and that argument was rejected.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`You can see that original argument was in their Patent Owner
`preliminary response at 6, and that's the argument that was
`rejected in the institution decision at 34 and 35.
` Okay. Well, what evidence is there that Pyle creates
`a new manifest file? Well, let's take a look at Netflix
`slide 13 where we can see Pyle's Figure 4, and Pyle's Figure 4
`shows a request for content 420 going into a composition
`component, and then we see two things coming out of the
`composition component: selected manifest 418, and we also
`show new manifest 422 coming out.
` This clearly shows what Pyle teaches. Pyle teaches
`that in response to your request for content, the system can
`send an existing manifest, if that's the optimal version, and
`that's what's shown in 418, but it also teaches that if it
`needs to create a new manifest file, it can do that and
`respond with the new manifest file at 422.
` Now let's look at the text that's corresponding to
`this figure and what the petition and Dr. Reader relied upon.
`Turn to Netflix 15. So this is the Pyle passage that starts
`at column 10, line 57, and runs to column 11, line 10. And
`you've probably looked at this many times in the course of
`the briefing.
` This is the portion of Pyle where it really does talk
`about creating a new manifest file in the context of Figure 4.
`And we see in the first sentence, and I would encourage
`you to closely read this paragraph, and the first -- the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`first sentence talks about that the composition component can
`be further configured to facilitate composition of new
`manifest 422, which can be stored amongst other manifests
`204. Okay.
` The next sentence talks about that the new manifests
`can be composed, based upon a set of attributes that
`correspond to features of one or more track sets identified
`by the track set component. Okay.
` And Dr. Reader opines about the track set component.
`That's something that he points to, but that's the part of
`Pyle that has the capability to look at these manifest files
`and figure out what are the alternative representations that
`are available.
` Now let's look at the next sentence. Now this
`sentence is the one the Patent Owner points to. It says, For
`example, a content provider can compose new manifest 422
`specifically tailored to, example given, track sets that
`receive the most requests, deliveries, and/or presentations.
`Okay. So we have a teaching of creating a new manifest file.
`And their argument is that it doesn't say that the
`manifest file is being created in response to our request.
`Okay? Well, it also doesn't say when. This particular
`teaching is implied in Pyle.
` But let's look at the next sentence, which is the
`sentence that we point to as clearly showing a manifest file
`created in response to a request. First, it starts with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`"furthermore," indicating this is a further teaching, it's
`not the same teaching as the prior sentence. It says, New
`manifest 422 can be optimized in connection with delivery or
`presentation -- let's stop there for a moment. It's talking
`about the time when this new manifest file is being created.
`And when is it being created? When is this happening? When
`you have a delivery or presentation. When does that occur in
`Pyle system? When you have a request.
` Now let's look at what the different things that can
`be considered when creating a manifest file. It says, based
`upon at least one of, and then it has four separate clauses
`there. And I would point out that the third says, a
`particular network or network conditions, example given,
`bandwidth, latency, quality of service, etcetera, and, four,
`a particular setting or preference or a particular set of
`settings or preferences -- boy, that's a mouthful --
`including, for example, French-speaking, hearing impaired,
`ratings-based content block.
` Now the reason why I point out those particular
`teachings, and in particular the latency, is this sentence is
`saying that when you are making a connection, in connection
`with a delivery or presentation, one of the things that you
`should consider is the latency that is happening at the time
`of the request.
` That's how we know that Pyle teaches both creating
`new manifests ahead of time, based upon, for example, in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`prior sentence, based upon which tracks or representations
`are the most popular, but that's not the only teaching, and
`the second sentence that begins with "furthermore" teaches
`doing it at the time of a request to account for request-
`specific issues, such as latency and bandwidth and quality of
`service.
` There's no merit to DivX's claim that the petition
`and Dr. Reader did not rely on Figure 4 as evidence for
`generating a manifest file in response to a request for
`content. And I don't think this warrants much argument, but
`I point out that the '720 petition at pages 42 to 44, that's
`limitation 1[e], the generating limitation, reproduces Figure
`4 and includes a block quote from this passage that starts at
`10:57, and it discusses new manifest 422.
` And in the '515 petition, and in particular if you
`look at Dr. Reader's declaration there at paragraph 184, he
`says, Pyle further teaches transmitting a manifest file to
`the requesting device in response to the request for content
`and then cites Figure 4 and this passage here at 10:55, which
`he characterizes as transmitting a new manifest file. That's
`what he put behind that citation.
` Now Dr. Reader was asked about the meaning of this
`passage at 10:57 extensively at his deposition. And he
`explains that a POSITA would have understood this passage to
`teach generating a new manifest file in response to a request
`from a client because, as he says, it would've been
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`inconceivable to anticipate all the potential combinations of
`the factors identified in this paragraph 10 -- column 10,
`line 57 sequitur ahead of time, and he talks about
`particularly given that new devices, new types of playback
`devices, were being created all the time.
` And you can see this testimony on Netflix slide 17,
`and that portion I was just referring to is the second
`paragraph of his answer.
` Now I want to point out that the Patent Owner tries
`to create the appearance that Dr. Reader agrees with its
`argument that Pyle only creates and stores a new manifest.
`And if you take a look at DivX's slide, slide number 12 --
`give me a moment while I go there -- at the bottom of their
`slide, they have a quote that comes from this testimony, but
`what's amazing about it is they only use 15 words from his
`very long answer that explains in detail why it would've been
`obvious, and they cut off his answer right before the "but"
`that prefaced his explanation for why it would make no sense
`that a system like Pyle would not be able to create new
`manifests needed in response to requests for content.
` And DivX's slide 13 makes the claim that you
`shouldn't consider this testimony by Dr. Reader, that it's
`somehow improper, but I point out that DivX itself put this
`testimony front and center in its Patent Owner response, it
`quoted in its Patent Owner response, and they even had Dr.
`Zeger try to give a rebuttal to this testimony, and that's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`what's here on their slide at slide 13.
` Something very important and notable about Dr.
`Zeger's testimony is he doesn't refute what Dr. Reader said
`about what was actually going on in the marketplace. He's
`not disputing that people were creating all these new
`devices, and he's not disputing that it would be
`inconceivable for a content provider, a person operating
`Pyle's system, to keep track of all the potential playback
`devices.
` Instead, his analysis, if you can call it that,
`offers a conclusory opinion that he doesn't see any reason
`why a POSITA would modify Pyle to create a new manifest.
`Well, he jumps to that conclusion. He doesn't explain why
`this paragraph that we just looked at doesn't teach creating
`a new manifest and says, oh, I don't see a reason to modify
`it. Well, you don't have to modify it. It's a teaching in
`Pyle.
` I'd also note that the Patent Owner admits that 10:57
`to 11:10 teaches creating a new manifest file. You can see
`that at Patent Owner -- Patent Owner response at 4 -- 4 --
`pages 4 to 5 for the '720, and what they do is they attempt
`to distinguish that teaching by saying that a new manifest
`file is stored after it's created, and that's their argument
`that's at '720 sur-reply at page 8.
` But, as I noted earlier, there's nothing in the claim
`language that precludes storing and sending a new manifest
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`file that was created in response to a request for content.
`And I do want to bring to your attention that that argument
`was on the reply at pages 8 to 9, in both replies. DivX's
`sur-reply did not address this fact or this argument in its
`sur-reply, let alone in their Patent Owner response.
` Patent Owner's argument that 422's new manifest arrow
`depicts creating a new manifest concerned with other
`manifests. And if you turn back to slide 19 -- this is
`Netflix slide 19 -- this is their annotated figure that they
`put in their materials. And what they try to argue is the
`new manifest is some separate teaching, that it's not
`connected to the request file, and they argue that this new
`manifest file is being created and stored.
` Well, that doesn't make any sense if you actually
`take a look at the figure. Because if that was true, then
`this arrow should not be pointing back at the direction of
`where both the request 420 is coming from, where the selected
`manifest 418 is going to. Where should the arrow, the new
`manifest arrow, be pointing if Patent Owner is right? Well,
`it would be pointing to the bottom of this figure. If you
`look at the bottom of Figure 4, it's got the data store.
` And Pyle's Figure 4 includes arrows showing the
`connectivity between these various components and the data
`store. If you look on the right-hand side, you can see the
`arrow, which is depicting the connection between the
`composition component, the manifest component, the track set
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`component, and the storage component, back to the data store
`at the bottom. So it makes no sense to interpret Figure 4,
`the new manifest arrow at 422, to be intended to depict
`creating a new manifest file and simply putting it in a data
`store and not sending it in response to a request.
` And if you could turn to slide 20, I did want to
`point out something about the Patent Owner's optimization
`argument, which I reproduced here. You can see that they
`argue that Pyle column 5, lines 12 to 17, support its
`position that manifests in Pyle are stored and not updated
`for each request. That's right there in their -- in the
`portion reproduced. But the quoted portion refers to
`reducing, not eliminating live update traffic for manifest
`files, so it's really not clear how it supports the Patent
`Owner's argument.
` But what's more interesting is if you actually go
`back to Pyle and look at the immediately preceding sentence,
`what Pyle actually says there is that as part of live
`streaming, the MPD -- that's the manifest file -- are
`constantly changing. So this idea that Pyle creates a
`manifest file one time, stores it, and it stays the same
`forever is wrong, as shown by the evidence that the Patent
`Owner has pointed to.
` I'm about to transition to the next argument, in case
`the Panel had any questions on that argument; otherwise, I'm
`fine proceeding.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Counsel, this is Judge
`Gerstenblith. So a question I have is -- and I don't want to
`take you off your plan -- but when you're talking about
`generating, are you covering for both cases now, or are you
`going to switch to the '648 case? So if I have question
`about the '648 case, should I ask now?
` MR. PONDER: Yes. This -- this argument applies to
`both.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. So in the '648 case, I'm
`going to take you to petition pages -- and I -- I hear a
`delay in myself speaking. I don't -- Well, I don't know -- I
`don't know if any -- if nobody else is hearing it, then I'm
`fine. Mr. Ponder, are you hearing a delay with me?
` MR. PONDER: I'm -- I'm not hearing a delay. I can
`-- I can hear and understand you. Your mouth is moving with
`the word -- with your sound, so I think it's fine for me.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Then I'll -- then I'll
`keep going. So if you look at petition pages 34 to 35, and
`I'm in the '648 case --
` MR. PONDER: Okay.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- and this is addressing
`limitation 1[f], which is the generating limitation.
` MR. PONDER: Okay. So I think that is --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Is this something --
` MR. PONDER: Yes. So --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- that you're --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
` MR. PONDER: -- go ahead. Sorry.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- planning to -- is this
`something that you're going to -- that you're planning to
`come back to later, or, again, I don't want to take you off
`your plan --
` MR. PONDER: I believe I'm coming to that argument
`after I address the retrieving and filtering because they
`kind of -- it kind of flows together, but --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay.
` MR. PONDER: -- I just wanted to hit this one
`argument first about the new teaching, creating new manifest
`files because that's an argument that kind of -- the Patent
`Owner brings up for both retrieving, filtering, and
`generating. So I'll get to generating after retrieving and
`filtering, which is coming up.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Sounds good. I'll hold
`off then until you get there. Thank you.
` MR. PONDER: Okay. So the next argument I'd like to
`talk about is the top level index describing the filtered
`assets.
` The Patent Owner's argument here is a little bit
`difficult to follow. It's not entirely clear how this
`argument, at least to me, is different from their retrieving
`and filtering argument. And the reason why I say that is if
`you look at their sur-reply, for example the '720 sur-reply
`at page 6, the Patent Owner claims that the reason that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00648
`Patent 9,998,515 B2
`
`petition is deficient is because the Patent Owner argues that
`Pyle does not teach creating a new manifest file. And that's
`the argument we just addressed.
` Putting aside the issue of new manifest file, I do
`want to point out that we do address and explain in both
`petitions how the manifest file that's created from these
`processes of retrieving and filtering and then generating has
`to des
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
