Inter Parties Review (IPR) on 887308 Patent
The Unified Patent group has filed a patent IPR agains the ‘308 patent, who’s inventor is Mr. William Grecia from Pennsylvania. William Grecia’s patent uses a token-based authentication service that is used to access DRM’s content using his web service called KodeKey, apparently under a company called STR3M
The Patent uses a method that relies as keys, such as username and password, to create token associated with the content, and access to that content is based now on that token to connect with the video content being pulled out.
Mr. Grecia presents a small claim chart against DISH network depicting what is being said here:
As shown here the main elements of the ‘330 claim are:
- Username / Password
- Generate a Token
- Use an API system to validate access to the content, in case of DISH is, Synacor Cloud API
- Finally the DISH network then validates that Senator API worked and creates some context to keep track of the use of the content.
As such, many other companies shall be implementing the exact same procedure to access MEDIA using a token. In general companies using a CDN use a mechanism based on a secret key plus the contents of username, password, etc to generate a token which is then used to access the content via a URL.
IPR filed by Unifed Patents
The Unified Patents Group then decides to file for an IPR to all the ‘308 patents.
As prior art, they have chosen the US Patent 6891953. However, I don’t understand why this was done. The ‘953 patent uses DRM to protect E-Books, anyone skilled in the art and that has worked with DRM understands that the book is encrypted using DRM (Digital Rights Management) and needs to be decrypted using a secret key.
” providing, to a first computing device associated with a persona, first data which enables the use of said item on said first computing device; anddetermining that a second computing device is associated with said persona; andproviding to said second computing device second data which enables the use of said item on said second computing device,
wherein said first data differs in at least some respect from said second data, wherein said first data comprises a first cryptographic key which enables the use of said item, said first cryptographic key being included in said first data in a form encrypted by a second cryptographic key, and wherein said second data comprises said first cryptographic key in a form encrypted by a third cryptographic key different from said second cryptographic key, wherein said item comprises encrypted content and a decryption key which decrypts said encrypted content, and wherein said decryption key is encrypted so as to be decryptable by said first cryptographic key, wherein said first data further comprises a fourth cryptographic key, wherein said second data further comprises said fourth cryptographic key, wherein said first and fourth cryptographic keys are the private and public keys, respectively, of an asymmetric key pair, and wherein said decryption key is included in said item in a form encrypted by said fourth cryptographic key, and wherein the method further comprises the acts of:providing to said first computing device a first set of computer-executable instructions which applies said second cryptographic key; andproviding to said second computing device a second set of computer-executable instructions which applies said third cryptographic key.”
The ‘308 patent allows accusing DRMed content using a token that is validated using a token, so in other words the ‘308 patent permits that DRM content that is delivered using the ‘953 patent can be shared across multiple servers and domains.
As note Unified Patents read that:
“bookstore servers 72 may allow users to shop for eBook titles,
establish their membership relationship with the retailer
[verification token], pay for their transactions, and access proof–of purchase pages (serve–side receipts).
Unified patents makes the simple link or membership relationship as an SQL database relationship, a verification token, which is indeed wrong. A token and an SQL relationship are not even close to be the same, and are completely distinct,.
Assumption that a cookie or a customer service relationship is equivalent to a token generated, is the main question.
It’s my opinion that they are not!
There is shared-based authentication and encrypted access, one is a sophisticated password access and the second one is encryption.
The other prior art seems to be weak, however why will they present the ‘953 patent as prior art, as this patent is not even close, and remotely close to what the ‘308 patent does. This seems to be wrong and in my view the comparison is distinct.
We don’t understand how Unified Patents is expecting to invalidate the patents owned by Mr. Grecia. It seems a bit contradictory on how Unified Patents portray themselves as a protector against Patent Trolls specially for the “little guy.” In this case, Mr. Grecia is an individual inventor, himself is against the companies using his technology, the patent is valid, and as usual corporations with BILLIONS of dollars in their accounts refuse to listen and discuss a licensing agreement with the little guy. Unified patents is then attacking a little guy!!!
It;s so sad to see how despair this confrontation is, Mr. Grecia’s address, according to the court documents is located at:
Just by looking at this address, we know that this is the “little guy,” fighting an uphill battle against MEGA corporations that don’t simply take a fair license, instead they are forcing an IPR that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars ($200k to $750K) to defend.
“The fees to take a PTAB proceeding through completion generally range from $200,000 – $750,000. In contrast, a patent lawsuit costs an average of $530,000 – $3.6 million through the end of discovery, and $970,000 – $5.9 million through final disposition.” Source: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/309504/Patent/10+Reasons+Every+Defendant+in+Patent+Litigation+Should+Consider+Inter+Partes+Review
Hopefully, the judge reviewing this IPR Will dismiss it as it should, as the prior art presented is weak and has nothing to do with Mr. Grecia’s patents.