Unified Patents LLC v. Velos Media, LLC, IPR2020-00352

• Decision Date: 28 June 2021
• Docket Number: 066 B2,414,Patent 9,IPR2020-00352
• Parties: UNIFIED PATENTS LLC, Petitioner, v. VELOS MEDIA, LLC, Patent Owner.
• Court: United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

UNIFIED PATENTS LLC, Petitioner,
v.
VELOS MEDIA, LLC, Patent Owner.

No. IPR2020-00352

Patent No. 9, 414, 066 B2

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

June 28, 2021

FOR PETITIONER:

David Cavanaugh

Brian J. Lambson

Jonathan P. Knight

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

Ashraf Fawzy

Roshan Mansinghani

UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Brent Bumgardner

Barry Bumgardner

Brian Herrmann

Christopher G. Granaghan

NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.

Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUDGMENT

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION

DETERMINING NO CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE

35 U.S.C.§ 318(A)

GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SEAL

37 C.F.R. § 42.54(A)

ULLAGADDI, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Unified Patents, LLC ("Petitioner") requested an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, and 20 ("the challenged claims") of US. Patent No. 9, 414, 066 B2 (Ex. 1001, "the '066 patent"). Paper 3 ("Petition" or "Pet."). Velos Media, LLC ("Patent Owner") filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 ("Prelim. Resp.").

We instituted an inter partes review of each of the challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition. Paper 9 ("Institution Decision" or "Inst. Dec."). Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 15, "PO Resp.") and Petitioner filed a Petitioner Reply (Paper 20, "Pet. Reply"). Patent Owner thereafter filed a Sur-reply (Paper 24, "PO Sur-reply").

Petitioner filed a Motion for Protective Order (Paper 13) and a Motion to Seal Patent Owner's Response, Petitioner's Reply, and related exhibits (Paper 23). We decide these Motions in this Decision.

Patent Owner filed a contingent Motion to Amend, with a request for preliminary guidance. Paper 16 ("MTA"). Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. Paper 19 ("Pet. Opp. MTA"). We provided our Preliminary Guidance as to Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. Paper 22. Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. Paper 25 ("PO Reply MTA"). Petitioner thereafter filed a Sur-reply. Paper 29 ("Pet. Sur-reply MTA"). As we conclude that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability of any of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not reach and need not decide Patent Owner's Motion to Amend.

Oral arguments were heard on March 30, 2021 and a transcript has been entered into the record. Paper 37 ("Tr.").

Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018). Having reviewed the parties' arguments and supporting evidence, for the reasons discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Related Proceedings

Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identifies related proceedings involving the '066 Patent. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 2.

B. The '066 Patent (Ex. 1001)

The '066 patent issued on August 9, 2016, and claims priority as early as January 14, 2011. Ex. 1001, codes (45), (60). The '066 patent concerns a method of reducing blocking artifacts associated with consecutive pixels spanning a boundary between neighboring blocks in an image. Id. at code (57). Figure la of the '066 patent is reproduced below.

(Image Omitted)

Figure 1a Figure la of the '066 patent illustrates pixel values in two neighboring blocks with a natural edge occurring at a vertical block boundary.

Figure 1a illustrates pixel values 10a, 11a, 12a of a first block and 13a, 14a, 15a of a neighboring block in which the pixel values represent a natural edge at a vertical block boundary. Id. at 104-7. A large difference between the pixel values spanning the block boundary is considered to be representative of a natural edge instead of a blocking artifact. Id. at 10:10-12. Figure 1b of the '066 patent is reproduced below.

(Image Omitted)

Figure 1b Figure 1b of the '066 patent illustrates pixel values in two neighboring blocks with a blocking artifact occurring at a vertical block boundary.

Figure 1b illustrates pixel values 10b, 11b, 12b of a first block and 13b, 14b, 15b of a neighboring block in which the difference between pixel values of neighboring blocks is considerably smaller than the difference depicted in Figure 1a. According to the '066 patent, this smaller difference is likely due to quantization and/or the prediction method employed in the coding process. Id. at 10:13-18. The '066 patent discloses that, when a blocking artifact is identified, a filtering process is performed and an approximation according to Figure 1b's dotted line results. Id. at 10:23-28.

Figure 4 of the '066 patent is reproduced below.

(Image Omitted)

Figure 4 of the '066 patent depicts two neighboring blocks of pixels.

Figure 4 illustrates a first block that includes pixels p0, p1, p2, and p3, and a neighboring block that includes pixels q0, q1, q2, and q3. Id. at 11:56-61. The '066 patent discloses that a first offset is calculated based on p0 and p1 of the first block and q0 and q1 of the neighboring block. Id. at 11:62-65. The '066 patent also discloses conditionally filtering by modifying two pixels on either side of the block boundary depending on the calculated first offset. Id. at 14:36-37. The '066 patent discloses an exemplary algorithm for implementing the process, which is reproduced below.

(Image Omitted)

The '066 patent discloses an algorithm that calculates an offset, compares the offset to a threshold, and conditionally applies filtering based on the comparison. The '066 patent discloses filtering when pixel values resemble a step and not filtering when pixel values resemble a ramp. See Ex. 1001, 15:14-32. The '066 patent states:

[A] ramp can be described as linearly increasing or decreasing pixel values, e.g. 10, 20, 30, 40. When calculating the first offset for these pixel values, i.e p1=10, p0=20, q0=30, q1=40, the first offset will be zero Correspondingly, a step can be described as a step increase or decrease in pixel values, e.g. 10, 10, 20, 20. When calculating the first offset for these pixel values, i.e p1=10, p0=10, q0=20, q1 =20, the first offset will be 3.75 if first offset=(9x(q0-p0)-3x(q1-p1))/16 or 4 if first offset=(9x(q0-p0)-3x(q1-p1)+8)>>4. The modified pixel values will then be 10, 13.75, 16.25, 30 or 10, 14, 16, 20 respectively, and thereby a smoothing of the step is achieved. The first offset is also zero for a flat line, i.e. if the pixel values are equal, p0=p1=q0=q1.

Id. at 15:20-32. The '066 patent discloses that the first offset is calculated according to the following equation:

first offset = (9 X (q0 - p0) - 3 X (q1 - p1))/16 (1)

Id. at 14:46.

C. Challenged Claims

Challenged claims 1 and 20 are independent and challenged claims 2, 5, and 11 depend directly from claim 1. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.

1. A method of reducing blocking artifacts associated with consecutive pixels of a block boundary of a digital image, the method comprising:

selecting at least two consecutive pixels from a first block and at least two consecutive pixels from a neighboring block, the blocks being located on opposite sides of a block boundary and next to the block boundary, and the pixels forming a line of pixels that is perpendicular to the block boundary;

calculating a first offset as a function of pixel values for each of the at least two consecutive pixels from the first block and the at least two consecutive pixels of the neighboring block; comparing the first offset to a first threshold value; and modifying the respective pixel values of two consecutive pixels from the first block and the respective pixel values of two consecutive pixels from the second block, by applying filtering on said pixels, in the event that abs[first offset]=first threshold.

Ex. 1001, 20:34-54.

D. Evidence

Reference or Declaration	Date	Exhibit No.
U.S. Patent No. 6, 028, 967 (“Kim”)	Issued Feb. 22, 2000	1003
Kim et al., “A Deblocking Filter with Two Separate Modes in Block-Based Video Coding, ” IEEE Transactions On Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (“KimIEEE”)	Published Feb. 1999	1004
U.S. Publication No. 2006/0008038 A1 (“Song”)	Published Jan. 12, 2006	1005
Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)	1001
Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis (“Hall-Ellis Declaration”)	1017

E. Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner advances the following challenges supported by the declaration of Dr. Lina J. Karam (Ex. 1002). Pet. 5.

Claim(s) Challenged	35 U.S.C. § [1]
1, 11	Reference(s)/Basis
1, 11	Kim	Kim
20	103(a)	Kim, Song
1, 2, 5, 11	103(a)	KimIEEE
1, 2, 5, 11	103(a)	AAPA, KimIEEE

III. ANALYSIS

A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

Petitioner asserts that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art ('POSA') at the time of filing the earliest provisional application for the '066 Patent (Jan. 14, 2011) would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of video coding." Pet. 19-20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 57). Petitioner further asserts that "[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master's Degree." Id. at 20.

Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.

Our findings and...