UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,735,488
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AUDIO POD IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2025-01041
`U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,735,488
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART ---------------------------- 1
`A.
`Selecting Servers Based on Performance Statistics Was
`Known -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`Storing Media Content in Segments Was Known ------------------ 2
`B.
`THE ’488 PATENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 3
`A. Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`B.
`Claims -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`C.
`Prosecution --------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`D.
`Priority -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ---------------------------- 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION --------------------------------------------------- 6
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED -------------------- 6
`A. Grounds ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`B.
`Status of References as Prior Art -------------------------------------- 7
`GROUND 1A: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-12, AND 14-18 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOUNG ------------------------- 7
`A.
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`1.
`Preamble ---------------------------------------------------------- 9
`2.
`Element 1[a]: Downloading a List of Content
`Servers ----------------------------------------------------------- 10
`Element 1[b]: Tracking Service Level Statistics ----------- 11
`Element 1[c]: Selecting a First Content Server ------------- 13
`
`3.
`4.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Element 1[d]: Downloading a First Segment --------------- 14
`Element 1[e]: Selecting a Second Server -------------------- 16
`Element 1[f]: Downloading a Second Segment ------------ 18
`Element 1[g][i]: Digital Media Stream Including
`First and Second Segments ------------------------------------ 20
`Element 1[g][ii]: First Library Server------------------------ 20
`9.
`10. Element 1[g][iii]: Second Library Server ------------------- 21
`Claim 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
`Claim 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`Claim 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23
`1.
`Element 6[a]: Rendering Segments -------------------------- 23
`2.
`Element 6[b]: No Interruption in Rendering ---------------- 24
`Claim 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 25
`F.
`Claim 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 25
`G.
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 26
`H.
`Claim 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 26
`I.
`Claims 11-12 and 14-18 ----------------------------------------------- 28
`J.
`GROUND 1B: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-12, AND 14-18 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOUNG AND
`YOSHIMURA ----------------------------------------------------------------- 28
`A.
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 29
`1.
`Elements 1[d], 1[f], and 1[g][i] ------------------------------- 29
`2.
`Element 1[e] ----------------------------------------------------- 31
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 32
`1.
`Element 6[a]: Rendering Segments -------------------------- 32
`2.
`Element 6[b]: No Interruption in Rendering ---------------- 33
`Claim 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 33
`C.
`Claim 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 34
`D.
`GROUND 1C: CLAIMS 2, 4, 11, AND 13 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOUNG, FREEDMAN, AND
`OPTIONALLY YOSHIMURA ---------------------------------------------- 34
`A.
`Claims 2 and 11 -------------------------------------------------------- 34
`B.
`Claims 4 and 13 -------------------------------------------------------- 37
`GROUND 2A: CLAIMS 1, 4-10, AND 13-18 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LEIGHTON ----------------------------- 38
`A.
`Claim 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 38
`1.
`Preamble --------------------------------------------------------- 38
`2.
`Element 1[a]: Downloading a List of Content
`Servers ----------------------------------------------------------- 39
`Element 1[b]: Tracking Service Level Statistics ----------- 40
`Element 1[c]: Selecting a First Content Server ------------- 41
`Element 1[d]: Downloading a First Segment --------------- 42
`Element 1[e]: Selecting a Second Server -------------------- 43
`Element 1[f]: Downloading a Second Segment ------------ 45
`Element 1[g][i]: Digital Media Stream Including
`First and Second Segments ------------------------------------ 45
`Element 1[g][ii]: First Library Server------------------------ 46
`9.
`10. Element 1[g][iii]: Second Library Server ------------------- 46
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`XI.
`
`XII.
`
`XIII.
`
`XIV.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Claim 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 47
`Claim 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 47
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 48
`1.
`Element 6[a]: Rendering Segments -------------------------- 48
`2.
`Element 6[b]: No Interruption in Rendering ---------------- 49
`Claim 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 50
`E.
`Claim 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 50
`F.
`Claim 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 51
`G.
`Claim 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 51
`H.
`Claims 13-18 ------------------------------------------------------------ 52
`I.
`GROUND 2B: CLAIMS 1, 4-10, AND 13-18 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LEIGHTON AND SEED ------------- 52
`A.
`Claim 1 – Elements 1[d], 1[f], and 1[g][i] -------------------------- 52
`B.
`Claim 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 55
`C.
`Claim 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`D.
`Claim 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 56
`GROUND 2C: CLAIMS 2-4 AND 11-13 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LEIGHTON, FREEDMAN,
`AND OPTIONALLY SEED ------------------------------------------------- 56
`A.
`Claims 2 and 11 -------------------------------------------------------- 57
`B.
`Claims 3 and 12 -------------------------------------------------------- 59
`C.
`Claim 4 and 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 59
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS -------------------------------------------------------- 59
`CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 60
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`XV.
`
`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES, GROUNDS FOR STANDING,
`AND FEE PAYMENT -------------------------------------------------------- 60
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) --------------------- 60
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ---------------------------- 60
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ---------------- 61
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ----------------------- 62
`E.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ---------------------- 62
`F.
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)) ----------------------------- 63
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s):
`
`Cases:
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------------ 5
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ----------------------------------------------------------- passim
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) --------------------------------------------------- 59
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ---------------------------------------------------- 6
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------ passim
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ------------------------------------------------------ 6
`Statutes and Rules:
`35 U.S.C. §102 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`35 U.S.C. §103 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488 (“the ’488 patent”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1003-1005 Not Used
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Yoshimura et al., Content Delivery Network Architecture for Mo-
`bile Streaming Service Enabled by SMIL Modification, 86 IEICE
`TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’N 1778 (2003) (“Yoshimura”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1007 Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,477,522 (“Young”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0061305 (“Copley”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1010 Not Used
`
`1011
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2003/069437 (“Seed”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1012-1015 Not Used
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0002484 (“Freedman”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1017-1029 Not Used
`
`1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,260,011 (“Heckerman”)
`
`Exhibit Number 1031 Not Used
`
`1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 (“Leighton”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1033-1079 Not Used
`
`1080
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0091338 (“Snow”)
`
`1081
`
`Dilley et al., Globally Distributed Content Delivery, 6 IEEE INTER-
`NET COMPUTING 50 (2002) (“Dilley”)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`Crovella et al., Dynamic Server Selection in the Internet, PROC. 3RD
`WORKSHOP ON HIGH PERFORMANCE SUBSYSTEMS (HPCS ’95)
`(1995) (“Crovella”)
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0041062 (“Ottesen”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0052371 (“Watanabe”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0147979 (“Corson”)
`
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2001/24474 (“Shteyn”)
`
`Exhibit Numbers 1087-1094 Not Used
`
`Excerpts from the File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488
`
`CV of Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc. (“Petitioners” or “Amazon”) respectfully request inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,488 (“the ’488 patent”), which Audio Pod
`
`IP, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) purportedly owns.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The challenged claims relate to downloading two segments of media content
`
`from two different servers. The claims require downloading a first segment from a
`
`first server and then selecting, based on server performance statistics, a second server
`
`for downloading a second segment. But these steps were described in many refer-
`
`ences and were conventional in content distribution networks (“CDNs”) before the
`
`’488 patent’s earliest possible priority date in December 2005. The challenged
`
`claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`Selecting Servers Based on Performance Statistics Was
`A.
`Known.
`
`By the 1990s, CDNs were widely used to distribute content from multiple
`
`servers. (EX-1002 ¶33.) CDNs routed client requests to the optimal server using
`
`server performance statistics such as the time for information to travel between a
`
`server and client, packet loss, bandwidth, and/or server load. (Id.; EX-1081, 51;
`
`EX-1082, 1; EX-1016, Abstract, ¶¶[0030]-[0061].) This process was often handled
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`by domain name system (“DNS”) servers that map a request to the identified
`
`server(s). (EX-1002 ¶33; EX-1016 ¶¶[0024]-[0025]; EX-1081, 52.)
`
`In 2002, Young disclosed routing media content requests to an optimal server
`
`based on performance statistics. (EX-1002 ¶34.) After making a request, the client
`
`obtains a list of servers having the requested content and ranks those servers based
`
`on performance statistics. (EX-1008, Abstract.) The client then downloads a portion
`
`of the content from each listed server, re-ranks the servers based on download per-
`
`formance, and then chooses the optimal server for downloading the remainder of the
`
`content. (Id.) If the chosen server’s performance drops below a threshold, the next
`
`best server is selected. (Id.)
`
`Similar server-selection processes were described in Leighton (EX-1032),
`
`Copley (EX-1009, Abstract), and Seed (EX-1011 ¶[0024]), among many other ref-
`
`erences. (EX-1002 ¶35.) The ’488 patent acknowledges that automatically selecting
`
`a second server was known. (EX-1001, 10:47-54 (“This server replacement occurs
`
`in the same manner that is customarily used”).)
`
`B.
`
`Storing Media Content in Segments Was Known.
`
`Segmenting media content into multiple smaller segments was well known by
`
`2005, as the ’488 patent admits. (EX-1001, 2:26-30 (“commercially released” audi-
`
`obook segmented into 24 files).) Such segmentation was described in many refer-
`
`ences. (E.g., EX-1080 ¶¶[0027], [0029] (file “sliced into smaller playback files”);
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`EX-1030, 13:14-27 (audio file divided into a “file for each sentence or paragraph”),
`
`claim 22; EX-1083 ¶¶[0043] (segmenting audio presentation), [0056]-[0057];
`
`EX-1084 ¶[0002]; EX-1085, claim 1; EX-1086, Abstract; EX-1002 ¶36.)
`
`For example, Yoshimura disclosed dividing original media content into seg-
`
`ments stored on servers:
`
`
`
`(EX-1006, Fig. 3; id., 1781; EX-1002 ¶37.)
`
`III. THE ’488 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`The ’488 patent discloses a system for delivering digital media data.
`
`(EX-1001, Abstract.) Its purported advance is “segmenting an audio stream into a
`
`plurality of small digital audio files” that can be “transmitted, loaded, and played, in
`
`a specific order[.]” (Id., 2:45-51.) The segments are stored on multiple servers. (Id.,
`
`16:11-21.) A client can download a server list and select a “primary server.” (Id.,
`
`10:21-25.) If that server encounters performance issues or fails, the client selects
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`another server. (Id., 9:58-10:27, 10:47-56.) The ’488 patent admits that (i) segment-
`
`ing media content was known (id., 2:26-30), and (ii) “server replacement” was
`
`known (id., 10:47-54). (EX-1002 ¶38.)
`
`B. Claims
`
`Claims 1-18 are challenged in this Petition. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`A method of downloading digital content to be rendered, comprising:
`
`[a] downloading from a network accessible server to a client device a list of
`content servers that are capable of serving requested digital content;
`
`[b] tracking service level statistics for the content servers in the list of content
`servers;
`
`[c] selecting a first content server to serve the requested digital content from
`the list of content servers in dependence upon the service level statis-
`tics;
`
`[d] downloading a first segment of the requested digital content from the first
`content server to the client device for rendering;
`
`[e] in the event of a degradation in service from the first content server, se-
`lecting a second content server to replace the first content server in serv-
`ing the requested digital content from the list of content servers in de-
`pendence upon the service level statistics, wherein the server replace-
`ment is imperceptible to a user of the client device; and
`
`[f] downloading a second segment of the requested digital content from the
`second content server to the client device for rendering;
`
`[g] wherein the requested digital content is a digital media stream that includes
`the first and second segments, wherein the first content server is a first
`library server having the digital media stream stored thereon, and
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`wherein the second content server is a second library server having a
`copy of the digital media stream stored thereon.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution
`
`During prosecution, the applicant distinguished the prior art on limitations
`
`requiring that the “requested digital content” be a “digital media stream that
`
`includes” segments and the claimed content servers both having a copy of the media
`
`stream. (EX-1095, 86-92.) Although these limitations were well known, the
`
`Examiner allowed the claims. (Id., 49-53.)
`
`D.
`
`Priority
`
`The ’488 patent’s earliest possible priority date is December 13, 2005.
`
`(EX-1001, 1-2.) Petitioners do not concede that the claims are entitled to that prior-
`
`ity date.
`
`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 ¶¶27-31); 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 ¶29.)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`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 purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners assume the
`
`claims are not invalid under §112.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Grounds
`
`The Board should cancel the claims as obvious under §103 on the following
`
`Grounds:
`
`References
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`1A
`1-3, 5-12, 14-18
`1B
`1-3, 5-12, 14-18
`1C
`2, 4, 11, 13
`2A
`1, 4-10, 13-18
`2B
`1, 4-10, 13-18
`2C
`2-4, 11-13
`
`Additional support is included in the Declaration of Professor Ketan Mayer-
`
`Young
`Young and Yoshimura
`Ground 1A or 1B and Freedman
`Leighton
`Leighton and Seed
`Ground 2A or 2B and Freedman
`
`Patel, Ph.D. (EX-1002.)
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`B.
`
`Status of References as Prior Art
`
`Each following reference is prior art under pre-AIA §102(b) because it pub-
`
`lished more than one year before the ’488 patent’s earliest possible priority date of
`
`December 13, 2005:
`
`Reference
`
`Young
`Leighton
`Yoshimura
`Seed
`Freedman
`
`Publication Date
`November 5, 2002
`August 22, 2000
`September, 2003
`August 21, 2003
`January 2, 2003
`
`Exhibit
`EX-1008
`EX-1032
`EX-1006; see EX-1097
`EX-1011
`EX-1016
`
`
`
`The references are analogous art because each is from the same field of en-
`
`deavor as the ’488 patent, e.g., content distribution and/or rendering. (EX-1002
`
`¶22); 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 1-3, 5-12, AND 14-18 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF YOUNG.
`
`Young discloses a CDN that tracks server performance and routes media con-
`
`tent requests to an optimal server. (EX-1002 ¶41.) In response to a client request
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`for a media file, Young’s client obtains a list of servers that host the requested con-
`
`tent. (EX-1008, Abstract.) The client performs a series of steps relating to server
`
`selection and downloads.
`
`First, the client pings each server on the list and prioritizes them based on
`
`performance (e.g., latency). (Id.) The client then downloads a portion of the file
`
`from the highest priority server, a portion from the second highest priority server,
`
`and so on until it has received a portion from every server in the list. (Id., 2:3-15.)
`
`The downloaded portions comprise either the same portion of the file from each
`
`server or “consecutive or contiguous portions of the file” from each server. (Id.; see
`
`also id., 4:39-57.) Those steps are referred to herein as the “First Stage” for ease of
`
`reference.
`
`Having monitored each server’s throughput during the First Stage, the client
`
`selects the best server to complete the download in steps referred to herein as the
`
`“Second Stage.” (Id., Abstract.) If that server’s performance drops below a thresh-
`
`old, the client selects the next best server based on the previously obtained statistics.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`An overview of Young’s process is shown in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 21; EX-1002 ¶¶41-43.)
`
`A. Claim 1
`1.
`
`Preamble
`
`The preamble recites “[a] method of downloading digital content to be ren-
`
`dered.”
`
`
`1 Figures herein may be colored and/or annotated for clarity.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`Young discloses a method for downloading digital media files for display in-
`
`cluding routing media content requests to an optimal server based on performance
`
`statistics. (EX-1008, Abstract, 3:66-4:5; EX-1002 ¶44.) Accordingly, Young dis-
`
`closes the preamble. (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Element 1[a]: Downloading a List of Content Servers
`
`Element 1[a] recites “downloading from a network accessible server to a cli-
`
`ent device a list of content servers that are capable of serving requested digital con-
`
`tent.”
`
`Young’s client computer contains software for accessing media content and
`
`an “applet” that identifies servers containing the requested content. (EX-1008, 3:66-
`
`4:38; EX-1002 ¶46.) Young’s applet obtains a list of content servers capable of
`
`serving the requested content, as shown at step 215:
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 2 (excerpt); id., 4:16-21 (applet may “automatically” “obtain a list
`
`of servers”), 4:28-30 (applet “obtains the list of possible servers”), 3:66-4:5, 1:66-
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`2:3, claim 7 (“obtains a list of servers having a copy of [the] desired file”); EX-1002
`
`¶46.) The list is downloaded from the network accessible server. (EX-1008, 2:1-3
`
`(list “may be hidden text in an hypertext markup language (HTML) page, or may
`
`actually be provided by a link on a server”), 4:28-30 (list obtained “from the server
`
`identified by the initial link”); EX-1002 ¶46.)
`
`Accordingly, Young discloses or renders obvious downloading from a net-
`
`work accessible server (e.g., server identified by initial link) to a client device a list
`
`of content servers that are capable of serving requested digital content (e.g., a list of
`
`servers that contain the desired content). (EX-1002 ¶¶45-47.)
`
`3.
`
`Element 1[b]: Tracking Service Level Statistics
`
`Element 1[b] recites “tracking service level statistics for the content servers
`
`in the list of content servers.”
`
`Young discloses or renders obvious tracking such statistics. (EX-1002 ¶¶48-
`
`52.) Young prioritizes the list of servers (step 220) by measuring the latency (re-
`
`sponse time) of each server. (EX-1008, 4:31-38, Fig. 2.) Latency is measured by
`
`sending a “ping” to each server on the list and “keeping track of the amount of time
`
`for each server to respond.” (Id.) Young then downloads a portion of the requested
`
`file from each server in the list (step 225) and measures the throughput of each server
`
`during the download (step 230). (Id., 4:39-57, 2:5-13, Fig. 2.) Each server’s ping is
`
`used to improve the measured throughput’s accuracy and “obtain a better indication
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`of true bit rate.” (Id., 4:41-45.) Young then selects the best server to download the
`
`rest of the requested file (step 235). (Id., 4:54-57, 2:5-13, Fig. 2; EX-1002 ¶49.)
`
`Young continues to track the selected server’s throughput (step 240) and de-
`
`termines a “desired [throughput] rate” for it. (EX-1008, 4:58-5:3; EX-1002 ¶50.)
`
`The desired rate is a minimum threshold for server performance and is a percentage
`
`of the server’s throughput (determined at step 230). (EX-1008, 5:1-6.) If the
`
`throughput of the selected server falls below the desired rate (step 245), a second
`
`server (as determined from steps 225-235) is selected (step 250). (Id., 4:60-62, 2:16-
`
`22.) The download continues using the second server as its throughput is monitored.
`
`(Id., 4:60-65.)
`
`The service level statistics (e.g., ping/latency, throughput, and bit rate) of each
`
`server are tracked by the applet. For example, ping is tracked to provide the prelim-
`
`inary ranking and further to obtain a “better indication of true bit rate.” (EX-1008,
`
`4:41-45; EX-1002 ¶51.) Additionally, throughput and bit rate are tracked to rank
`
`servers, calculate the “desired rate” for selected servers, and select the next best
`
`server if necessary. (EX-1008, 4:40-57, 5:1-9.)
`
`Young therefore discloses or renders obvious tracking service level statistics
`
`(e.g., ping, throughput, and/or bit rate) for the content servers in the list of content
`
`servers. (EX-1002 ¶¶48-52.)
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`4.
`
`Element 1[c]: Selecting a First Content Server
`
`Element 1[c] recites “selecting a first content server to serve the requested
`
`digital content from the list of content servers in dependence upon the service level
`
`statistics.”
`
`Young discloses this limitation. First, Young prioritizes the servers on the list
`
`using service level statistics (e.g., ping) and downloads a portion of the requested
`
`file from each server on the list starting with the “highest priority server” (step 225):
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 2 (excerpt), 4:39-40, 2:10-13, 5:10-19, 4:31-38, claim 11; EX-1002
`
`¶54.) Next, Young selects the “best server” for downloading the rest of the requested
`
`file (step 235):
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 2 (excerpt), 4:54-57 (the “highest throughput server which is selected
`
`as the optimal server”), 5:10-19, claim 11 (“selecting an optimal server”); EX-1002
`
`¶54.) This server is selected based on the service level statistics, e.g., throughput,
`
`ping, and bit rate. (Id.; EX-1008, 4:39-57 (tracking service level statistics and se-
`
`lecting “the optimal server” based on the statistics); supra §VII.A.3; EX-1002 ¶54.)
`
`Thus, Young discloses selecting a first content server (“best server” at step
`
`235) to serve the requested digital content from the list of content servers in depend-
`
`ence upon the service level statistics (e.g., ping, throughput, and/or bit rate).
`
`(EX-1002 ¶¶53-55.)
`
`5.
`
`Element 1[d]: Downloading a First Segment
`
`Element 1[d] recites “downloading a first segment of the requested digital
`
`content from the first content server to the client device for rendering.” Young dis-
`
`closes this limitation in two ways. (EX-1002 ¶¶56-60.)
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`First, Young discloses downloading, in the Second Stage, a portion of the
`
`multimedia file from the first server, i.e., the “server which is selected as the optimal
`
`server.” (EX-1008, 4:54-57, 5:10-28, claim 11 (download desired file); supra
`
`§VII.A.4; EX-1002 ¶57.)
`
`
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 2 (excerpt).)
`
`Second, Young also discloses downloading, in the First Stage, a portion of the
`
`requested media from each of the servers on the list. (EX-1008, Fig. 2 (step 225),
`
`4:39-46; supra §§VII.A.3-VII.A.4; EX-1002 ¶58.)
`
`In either case, the downloaded segments are displayed on Young’s client. (See
`
`EX-1008, 3:66-4:5 (PC with “common browser application which is used to access
`
`and properly display information stored on a network” that “contains multimedia
`
`data[.]” (emphasis added)), 4:5-67; EX-1002 ¶59.)
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`Accordingly, Young discloses or renders obvious downloading a first segment
`
`of the requested digital content (the portion downloaded at step 235 or step 225)
`
`from the first content server (optimal or best server selected at step 235) to the client
`
`device for rendering (e.g., display). (EX-1002 ¶¶56-60.)
`
`6.
`
`Element 1[e]: Selecting a Second Server
`
`Element 1[e] recites “in the event of a degradation in service from the first
`
`content server, selecting a second content server to replace the first content server in
`
`serving the requested digital content from the list of content servers in dependence
`
`upon the service level statistics, wherein the server replacement is imperceptible to
`
`a user of the client device.”
`
`Young discloses that, “[i]f the performance [of the optimal server] falls below
`
`a desired rate …, a different server may be selected.” (EX-1008, 4:60-65; id., claims
`
`7 (“monitoring the throughput of the selected optimal server and selecting a new
`
`optimal server if the throughput falls below a desired level”), 11, 20.) The second
`
`server may be the “next server on the previously generated performance ranked list”
`
`or “the performance of each server may be redetermined.” (Id.) Thus, this second
`
`server is selected based on the tracked service level statistics (e.g., ping, throughput,
`
`bit rate, and/or a percentage of the throughput). (Id., 4:58-62, 5:1-6; supra §VII.A.3;
`
`EX-1002 ¶62.) The selection of the second server, based on service degradation, is
`
`shown in Figure 2:
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`
`
`(EX-1008, Fig. 2 (excerpt); EX-1002 ¶62.)
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the server replacement is impercepti-
`
`ble to a user of the client device because the server replacement process is automated
`
`and designed to optimize download speed for purposes of achieving an uninterrupted
`
`rendering to a client. (EX-1008, 5:33-38; EX-1002 ¶63.) Indeed, the ’488 patent
`
`admits that the claimed “imperceptible” server replacement was “customarily used”
`
`in the industry. (EX-1001, 10:47-54 (“This server replacement occurs in the same
`
`manner that is customarily used …. That is, the transaction is retried following the
`
`server replacement process without the upper levels of client software logic or the
`
`user becoming aware that it has occurred.”).)
`
`Thus, Young discloses or renders obvious, in the event of a degradation in
`
`service from the first content server (e.g., performance of the optimal server falling
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Audio Pod IP, LLC
`IPR Petition – U.S. Pat. No. 10,735,488
`
`below a desired rate), selecting a second content server to replace the first content
`
`server in serving the requested digital content from the list of content servers (e.g.,
`
`selecting the next best server in the performance ranked list or as determined by
`
`measuring server performance again) in dependence upon the service level statistics
`
`(e.g., ping, throughput, bit rate, and/or percentage of throughput), wherein the server
`
`replacement is imperceptible to a user of the client device. (EX-1002 ¶¶61-64.)
`
`7.
`
`Element 1[f]: Downloading a Second Segmen
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
