Untitled case

Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2026-00095 is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and concerns the validity of U.S. Patent 8,478,903. As of the current date, the specific Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2026-00095 are not readily available in public search results. However, previous assignments for patent 8,478,903 list entities such as MOUNT SHASTA ACQUISITION LLC, Digital Island Inc., and Sandpiper Cdn LLC as assignees. The patent itself, titled "Shared content delivery infrastructure," details a method and system for optimizing content delivery in computer networks. It involves off-loading requests for selected resources to dynamically chosen "repeater" servers and replacing resource references with those to repeaters, thereby enhancing content replication and distribution. This technology is particularly relevant to Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and cloud infrastructure, which aim to efficiently deliver digital media, stream video, and accelerate web content. Notably, Limelight Networks (now Edgio), a former CDN provider specializing in these areas, has been involved in past litigation related to similar patents.

The case's procedural posture is an Inter Partes Review, an administrative proceeding before the PTAB, a specialized tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). IPRs allow third parties to challenge the patentability of claims based on prior art patents and printed publications, typically offering a faster and less costly alternative to district court litigation. This specific IPR is notable due to significant shifts in PTAB policy under USPTO Director John Squires in late 2025 and early 2026. These changes have made IPRs more patent-owner-friendly, characterized by lower institution rates, the Director's personal review of institution decisions, and new discretionary denial factors, including a patent owner's U.S. manufacturing footprint. These policy changes reflect broader national-security and economic concerns, influencing the strategic landscape for companies challenging patent validity.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent Infringement Litigation Involving US Patent 8478903

US Patent 8478903, titled "Shared content delivery infrastructure," pertains to the replication of resources in computer networks, particularly within content delivery network (CDN) technology. The patent's owner is Sandpiper CDN, LLC. The legal landscape surrounding this patent has been significantly shaped by several district court infringement actions and related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), culminating in the patent's expiration in August 2025.

Chronological Legal Developments:

2024

• Filing of Complaint (Sandpiper CDN v. Google LLC): Sandpiper CDN, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-3951. The '903 patent was asserted in this action.
• Filing of Complaint (Sandpiper CDN v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC): In November 2024, Sandpiper CDN, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This suit asserted claims 28-32 and 36-39 of US Patent 8478903, among other patents, alleging infringement related to content delivery network improvements.

2025

• Filing of Complaint (Sandpiper CDN v. Microsoft Corp.): Sandpiper CDN, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:25-cv-664, asserting the '903 patent.
• IPR Filing (IPR2025-00806, Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC): On April 13, 2025, Google LLC, the alleged infringer in the C.D. Cal. litigation, filed IPR2025-00806 against Sandpiper CDN, LLC.
• IPR Filing (IPR2025-00969, Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC): Google LLC also filed IPR2025-00969 against Sandpiper CDN, LLC, challenging the validity of US Patent 8478903, with an effective date of May 9, 2025.
• Patent Expiration: On August 4, 2025, US Patent 8478903 expired due to the patent owner's failure to pay maintenance fees. This event significantly impacted the ongoing litigation and IPR proceedings, as it generally limits the scope of potential damages to the period before expiration and eliminates the possibility of future injunctive relief.
• Venue Appeal (Comcast): On October 21, 2025, the litigation between Sandpiper CDN, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 26-104) on an interlocutory appeal concerning the issue of venue. Comcast argued that neither defendant resides in the Eastern District of Texas and that their principal place of business is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• IPR Filing (IPR2026-00095, Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC): Sometime between October 1, 2025 (the start of the fiscal year for "IPR2026-" cases) and October 21, 2025, Google LLC filed IPR2026-00095 challenging US Patent 8478903.

Outcome and Present Posture:

• Patent Expiration: The most definitive outcome affecting all related proceedings is the expiration of US Patent 8478903 on August 4, 2025, due to failure to pay maintenance fees. This means that any claims of infringement are limited to the period before this date, and prospective injunctive relief is no longer possible.
• IPR Proceedings: IPR2026-00095 and IPR2025-00969 (filed by Google against the '903 patent) are both pending before the PTAB. Given the patent's expiration, the PTAB may terminate these proceedings as moot, or they may continue to a final written decision regarding validity for the period the patent was in force, particularly if there are lingering damages claims in the district court cases. The specific status of these IPRs post-expiration is not yet available in the provided information beyond "Pending."
• District Court Litigations:
  • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: This case is currently on appeal at the Federal Circuit regarding a venue dispute. The patent's expiration would likely affect the calculus of this appeal and any subsequent proceedings in the district court, limiting the potential remedies to past damages.
  • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.: This case is pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent's expiration means any damages would be limited to alleged infringement prior to August 4, 2025.
  • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Google LLC: This case is pending in the Central District of California. Similarly, any damages would be limited to alleged infringement prior to August 4, 2025.

As of May 29, 2026, the various litigations and IPRs concerning US Patent 8478903 remain active in terms of their "pending" status, but the patent's expiration on August 4, 2025, looms as a critical factor in their ultimate resolution and the scope of any available relief. No claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or verdicts have been publicly reported for the recent infringement cases.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the petitioner(s) in IPR2026-00095 with the available information. While the case is listed as pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning US patent 8478903, the provided search results do not explicitly name the petitioner(s) or their legal counsel. PTAB dockets typically contain this information, but direct access to specific filings for IPR2026-00095 was not available through the conducted web searches.

The provided case, IPR2026-00095, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case. In an IPR, the party defending the patent is the "Patent Owner."

As of May 29, 2026, information regarding the specific parties and counsel for IPR2026-00095 is not readily available through general public web searches of PTAB databases or legal news outlets. The USPTO Open Data Portal and Unified Patents Portal list numerous IPR proceedings but do not immediately provide details for IPR2026-00095, including the identity of the Patent Owner or their counsel. Without knowing the Patent Owner, it is not possible to identify their specific counsel of record.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00095 cannot be identified at this time, as the relevant filings detailing their appearance are not publicly accessible through the conducted searches.