Opinion ID: 4562704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patents-at-Issue

Text: This appeal arises from two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings wherein the petitioner, Twitter, Inc., (“Twitter”), challenged two patents owned by VidStream LLC (“VidStream”), U.S. Patent Nos. 8,464,304 (the “’304 patent”) and 8,601,506 (the “’506 patent”) (collectively “the challenged patents”). The challenged patents are titled “Content Creation and Distribution System” and are directed to computer methods and systems for creating and sharing user-generated video content. ’304 patent at 1:1–2. The challenged patents contain the same disputed limitation and share essentially the same written description. 1 Figure 2 of the challenged patents, shown below, illustrates the patented system at a high level. 1 For purposes of this appeal, we cite to only the ’304 patent. Case: 19-1708 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2020 TWITTER, INC. v. VIDSTREAM LLC 3 Figure 2 In Figure 2, a mobile device (230) or a computer (232) having a video camera (234) generates video content. Id. at 14:30–34. The video content is sent over the internet to a Content Creation & Distribution System (“CCDS”) (202). The CCDS (202) makes the content available for display on the web or as part of a television distribution system (220). To ensure that user-generated video is suitable for distribution, e.g., having a certain quality level that is appropriate for television programs, the challenged patents disclose recording video according to “predetermined constraints.” Such predetermined constraints can include the format, bit rate, length of submission, frame rate, etc. Id. at 13:36–44. Other constraints include parameters such as “a bit rate and an image resolution sufficient to enable transcoding of the video data into the format appropriate for inclusion in the linear television programming transmission.” Id. at 4:36–40. The client device (i.e., mobile Case: 19-1708 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2020 4 TWITTER, INC. v. VIDSTREAM LLC device (230) or computer (232)) applies these constraints to the video data it records. Figure 3 of the challenged patents, shown below, further illustrates the CCDS. The interface (300) can serve as a user-facing front-end of the CCDS, enabling a user to record and upload digital content (e.g., digital video) for distribution. For example, the user can use a mobile device with a built-in camera and a pre-defined application to generate digital video content that is streamed to the CCDS substantially in real time as the content is created. Figure 3 When the CCDS is implemented as an application in- stalled on a user device, it can enforce predetermined constraints on the captured video such that the video is ready to be rapidly transcoded for insertion into a linear programming time slot. For example, the application can encode the video at a sufficient bit rate and resolution to ensure that the video file can be transcoded to produce video of sufficient quality to be distributed on the internet. Id. at 10:56–66. Case: 19-1708 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2020 TWITTER, INC. v. VIDSTREAM LLC 5 Claim 1 of the ’304 patent, which is representative, illustrates the claimed method:
ratus, the method comprising: receiving video data from a client computing device at a server system, wherein the video data is cap- tured using a camera connected to the client com- puting device in accordance with instructions executed on the client computing device, wherein the instructions are provided to the client computing device by the server system and cause the video data to be captured in accordance with predeter- mined constraints and the predetermined con- straints include a frame rate defined by the instructions; automatically transcoding the video data, using a server included in the server system, into at least one different format based on at least one of user credentials associated with a user of the client computing device or attributes associated with the video data, wherein at least one format of the transcoded video data defines a video file in a format appropriate for inclusion in a linear television programming broadcast; and uploading the trans- coded video data to a distribution server for distribution. ’304 patent at 27:57–28:10 (disputed limitation emphasized). Relevant to this appeal, the challenged patents contain the same disputed limitation: capturing video according to instructions and parameters that are defined by a server system. Case: 19-1708 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 09/03/2020 6 TWITTER, INC. v. VIDSTREAM LLC