UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`AUDIBLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00757
`U.S. Patent No. 10,091,266
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,091,266
`
`
`__________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`AUDIBLE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00757
`U.S. Patent No. 10,091,266
`__________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,091,266
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART ------------------------------- 2
`A.
`Exchanging a Content Identifier and a Play Position
`Between Devices Was Well Known ------------------------------------- 2
`Simultaneously and Synchronously Presenting Digital
`Content Across Two Devices Was Well Known ---------------------- 3
`Discarding Unneeded Content From Device Memory Was
`Well Known ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`III. THE ’266 PATENT --------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`A. Overview -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`B.
`Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`C.
`Prosecution ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`D.
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date Is November 22, 2016 ----------- 8
`1.
`Legal Standard for Priority ---------------------------------------- 8
`2.
`The ’266 Patent’s Priority Chain Does Not Disclose
`Two Clients Rendering Content “Simultaneously
`and in Synchronization” ------------------------------------------- 9
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ----------------------------- 11
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ----------------------------------------------------- 12
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ---------------------- 12
`A. Grounds -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`B.
`Status of References as Prior Art --------------------------------------- 13
`VII. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-9 AND 12-13 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF ABECASSIS, DRIEU, AND
`BARTON -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`1.
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------------------ 13
`2.
`1[a]: Rendering Primary Content on a First Client
`Device --------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`1[b][i]: Determining an Identifier of the Primary
`Content on a First Client Device -------------------------------- 15
`1[b][ii]: The Identifier Identifies a Descriptor of the
`Primary Content --------------------------------------------------- 16
`1[c]: Determining a Position in the Primary Content
`on the First Device ------------------------------------------------ 17
`1[d][i]: Transferring the Identifier and Position from
`the First Device to a Second Device ---------------------------- 18
`1[d][ii]: The Transfer Is Via a Network Accessible
`Library -------------------------------------------------------------- 22
`1[e]: Downloading the Descriptor from the Library
`to the Second Device ---------------------------------------------- 25
`1[f]: Rendering Secondary Content on the Second
`Device --------------------------------------------------------------- 27
`1[g]: Identifying Primary Content to Be Retained ------------ 30
`1[h]: Releasing Storage of All Other Primary
`Content -------------------------------------------------------------- 33
`1[i]-1[j]: Identifying Secondary Content Related to
`Primary Content to Be Retained and Releasing All
`Other Portions of Secondary Content --------------------------- 33
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`1.
`2[a]: Secondary Content Comprises a Series of
`Items ---------------------------------------------------------------- 36
`
`10.
`11.
`
`12.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2[b]: Determining on the Second Device an Item
`Associated with the First Position Using the
`Descriptor ---------------------------------------------------------- 36
`2[c]: Item Associated with the First Position Is
`Rendered on the Second Device --------------------------------- 38
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
`C.
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 40
`D.
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 40
`E.
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
`F.
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
`G.
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
`H.
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
`I.
`Claim 12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 45
`J.
`Claim 13 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
`K.
`VIII. GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 10-12 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF ABECASSIS, DRIEU, BARTON,
`AND WALKER ------------------------------------------------------------------ 48
`A.
`Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
`B.
`Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`C.
`Claim 12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`IX. GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1-13 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF MCCUE AND SHARMA ------------------------ 51
`A.
`Claim 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
`1.
`Preamble ------------------------------------------------------------ 52
`2.
`1[a]: Rendering Primary Content on a First Client
`Device --------------------------------------------------------------- 53
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`1[b]: Determining an Identifier Corresponding to the
`Primary Content on a First Client Device, Wherein
`the Identifier Identifies a Descriptor ---------------------------- 53
`1[c]: Determining a Position in the Primary Content
`on the First Device ------------------------------------------------ 54
`1[d][i]: Transferring the Identifier and Position from
`the First Device to a Second Device ---------------------------- 54
`1[d][ii]: The Transfer Is Via a Network Library -------------- 55
`1[e]: Downloading the Descriptor from the Library
`to the Second Device ---------------------------------------------- 55
`1[f][i]: Rendering Secondary Content on the Second
`Device --------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`1[f][ii]: The Secondary Content Is Ancillary ------------------ 56
`1[f][iii]: The Secondary Content Is Rendered
`Simultaneously and in Synchronization Across
`Devices ------------------------------------------------------------- 57
`1[g]: Identifying Primary Content to Be Retained ------------ 60
`1[h]: Releasing Storage of All Other Primary
`Content -------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`1[i]-1[j]: Identifying Secondary Content Related to
`Primary Content to Be Retained and Releasing All
`Other Portions of Secondary Content --------------------------- 61
`Claim 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 62
`Claim 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`Claim 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
`Claim 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`Claim 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
`Claim 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`
`9.
`10.
`
`11.
`12.
`
`13.
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`H.
`Claim 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`Claim 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
`I.
`Claim 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`J.
`Claim 11 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`K.
`Claim 12 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
`L.
`M. Claim 13 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
`X. GROUND 2B: CLAIMS 10-12 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF MCCUE, SHARMA AND WALKER ---------- 68
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ----------------------------------------- 70
`XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 70
`A.
`Factor 1: Potential Stay --------------------------------------------------- 70
`B.
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD ----------------------------------- 71
`C.
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding --------------------------- 72
`D.
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues -------------------------------------------- 73
`E.
`Factor 5: The Parties ------------------------------------------------------ 74
`F.
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ------------------------------------------ 74
`XIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 74
`XIV. CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 75
`XV. MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING,
`AND FEE PAYMENT ----------------------------------------------------------- 75
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ------------------------ 75
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ------------------------------- 75
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ------------------ 76
`
`v
`
`
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) -------------------------- 78
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ------------------------- 78
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) -------------------------------- 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies OY,
`IPR2024-01140, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. February 12, 2025) ----------------- 71, 73
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) -------------------- 70, 74
`Aptiv Services US, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00646, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. September 25, 2024) ------------------ 72
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`35 F.4th 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ---------------------------------------------------- 9
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ---------------------------------------------------- 73
`Ericsson Inc. v. XR Communications LLC,
`IPR2024-00613, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. October 9, 2024) ------------------- 72, 73
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) ------------------------- 74
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ---------------------------------------------------- 11
`Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A.,
`18 F.4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ---------------------------------------------------- 9
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ---------------------------------------------------------- passim
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) -------------------------------------------------- 70
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) -------------------------------------------- 8, 9, 11
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) -------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) --------------------------------------------------- 9
`Quasar Sci. LLC v. Colt Int’l Clothing, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00611, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2023) -------------------------- 75
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Empire Technology Development LLC,
`IPR2024-00896, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. December 13, 2024) ------------------- 73
`Sec. First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:23-cv-00097, 2024 WL 234720 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2024) ------------ 70
`Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00351, 2018 WL 11198604
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2018) ---------------------------------------------------------- 71
`Shenzen Chic Elecs. v. Pilot, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00810, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2023)--------------------------- 74
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) --------------------------- 73
`The NOCO Co., Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01417, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2024) --------------------------- 11
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ---------------------------------------------------- 13
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ---------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. §102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`35 U.S.C. §103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`35 U.S.C. §112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 12
`35 U.S.C. §120 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`35 U.S.C. §314 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 70, 74
`
`viii
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §325 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 74, 75
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`284 (2011) §3(n)(1)---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent. No. 10,091,266 (“the ’266 patent”)
`Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1003-1019 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0093093 (“Abecassis”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0259711 (“Drieu”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0034374 (“Barton”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0256903 (“Walker”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0084455 (“McCue”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0280695 (“Sharma”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1026-1034 Not Used
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0148638 (“Weisman”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1036-1049 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 15/054,756, filed February 26, 2016 (“the
`’756 application”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1051-1094 Not Used
`
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,091,266
`
`CV of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1035
`
`1050
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`Exhibit List, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc., and Audible, Inc. (“Petitioners” or “Amazon”) respectfully request
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,091,266 (“the ’266 patent”),
`
`which Audio Pod IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’266 patent claims relate to rendering, simultaneously and in synchroni-
`
`zation, first content on a first device and secondary content on a second device. The
`
`claims are lengthy, but merely combine three known concepts: (1) exchanging a
`
`content “identifier” and a “play position” between two devices; (2) simultaneously
`
`and synchronously presenting digital content on two devices; and (3) discarding un-
`
`needed content from device memory.
`
`By the time of the patent’s earliest possible priority date in 2016, each of these
`
`concepts was well known. For example, in 2015, Abecassis disclosed simultane-
`
`ously and synchronously displaying content on two devices using an identifier and
`
`a play position. Years earlier, in 2009, Drieu disclosed using a server to send an
`
`identifier and play position between devices. And, in 2002, Barton disclosed the
`
`claimed method of discarding content from memory to reduce storage demand.
`
`These references render the claims obvious.
`
`PO’s own prior patents also render the claims unpatentable. U.S. Patent Pub-
`
`lication No. 2012/0084455 (“McCue”) published long before the ’266 patent’s 2016
`
`1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`priority date. McCue discloses or renders obvious every limitation of the ’266 patent
`
`claims except simultaneously and synchronously presenting content on two devices.
`
`However, that limitation was known in the art and disclosed by Sharma in 2014.
`
`Thus, the Board should cancel the challenged claims.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`A. Exchanging a Content Identifier and a Play Position
`Between Devices Was Well Known.
`
`By 2016, exchanging content information between devices was well known.
`
`For example, Abecassis taught that a second device obtains a “video ID” and a play
`
`position for the video playing on a first device to allow the devices to display content
`
`simultaneously. (EX-1020 ¶¶[0258], [0261], [0281], Abstract.) The second device
`
`used the video ID to obtain a “video map” describing the video content as well as
`
`information and content necessary to display supplemental content. (Id. ¶[0067].)
`
`The second device used the play position to display supplemental content such as
`
`images, location information, subtitles, or shopping items related to the video play-
`
`ing on the primary device. (Id. ¶¶[0067], [0084], [0108], [0134]-[0136], Abstract.)
`
`Drieu disclosed exchanging content information, including a “media object
`
`identifier” and a play position, between devices via a server. (EX-1021 ¶¶[0024],
`
`[0030], [0037]-[0038].)
`
`
`
`PO’s own prior art, McCue, also disclosed exchanging content information,
`
`including a content identifier and a play position, between devices. (EX-1002 ¶36.)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`B.
`
`Simultaneously and Synchronously Presenting Digital
`Content Across Two Devices Was Well Known.
`
`By 2016, simultaneously and synchronously presenting digital content on two
`
`devices was also well known. Abecassis taught a second device that “display[s]
`
`information on the second screen device synchronized with the contemporaneously
`
`played video on the primary screen device.” (EX-1020, Abstract.) Sharma likewise
`
`taught a multi-screen system where a user “may consume second screen content in
`
`synchronization with primary content that the user simultaneously consumes via a
`
`first screen device.” (EX-1025 ¶[0059].)
`
`C. Discarding Unneeded Content From Device Memory
`Was Well Known.
`
`Discarding unneeded content from device memory was also well known. For
`
`example, Barton disclosed streaming content using a linear cache (“LC”). (EX-1022
`
`¶[0031].) Barton’s LC is shown in Figure 3:
`
`3
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 31; EX-1002 ¶39.) Barton disclosed identifying and retaining a “window”
`
`of content around the user’s current position. (EX-1022 ¶¶[0048]-[0049].) Content
`
`outside the window is discarded to reduce memory demand. (Id. ¶[0049].)
`
`McCue disclosed a similar process. (EX-1002 ¶40.) McCue teaches “a
`
`memory purge process” that ensures that a “requested level of free memory is made
`
`available.” (EX-1024 ¶[0091].) McCue’s purge “focuses on the bookmark position
`
`within the audio stream.” (Id. ¶[0096].) The process for purging bookmarked audio
`
`
`1 Figures may be annotated for clarity.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`streams is shown in Figure 13, which shows ranges of content to be purged depend-
`
`ing on memory demand:
`
`
`
`(EX-1024, Fig. 13.)
`
`III. THE ’266 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`The ’266 patent’s specification is extremely similar to McCue’s because
`
`McCue is a continuation-in-part of a patent in the priority chain of the ’266 patent.
`
`Indeed, most of the ’266 patent’s disclosure is verbatim in McCue, although McCue
`
`added more disclosure. Relevant here, the ’266 patent, like McCue, discusses trans-
`
`ferring a bookmark from a first client to a second client. (EX-1001, 8:24-41, Fig.
`
`9.) The bookmark identifies the particular content and the position in the content.
`
`(Id., 8:10-11, Fig. 9.) Like McCue, the ’266 patent also discloses discarding un-
`
`needed content from memory. (Id., 12:66-13:1, 13:23-49, Fig. 13.)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`B. Claims
`
`Claims 1-13 are challenged in this petition. Claim 1 is representative and re-
`
`cites a “method of rendering digital content across multiple client devices.” The
`
`method comprises several steps, falling into three categories. A first set of steps
`
`relates to rendering content on a first device:
`
`[a] rendering on a first client device at least a portion of primary
`digital content;
`[b] determining on the first client device an identifier corre-
`sponding to the primary digital content, wherein the
`identifier identifies a descriptor of the primary content;
`[c] determining on the first client device a first position in the
`primary digital content;
`
`
`The second set of steps relates to rendering associated content on a second device:
`
`[d] transferring the identifier and the first position from the first
`client device to a second client device via a network ac-
`cessible library;
`[e] downloading the descriptor from the network accessible li-
`brary to the second client device by using the identifier;
`[f] rendering on the second client device at least a portion of sec-
`ondary other digital content associated with the primary
`digital content by using the descriptor and the first posi-
`tion, wherein the secondary digital content is ancillary to
`the primary digital content, and wherein the secondary
`digital content is rendered on the second client device
`simultaneously and in synchronization with the render-
`ing of the primary digital content on the first client de-
`vice;
`
`
`Finally, a third set of steps relates to discarding unneeded content on the first and
`
`second devices:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`[g] identifying a range of content surrounding the first position
`in the primary digital content as content to be retained;
`[h] releasing storage resources allocated to all content of the pri-
`mary digital content that is not identified as content to be
`retained on the first client device;
`[i] identifying content in the secondary digital content that is re-
`lated to the range of content surrounding the first posi-
`tion in the primary digital content as content to be re-
`tained; and
`[j] releasing storage resources allocated to all content of the sec-
`ondary digital content that is not identified as content to
`be retained on the second client device.
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution
`
`The originally filed claims related to rendering digital content across multiple
`
`client devices. (EX-1095, 218-20.) Certain original claims also related to rendering
`
`ancillary digital content on a second client device “in synchronization” with first
`
`digital content on a first client device, but did not recite rendering content “simulta-
`
`neously” with other content. (Id.) The Examiner rejected the original claims as
`
`obvious over two prior art references not relied on herein. (Id., 124-28.)
`
`In response, PO amended the independent claims to recite that “the secondary
`
`digital content is rendered on the second client device simultaneously and in syn-
`
`chronization with rendering of the primary digital content on the first client device.”
`
`(Id., 112.) PO argued that a cited reference (Griffin) did not teach two pieces of
`
`content “rendered simultaneously and in synchronization.” (Id., 119 (emphasis in
`
`original).) The Examiner had cited Griffin as disclosing playback of a second con-
`
`tent file from where playback of a first content file was stopped “so that the playback
`
`7
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`can seamlessly continue.” (Id.) The Examiner argued this satisfied the original
`
`claim’s “synchronization” requirement. (Id.) PO overcame Griffin by arguing that
`
`Griffin’s second content file was “rendered subsequently to, not simultaneously
`
`with” its first content file. (Id.) Thus, Griffin did not disclose the amended claim
`
`language.
`
`PO also argued that the claims of its prior patent “make no mention of render-
`
`ing secondary, ancillary digital content simultaneously with primary digital con-
`
`tent.” (Id., 117.) This amendment is the first time the term “simultaneously” was
`
`introduced into what became the ’266 patent.
`
`The Examiner issued a new obviousness rejection based on different art. (Id.,
`
`84-87.) PO then amended each independent claim to recite the final four claim ele-
`
`ments relating to discarding unneeded content on the first and second devices. (Id.,
`
`75-78.) The Examiner allowed the claims based on this amendment. (Id., 23-24.).
`
`D. The Earliest Possible Priority Date Is November 22, 2016.
`Legal Standard for Priority
`1.
`
`A patent claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier-filed application only if
`
`the earlier application satisfies the written description requirement. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§120; Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`There must also be a continuity of disclosure: “each application in the chain leading
`
`8
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571.
`
`To comply with the written description requirement, the specification must
`
`contain disclosure such that “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure,
`
`must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.” Purdue Pharma L.P.
`
`v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Entitlement to a filing date
`
`does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over
`
`what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571-72.
`
`The Board can properly consider whether claims are entitled to earlier priority
`
`dates. See Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A., 18 F.4th 1323, 1330 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (affirming finding that claim was not entitled to priority date for lack of
`
`written description support in parent); Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35
`
`F.4th 1328, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (confirming Board’s authority to decide
`
`whether parent application meets written description requirement).
`
`2.
`
`The ’266 Patent’s Priority Chain Does Not
`Disclose Two Clients Rendering Content
`“Simultaneously and in Synchronization.”
`
`The application for the ’266 patent was filed November 22, 2016, claiming
`
`priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 15/054,756 (“the ’756 application”). How-
`
`ever, the ’756 application lacks written description support for the claim limitation
`
`9
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`that recites rendering content across different devices “simultaneously and in syn-
`
`chronization.” (EX-1002 ¶¶43-47.)
`
`During prosecution of the ’266 patent, PO identified paragraphs 45 and 93-97
`
`of the application as filed as supporting the “simultaneously and in synchronization”
`
`limitations. (EX-1095, 116.) These paragraphs are identical to the same numbered
`
`paragraphs of the parent ’756 application. Accordingly, PO might argue that these
`
`paragraphs of the ’756 application support rendering content “simultaneously and in
`
`synchronization” across devices. They do not.
`
`Paragraph 45 of the ’756 application discusses a “virtual audio stream de-
`
`scriptor” that “includes descriptive details used to describe the content of [an] audio
`
`stream, such as the title and/or ISBN” and, optionally, “internal media marks, illus-
`
`trations related to the audio stream, and/or internal advertising.” (EX-1050 ¶[0045].)
`
`Nothing in that paragraph relates to presenting content on two different devices
`
`“simultaneously and in synchronization” as recited in each challenged claim.
`
`Paragraphs 93-97 also lack any description of presenting content across two
`
`different devices “simultaneously and in synchronization.” Those paragraphs are
`
`part of a table that provides a “summary of various types of information, structures
`
`or files” that reside on servers within the system. (EX-1050 ¶[0066].) The para-
`
`graphs correspond to rows on the table discussing illustrations, ancillary content, and
`
`advertisements. (Id. ¶¶[0093]-[0097].) The rows contain no disclosure of how those
`
`10
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`
`types of information would be presented at all, let alone any disclosure of presenting
`
`content across two different devices “simultaneously and in synchronization.”
`
`Accordingly, the ’756 application contains no disclosure of rendering primary
`
`and secondary content on devices “simultaneously and in synchronization,” as
`
`claimed. (EX-1002 ¶47.) Because this is not disclosed in the ’756 application, the
`
`priority chain is broken and the earliest possible priority date of the claims is the
`
`actual filing date of the application for the ’266 patent, November 22, 2016. Lock-
`
`wood, 107 F.3d at 1571; The NOCO Co., Inc. v. Pilot, Inc., IPR2022-01417, Paper
`
`12 at 11-13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2024).
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Here, a POSITA would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or com-
`
`puter science, and at least three years of industry or academic experience in the de-
`
`sign, development, and/or implementation of content rendering and/or distribution
`
`systems. (EX-1002 ¶¶29-33); see In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995). Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal
`
`education could substitute for work experience. (EX-1002 ¶31.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`No claim terms require construction to resolve the obviousness challenges
`
`here. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013,
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For this proceeding only, Petitioners assume the claims are
`
`not invalid as indefinite under §112.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel claims 1-13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 on the
`
`following Grounds:
`
`Ground Challenged
`Claims
`1-9, 12-13
`
`1A
`
`References
`
`Abecassis, Drieu, and Barton
`
`1B
`
`2A
`
`2B
`
`10-12
`
`Abecassis, Drieu, Barton, and Walker
`
`1-13
`
`10-12
`
`McCue and Sharma
`
`McCue, Sharma, and Walker
`
`Additional support is included in the Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-
`
`Patel, Ph.D. (EX-1002.)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,091,266
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art
`
`Each reference is prior art under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. §1022 because it pub-
`
`lished before the patent’s earliest possible priority date of November 22, 2016: (i)
`
`Abecassis published on April 2, 2015; (ii) Drieu published on October 15, 2009; (iii)
`
`Barton published on March 21, 2002; (iv) Walker published on September 10, 2015;
`
`(v) McCue published on April 5, 2012; and (vi) Sharma published on September 18,
`
`2014.
`
`These references are analogous art because they are from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ’266 patent, e.g., content distribution and/or rendering. (EX-1002
`
`¶24); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). They are also pertinent to a particular problem the inventor was focused on,
`
`e.g., efficient and effective distribution and/or rendering of content. (Id.)
`
`VII. GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-9 AND 12-13 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF ABECASSIS, DRIEU, AND BARTON.
`
`A. Claim 1
`Preamble
`1.
`
`The preamble recites a “method of rendering digital content across multiple
`
`client devices.” To the extent the preamble is limiting, Abe
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
