US 11533352

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me verify the claim structure and check for any 2026 litigation/docket activity specifically tied to this patent.

Report on US Patent No. 11,533,352

Scope note / search limitations. I searched for this specific number. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket entry naming US 11,533,352, and I could not retrieve the literal claim text of the patent (the claim set was not included in the authoritative text supplied to me, and the public sources returned by search reproduce the abstract but not the numbered claims). Anything below about claim scope that goes beyond the abstract/specification is flagged as inference, not verified claim language. Also note a scheduling discrepancy: the task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while my environment clock reads September 23, 2026; some search results post-date April 26, 2026, so I note where they do.

Bibliographic data (verified against the authoritative patent text)

Abstract (verbatim)

"Techniques for serving a manifest file of an adaptive streaming video include receiving a request for the manifest file from a user device. The video is encoded at different reference bitrates and each encoded reference bitrate is divided into segments to generate video segment files. The manifest file includes an ordered list of universal resource locators (URLs) that reference a set of video segment files encoded at a particular reference bitrate. A source manifest file that indicates the set of video segment files is identified based on the request. An issued manifest file that includes a first URL and a second URL is generated based on the source manifest file. The first URL references a first domain and the second URL references a second domain that is different from the first domain. The issued manifest file is transmitted to the user device as a response to the request."

Context in the DLVR/Adeia family

This patent is a later continuation in the family claiming priority to 2014-10-29. Its siblings include US 9,426,089 (the parent), US 9,800,639 ("Configuring manifest files including redirect uniform resource locators"), and US 11,757,964 (application 16/130,637). The specification (as supplied) describes a network of "infrastructure components" — manifest file handlers, segment file servers, cluster performance managers, service provider managers, performance administrators, DNS authoritative name servers, optional NIF message handlers, segment redirect processors, and library storage servers — and the "primary" (on-demand) and "secondary" (linear) embodiments.

Plain-language overview of the claimed subject matter

Because the literal claim set was not available to me, the following is an overview grounded in the abstract, title, and specification wording, not a quotation of claim language. Treat claim numbers/dependencies as unverified.

The disclosed invention is a way for an intermediary "network of infrastructure components" to intercept a video player's request for a manifest file (e.g., an HLS master or variant playlist), fetch the corresponding "source" manifest from the content owner, and then re-write ("configure") it into an "issued" manifest before returning it to the player. The key structural feature reflected in the abstract and reinforced by the title — direct selection of video segment file servers — is that a single issued manifest can mix references to different domains: some segment URLs point into the intermediary's own segment-file-server domain (so the intermediary directly assigns and measures the servers that deliver those segments), while others point to a different domain (e.g., a third-party infrastructure service provider or CDN). This lets the operator route, measure, and manage delivery across its own servers and external providers, and to do so without installing anything on the user device — it relies on the device's standard adaptive-streaming playback component.

On that reading, the independent claims most likely cover:

1. A method (server-side) of receiving a manifest-file request from a user device; identifying a source manifest file for the requested video (encoded at multiple reference bitrates and segmented); generating an issued manifest based on the source manifest, where the issued manifest contains a first URL referencing a first domain and a second URL referencing a second, different domain; and transmitting the issued manifest to the requesting device.
2. A corresponding system (one or more servers/manifest file handlers configured to perform those steps).
3. Optionally a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause those steps.

The specification additionally supports dependent-level features that are likely recited in dependent claims, including: the host-domain selection being based on performance/utilization data from a performance administrator; cluster-level or node-level assignment of segment file servers (via stable DNS hostname schemes, round-robin/Anycast); embedding a Session ID, and a character string designating the digital service, in the URL paths of the issued manifest; the "second URL character string within a first URL" technique; a hostname authorities file used for authorization; and delivery of either a Master manifest (whose URLs point to variant manifests on the intermediary's manifest-file-handler domain) or a Variant manifest (whose URLs point to segment files). I cannot confirm which of these are actually claimed in 11,533,352 without the claim text.

Litigation / docket check for 11,533,352

• CAFC 2026: No Federal Circuit docket naming US 11,533,352 was found. I cannot rule out a non-indexed or very recent filing, but nothing surfaced.
• District court / PTAB: Searches surfaced Adeia-family litigation, but none of it was confirmed to involve US 11,533,352:
  • Adeia Technologies, Inc., Adeia Guides Inc. and Adeia Media Holdings LLC v. The Walt Disney Company et al., D. Del. C.A. No. 24-cv-1231. The claim-construction and PTAB exhibits in that case reference the '639, '987, '595, '324 and '705 patents — not '352.
  • PTAB IPRs IPR2026-00051 through IPR2026-00056 (Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia entities), filed Oct 31 – Nov 7, 2025; all terminated February 25, 2026 (dismissed pre-institution after settlement; refunds approved March 11, 2026). Those IPRs target different patents ('705, '428, etc.).
  • Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney, UPC_CFI_199/2025 (Local Division The Hague, claim served Nov–Dec 2024; procedural order Aug 19, 2025) — concerns EP 1969839, not this US patent.
  • DIRECTV declaratory-judgment actions (N.D. Cal. DJ action filed Dec 29, 2025; Adeia's S.D.N.Y. breach-of-contract action filed Jan 12, 2026) — seven Adeia patents at issue, none identified as '352.
• Do not conflate an unrelated hit: a London Gazette entry pairing "11533352 (C3)" with "FIELD UK SERVICES LIMITED" is a UK company number, not this patent. Per the literal-ID rule, I am not treating it as a match.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: title, application number, filing date, priority date, issue date, inventor, and the assignment chain (all drawn from the authoritative patent text and USPTO/Google Patents assignment records).
• Moderate confidence: assignee-of-record nuances and current annuity/expiration status (these change; the "Active" label is Google's assumption disclaimer).
• Low / unverified: the independent-claim overview above. I could not obtain the actual claim language of US 11,533,352 from the sources searched. To confirm the precise independent claims and their count, check the patent's own claims via USPTO Patent Public Search or Patent Center for application 16/173,043, or the granted-claims section of the Google Patents page.
• Negative finding, not proof: the absence of a CAFC 2026 docket for this number means I found none, not that none exists.

I'll search for litigation involving US 11,533,352 specifically.

Let me dig deeper with targeted searches on litigation databases.

Bottom line

I could not identify any litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB, or Federal Circuit — involving U.S. Patent No. 11,533,352. My searches returned no complaint, docket, IPR petition, or appellate proceeding that names this patent. I am reporting a negative finding, not a confirmation that none exists, and I want to be explicit about the limits of that finding (see Section 4).

1. What is verified about the patent (from the authoritative full text)

Chain-of-title events recorded on the face of the patent:

• 2018-10-29 — assignment to DLVR, Inc. (inventor Gordon).
• 2025-06-13 — assignment of interest from DLVR, Inc. to Adeia Media Holdings LLC; then conversion to Adeia Media Holdings Inc. (Assignor: Adeia Media Holdings LLC).
• 2025-05-28 — security interest in favor of Bank of America, N.A., as collateral agent, recorded by a long list of Adeia entities (Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Holdings Inc., Adeia Media Holdings Inc., Adeia Media LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., etc.).

Because the '352 patent's priority date is 2014-10-29 and it claims priority from US 14/709,171, any litigation against an earlier-issued family member (e.g., US 9,426,089) would not, by itself, establish that the '352 patent was asserted. I found no case-specific evidence tying the '352 patent's own claim set to any suit.

2. Searches I ran and their results

False positives to be aware of (same digit string, unrelated to the patent):

• PubMed PMID 11533352 — American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs, Transfer of drugs and other chemicals into human milk, Pediatrics 2001;108(3):776–89 (appears in multiple citing papers).
• UK Companies House number 11533352 (C3) — Field UK Services Limited, London Gazette issue 900982.
• A bankruptcy creditor identifier 11533352 (Arrowood Indemnity Co.) in In re Fieldwood Energy LLC, Bankr. S.D. Tex. No. 20-33948 (CourtListener dockets 17411371/1204/5 and 17411371/1261/9).
• None of these involve patent litigation.

3. Family/party context (relevant, but not proof of '352 litigation)

• The '352 patent's predecessor application US 14/709,171 issued as US 9,426,089 B2 (identified on the patent's own priority record). I have not verified whether the '089 patent or any other member of this DLVR manifest-file family was ever asserted in litigation. I did not find such a case, but I cannot rule it out on the basis of the searches performed.
• Adeia is demonstrably an active patent enforcer in the streaming/media space — e.g., the Adeia v. DISH Network action reported in the press, and the DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.) matter surfaced in a complaint-analysis result. Neither of these searches showed the '352 patent as an asserted patent. Adeia's more commonly reported assertions to date involve media/guidance, DVR/adaptive-bitrate, and semiconductor portfolios, not specifically this manifest-file patent.

4. Confidence and limitations — please read this before relying on the negative

My confidence is low-to-moderate that no litigation exists. Reasons:

1. I could not directly query the primary sources you named. I was not able to run a live, patent-number-specific lookup against the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, Docket Navigator, RPX Insight, or the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Those are the authoritative tools for this question, and my inability to reach them is the single largest gap in this analysis.
2. Complaints frequently do not use comma-formatted patent numbers. A search string like "11,533,352" can miss a complaint that cites 11,533,352, 11533352, '352, or "the '352 Patent." My queries covered several of these forms but not exhaustively.
3. The patent is young relative to enforcement. It granted 2022-12-20 and only moved into Adeia's hands in June 2025. A recently acquired patent may simply not yet have been asserted.
4. The security-interest and assignment activity in 2025 is corporate/ financing activity, not litigation. It does mean the patent is likely collateral under a Bank of America credit facility, which is worth noting for any enforcement or licensing diligence.

5. Recommended verification steps (to close the gap)

If you need a defensible "no litigation" representation, I would run the following before relying on this memo:

1. Unified Patents litigation caselist — search the patent number without commas: 11533352.
2. PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — full-text search across all district courts for "11,533,352" and "11533352", plus a party search for DLVR, Inc. and Adeia Media Holdings Inc. as plaintiff, with a docket-level review of each hit to confirm the patent is pleaded.
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB Endpoint / P-TACTS) — confirm no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition names the '352 patent as the challenged patent.
4. USITC EDIS — confirm no Section 337 investigation lists the '352 patent.
5. CAFC — search for appeals from any of the above, and for 11,533,352 in briefs/appendices.
6. Adeia SEC filings (10-K/10-Q litigation notes) — Adeia discloses material litigation; a targeted review of its recent periodic reports would show any '352-based assertion. (I did not perform this check.)
7. Confirm the family scope — check whether any of the sibling/continuation patents from the 2014-10-29 priority family (e.g., US 9,426,089) were asserted, since that is a plausible source of confusion in secondary reporting.

No case is reported here because none was found — not because any was found and excluded. If you want, I can attempt a further round of targeted searches (e.g., the litigation portals' public case lists, DLVR/Adeia party names, and PTAB) to try to convert this negative into a documented one.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before writing anything.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 11,533,352 — the USPTO ODP structured record returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM, and my independent web checks (PTAB petition dockets, PTAB E2E, litigation commentary, and the DLVR/Adeia family generally) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent, so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is an untested patent, not a hardened one and not a gutted one. No claim of the '352 patent has ever been construed by the Board, and no § 102/§ 103 record exists at the PTAB. Unlike "the patent has survived two IPRs" (hardened) or "claims 1–5 have been canceled" (troll has no case), the absence of PTAB history means every claim remains presumptively valid in the AIA-trial sense and fully open to a first-challenge — an IPR is still available to you, unencumbered by anyone else's estoppel.

Note on confidence: the ODP absence is my primary evidence and is authoritative as of the most recent ingest. Web search cannot rule out a very recently filed petition that has not yet propagated into ODP or into secondary sources. Treat the "no PTAB activity" conclusion as high-confidence-but-not-absolute, and re-check PTAB E2E before relying on it in a filing. I found no proceeding to describe below, so the per-proceeding template below is intentionally left unfilled rather than fabricated.

(Per-proceeding sections — none applicable)

No proceeding number, petitioner, panel, ground, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal exists to report for US 11,533,352. I will not invent one. The following are near-miss false positives I screened out; flagging them so no one else's research memo confuses them with this patent:

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. There is no canceled claim, no sustained claim, no narrowed claim — the entire claim set of US 11,533,352 stands as issued (grant date 2022-12-20). That cuts both ways. The patent has never been pressure-tested by an expert declaration plus prior-art combination, and its claims have never been construed under the Phillips framework by the Board. It is also, per Google Patents' stated assumption, active with an anticipated expiration of 2035-05-11 (a function of the 2015-05-11 non-provisional filing it claims priority from via US 14/709,171), so there is a long runway left for assertion and for a challenge — no § 315(a)(1)/"too late" dynamics, but also no near-term expiry leverage.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate — which is your advantage. Because no IPR/PGR reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. No prior-art ground is foreclosed to a current defendant as a consequence of another party's PTAB run. Concretely: if you are newly served with a complaint, you (or a co-defendant, or a defensive aggregator) can file an IPR against any claim on any § 102/§ 103 ground without worrying about someone else's prior institution or institution denial. Two timing items dominate:

• § 315(b) one-year bar: if you were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '352 patent more than one year ago, you are personally time-barred from filing an IPR (unless joined under § 315(c)). Confirm the service date first — it is decisive.
• § 315(a)(1): do not file a declaratory-judgment action of invalidity before your IPR petition, or you bar yourself.
• PGR is gone: it is only available within 9 months of grant (and for pre-issuance limited situations). Grant was 2022-12-20, so PGR was time-barred after approximately 2023-09-20. IPR (and ex parte reexam, which carries no estoppel) are your vehicles. CBM is unavailable — it sunset on 2020-09-16 and this is not a covered business method patent in any event.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (there is no petitioner at all). No Patent Owner appeal activity (nothing to appeal). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) has visibly attacked this patent — worth noting, because an untested, still-live media-delivery patent owned by a monetization-oriented assignee is exactly the profile aggregators target. On ownership: Google Patents lists the original assignee as DLVR, Inc., currently Adeia Media Holdings Inc., with a 2025-05-28 security-interest grant to Bank of America, N.A. as collateral agent (naming Adeia entities including Adeia Media Holdings Inc.) and a 2025-06-13 conversion/assignment chain (DLVR, Inc. → Adeia Media Holdings LLC → Adeia Media Holdings Inc.). Adeia is a large, active licensing entity whose media-guidance and streaming assets are broadly asserted across the industry, and the lender collateral structure signals the portfolio is treated as a monetization asset. I found no litigation in which the '352 patent is currently asserted, but my searches for enforcement history were not exhaustive and I cannot state litigation status with confidence.

Recommended next steps

1. Re-verify the negative directly, today. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and USPTO PatentCenter ("Proceedings" tab) for application 16/173,043 / patent 11,533,352, and run a site:ptacts.uspto.gov search. ODP lag for newly filed petitions can be weeks. Do this before any brief recites "no IPR has been filed."
2. If you are a defendant and were served within the last 12 months, preserve your IPR window now. Commission the prior-art search immediately; the § 315(b) clock, not the merits, is the usual reason a good IPR never gets filed.
3. There is no FWD to cite — do not claim one. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch: (a) the family's own prosecution history (the DLVR/Adeia continuations repeatedly amended around manifest/URL configuration art, and those file-wrapper admissions are usable); (b) printed publications and prior systems in HTTP adaptive streaming predating the 2014-10-29 priority date (HLS/DASH, CDN manifest manipulation, segment-server assignment); and (c) § 112 written-description/enablement theories on the very broad "configure a manifest file" functional language if you are litigating in district court (112 is not available in an IPR).
4. Watch the Adeia campaign, not just this patent. Adeia asserts portfolios, not singletons. Expect sibling patents (9,426,089; 9,509,742; 9,800,639; 10,264,042; 10,084,838; and other continuations) to appear alongside it. A challenge to the '352 patent creates no estoppel anywhere else, but shared-specification art will; budget for a coordinated multi-patent IPR set rather than a single petition.
5. Set a docket watch. Use PatentCenter's proceeding alerts plus a CourtListener docket alert (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211533352%22&type=r) for any complaint naming the '352 patent — the first complaint is what starts everyone's § 315(b) clock and is the earliest reliable trigger for a future PTAB race.

I'll search for the specific assignment records, reel/frame numbers, and correspondents for this patent.

Let me search for the specific DLVR→Adeia and Bank of America recordings, plus any PTAB/docket documents that recite the reel/frame for this family.

I found substantive assignment-intelligence hits (X Corp. v. Adeia exhibit tables, Adeia correspondents). Let me pin down the DLVR→Adeia recording and DLVR's corporate fate.

I've reached the search-step limit. Here is the assignment-chain reconstruction, built from the authoritative patent text (Google Patents legal-events record, which lists the four recorded events but not reel/frame) plus USPTO-derived reel/frame and correspondent data I was able to surface for the surrounding Adeia chain. I flag clearly where I could not reach the Assignment Center itself.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — inventor departures: Not determinable / no evidence found. The '352 is a continuation (filed 2018-10-29) of the 2014-10-29 family (US 14/709,171). The inventor→DLVR assignment was recorded at filing, not as a later correction, so there is no on-face indication of a detachment event. I found no evidence of Gordon departing DLVR within 12 months of filing, nor any employment/severance record.

Conflation warning (important): A separate DLVR-adjacent family — the Brightcove / Unicorn Media patents (e.g., US 9,762,639, "Dynamic manifest generation based on client identity") — lists an inventor rendered as "McGowan, Gordon" in a 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statement (PTAB petition 1558619). That is a different inventor and a different family (Brightcove, not DLVR). Do not merge "Gordon McGowan" (Brightcove) with Michael Gordon (DLVR). Both families, however, now sit in the same Adeia portfolio, which is the likely source of secondhand confusion.

Original assignee

DLVR, Inc. (also rendered "Dlvr Inc" on the patent face; original assignee of record on the issued patent).

• Primary line of business: DLVR was a video streaming / adaptive-bitrate delivery infrastructure company. Its patent family (this one included) claims server-side manifest-file reconfiguration — intercepting a video player's master/variant playlist request, fetching the source manifest, and re-writing the segment URLs so the operator can assign, measure and manage delivery across its own segment file servers and third-party service providers (title: "Manifest file configuration with direct selection of video segment file servers").
• Product embodying the claims: The specification describes the commercial implementation in operational terms — a "network of infrastructure components" (manifest file handlers, segment file servers, cluster performance managers, service provider managers, performance administrators, DNS authoritative name servers). So the patent describes a real, deployed delivery network rather than a paper invention. I found no evidence of a consumer-facing product sold by DLVR.
• Current status: Divested / exited on the patent side. DLVR, Inc. is the assignor on the recorded transfer to Adeia Media Holdings LLC dated 2025-06-13, so it no longer owns this patent. I found no evidence of bankruptcy (Chapter 7/11), dissolution, or an acquisition announcement for DLVR itself. Its post-2025 operating status is unclear — treat "dissolved" as unproven.

Assignment timeline

Source limitation (read first): The task's primary source is USPTO Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). I was not able to execute the patent-number query against the Assignment Center directly, so I could not extract the reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondents for the four '352 events themselves. The events below are transcribed from the Google Patents legal-events record on this patent's page (authoritative as to party, conveyance and date; silent as to reel/frame). Where I could recover reel/frame and correspondent data, it is from other recorded Adeia-chain documents and is labelled as such — it is not a record for the '352 patent and I have not attributed it to the '352.

1. 2018-10-29 (executed, at filing) / recorded 2018-10-29 — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: Gordon, Michael
   • Assignee: DLVR, Inc.
   • Correspondent: Not retrieved (this is the recording I most wanted; it would identify DLVR's then-outside counsel).
   • Context: Standard invention assignment at filing — inventor to his employer of record. No NPE significance.

2. Executed (date not on face) / recorded 2025-05-28 — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Security Interest ("SECURITY INTEREST")
   • Assignor: the Adeia entity block — Google Patents lists: Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Holdings Inc., Adeia Imaging LLC, Adeia Inc. (f/k/a Xperi Holding Corporation), Adeia Media Holdings Inc., Adeia Media LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., Adeia Publishing Inc., and the Adeia Semiconductor entities.
   • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Structurally comparable records elsewhere in the Adeia chain name Jeffrey Negron, Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 (correspondent on Adeia's recorded reel 063529/0272, executed 2023-05-01, recorded 2023-05-03, in the Xperi→Adeia rename/security block).
   • Context: Securitization — blanket collateral recording perfecting BofA's security interest across the Adeia patent portfolio. The underlying facility is the Security Agreement dated June 1, 2020 between Adeia Inc. (f/k/a Xperi Holding Corporation) and Bank of America as collateral agent (the base recording appears in an Adeia assignment abstract of title as Reel 053468/0001, executed Jun 01, 2020, collateral agent address 101 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28255).

3. 2025-06-13 (executed/recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: DLVR, Inc.
   • Assignee: Adeia Media Holdings LLC
   • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Because Adeia Media Holdings LLC is the receiving entity, the likely recording correspondent is Adeia's counsel of record. In Adeia's 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements (e.g., for US 9,762,639, signed 2024-07-02), the correspondent is Customer No. 75563 — Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia), 75 Broad Street, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10004-3226. This is a recurring Adeia correspondent across multiple Adeia chain-of-title statements; I am flagging the recurrence as the task requests, but I cannot confirm it appears on this specific recording.
   • Context: Portfolio acquisition — this is the substantive transfer of the DLVR manifest-file portfolio (including the '352) into Adeia. This is the key event in the chain.

4. 2025-06-13 (executed/recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Change of Name / Conversion ("CONVERSION")
   • Assignor: Adeia Media Holdings LLC
   • Assignee: Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
   • Correspondent: Not retrieved (same expected Adeia correspondent as above).
   • Context: Internal reorg / entity conversion only — LLC → Inc. No change in beneficial ownership. This is why the patent face now reads "Adeia Media Holdings Inc."

Plain statement for the record: the Assignment Center does carry records for this patent (four events, as above). What I could not do is retrieve their reel/frame and correspondent fields, because I could not reach the Assignment Center database directly in this session. I have not invented reel/frame numbers to fill the gap.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11533352
    2014 : Priority filing by DLVR
    2018 : Continuation filed by Michael Gordon
         : Assigned to DLVR Inc
    2022 : Patent issued to DLVR Inc
    2025 : Bank of America security interest recorded
         : DLVR portfolio acquired by Adeia Media Holdings LLC
         : Entity converted to Adeia Media Holdings Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Signal 1 — Shell-entity transfer: PARTIALLY PRESENT (structural), not an anonymous shell.
The transfer at 2025-06-13 moves an operating company's patents (DLVR, Inc.) to Adeia Media Holdings LLC/Inc., a name carrying the "Holdings" suffix and a licensing-only posture. However, the tell-tale shell markers are absent: this is not an anonymous single-purpose LLC — it is a disclosed, consolidated subsidiary of Nasdaq-listed Adeia Inc. (ADEA), its address is a real law firm (Haley Guiliano LLP, 75 Broad Street, New York, NY), and its parent files 10-Ks disclosing the portfolio and its litigation. So: structural holding-entity transfer yes; anonymous-shell inference no.

Signal 2 — Known asserter in the chain: PRESENT.
The current assignee, Adeia Media Holdings Inc., sits under Adeia Inc., which self-describes as "a leading R&D and intellectual property (IP) licensing company" and routinely sues: Adeia v. The Walt Disney Company (D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-01231, plus parallel EP/UPC actions), DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc. (N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-11048), and reported AMD and Canadian-operator suits. Adeia is not on the classic enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Pendrell, etc.), but it is a publicly recognized high-frequency patent plaintiff and a non-practicing licensor. Cite: Adeia investor disclosures and the Disney complaint (D. Del. 1:24-cv-01231). Caveat: I found no suit naming the '352 patent itself.

Signal 3 — Repeat correspondent across the chain: UNCLEAR.
I have not retrieved the correspondent fields for the two 2025 recordings. Two recurring Adeia-side names appear elsewhere in the wider chain and are worth watching: Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia), Customer No. 75563, 75 Broad Street, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10004-3226 (appears across Adeia's 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements), and Jeffrey Negron, Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 (reel 063529/0272, executed 2023-05-01). Neither is confirmed on the '352 records. Do not treat either as a finding for this patent.

Signal 4 — Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months: NOT PRESENT.
The two 2025 events are (a) an acquisition and (b) a same-day LLC→Inc. conversion — a corporate formality, not a chain of successive shell transfers. There is no sequence of three or more intermediate LLCs.

Signal 5 — Pre-litigation transfer: NOT PRESENT (as to this patent).
The acquisition is dated 2025-06-13. Add-on litigation found against Adeia (Disney, DIRECTV) predates the DLVR acquisition and does not name the '352. I found no infringement suit in which the '352 is asserted, so a transfer-to-set-venue pattern cannot be shown for this asset. (Note the interesting inversion: Adeia's Disney action was filed Nov 2024, before it bought the DLVR portfolio in June 2025.)

Signal 6 — Bankruptcy fire-sale: NOT PRESENT (no evidence).
I found no Chapter 7/11 filing by DLVR, Inc. and no sale-in-bankruptcy record for these patents. The transfer reads as a negotiated portfolio acquisition, not a distressed sale.

Signal 7 — Privateering: UNCLEAR / not established.
The classic pattern (an operating company secretly funding an NPE to sue its competitors) requires evidence that DLVR retained an interest or coordinated the assertion. Here the seller (DLVR) appears to be a departing portfolio owner, and the buyer (Adeia) asserts on its own account, in its own name. I found no SEC filing, license-back, or profit-share showing DLVR directing Adeia's assertions. Not established.

Signal 8 — Defensive aggregator: NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an asserting licensor — the inverse of neutralization.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: The chain runs from an operating streaming-infrastructure company (DLVR, Inc., inventor Michael Gordon, assigned 2018-10-29) to a non-practicing IP-licensing holding entity, via the 2025-06-13 DLVR→Adeia Media Holdings LLC recording, followed the same day by a pure LLC→Inc. conversion (recorded 2025-06-13) and preceded by a portfolio-wide BofA security interest recorded 2025-05-28. That yields one strong signal — the current owner is a subsidiary of Adeia Inc. (ADEA), a publicly traded licensing-and-litigation entity that does not sell products embodying the claims and actively sues (Disney, DIRECTV) — plus one weak structural signal (transfer to a "Holdings" licensing entity, mitigated by the fact that it is a disclosed public-company subsidiary, not an anonymous shell). The '352 has not been asserted in any case I could find, and the inventor-departure and bankruptcy indicators are negative, so I stop short of high confidence.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11533352; mirror https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Patent page: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11533352](/patent/US11533352)/en.

Flags / contradictions to carry forward

1. Reel/frame gap (the material one). Four events are confirmed on the patent face, but no reel/frame or recording correspondent for the '352 could be retrieved. The reel/frame and correspondent values cited above (Reel 053468/0001; Reel 063529/0272) belong to other Adeia/Xperi records and are not records for this patent. Re-run the Assignment Center query before any diligence reliance.
2. Priority-parent discrepancy. The earlier generated summary states the parent US 14/709,171 "issued as US 9,426,089 B2." The Google Patents family table I retrieved instead shows US 9,800,639 B2 ("Performance-based selection of infrastructure service providers to provide adaptive streaming video") and US 10,084,838 B2 as the 2014-10-29 DLVR siblings — and the patent's own priority record names only US 14/709,171 without its grant number. The '089 attribution is unverified and should be re-checked; it does not change the assignment chain.
3. Family is still live under Adeia. The same Google Patents family table shows US 12,581,172 B2, issued 2026-03-17 to Adeia Media Holdings Inc., also claiming 2014-10-29 — i.e., Adeia is still prosecuting continuations of this DLVR family, which is consistent with an active (not shelved) portfolio.
4. Date discrepancy. The prior sections note the task's "current date" (April 26, 2026) versus the environment clock (September 23, 2026); the 2026-dated items above (US 12,581,172 on 2026-03-17; Adeia–Google license 2026-05-12; Adeia 10-K filed 2026-02-26) post-date the April date, so they are flagged as such.

I'll search for the front-page patent citations and prior-art references for US 11,533,352.

Let me dig into the patent's front-page citations and any prior art from related family IPRs.

Let me try to retrieve the actual front-page citation list from patent databases.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull a clean front-page "(56) References Cited" listing for US 11,533,352. Below is what I can support with the sources actually retrieved, with the limitations stated up front.

Prior-art review — US Patent No. 11,533,352 B2

Scope note (read first)

I was not able to retrieve the literal front-page citation list of US 11,533,352. The authoritative patent text supplied to me is truncated (it breaks off mid-sentence in the "[0046]-era" description and contains no "(56) References Cited" block, no claim set), and my searches returned the abstract, description, family, and assignment data — not the '352 face-page references. I therefore cannot say "these are the references cited on the '352 patent" with the confidence you are asking for.

Two consequences:

1. Everything in Part B is a family-level citation list (from the same-priority Chinese counterpart), not the '352 face page.
2. Everything in Part C is prior art I identified as technologically on-point for this claim scope, drawn from searches — not confirmed to be cited on the '352 front page.

I am flagging this rather than presenting a reconstructed citation list as if it were the real thing.

Also noted: the task states today is April 26, 2026, while my environment clock reads September 23, 2026. The prior sections already flagged this; I am not reconciling it here.

Part A — What is verified for the '352 patent (cross-reference only)

Per the earlier sections (not repeated): US 11,533,352 B2, appl. 16/173,043, filed 2018-10-29, earliest priority 2014-10-29 (provisional 62/072,265 via 14/709,171 → US 9,426,089), inventor Michael Gordon, original assignee DLVR, Inc., now Adeia Media Holdings Inc. Its effective filing date for §102 purposes is no later than 2014-10-29 — this is the date every §102 analysis below depends on.

Literal-ID caution: one PTAB reference list I encountered contains "9,123,552 B2" (Keeth) — a different patent number, not this patent. I am not treating it as a match.

Part B — Citation list actually retrieved (family level, CN counterpart)

The Chinese family member CN 107113454 B (appl. 201580071725.2; filed 2015-10-29; PCT/US2015/058054 → WO2016/069896; same priority chain 62/072,265 / 14/709,171 / 14/925,693; assignee DLVR公司) carries the same abstract as the '352 patent and its search report lists these references:

Caveat: Chinese national-phase search citations are examiner-generated for a different (though same-family) application. They are strong evidence of the family's prior-art landscape, not proof that any of these appears on the '352 US face page.

Part C — On-point prior art for this claim scope (search-identified, not confirmed as cited)

The '352 independent claim (as reconstructed from the abstract — flagged as inference in the prior section, since I still do not have the claim text) requires, at a minimum: receiving a manifest request; the video encoded at multiple reference bitrates and segmented; the source manifest comprising an ordered list of URLs referencing a set of segment files at a particular bitrate; identifying the source manifest from the request; generating an issued manifest with a first URL referencing a first domain and a second URL referencing a second, different domain; transmitting the issued manifest.

The "two different domains in one issued manifest" element is the crux. These references are the strongest §102 candidates for it:

Important caveat on the '639/Lewis IPR material: I surfaced an IPR petition quoting Lewis, Marusi, Barraclough, Jain, Guzman, Strasman and Luby. That proceeding concerns a different "'639 Patent" — the petition describes it as "filed on October 28, 2016 … priority … December 22, 2010 … provisional 61/884,709 (2013)," which does not match DLVR's US 9,800,639 (filed 2016-11-28; 2014-10-29 priority). I am therefore not treating that petition's reference set as the '352 prior art; I flag it only as evidence that Lewis/Strasman are real, citable art in this space.

Part D — What is NOT §102 prior art against the '352 patent

Do not treat these as anticipating art — they share the '352 patent's priority chain and its 2014-10-29 effective date, so they cannot be §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art against it:

• US 9,426,089 B2 (appl. 14/709,171, filed 2015-05-11) — the parent; the '352 claims priority from it.
• US 9,500,742 B2 (14/925,693) and US 9,800,639 B2 (15/362,217) — same chain.
• US 10,142,386 B2 (15/683,462), US 10,116,720 B2, US 10,084,838 B2, US 11,757,964 B2 (16/130,637), US 11,936,708 B2, US 11,765,219 B2, US 11,075,970 B2, US 10,911,509 B2, US 10,966,049 B2, and the 2018-10-29 siblings (e.g., US 2019/0173931 A1, appl. 16/173,104; US 2019/0215351 A1) — all continuation/divisional members of the same DLVR/Adeia family. Useful for claim-family context and for a possible double-patenting / §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership analysis, but not independent prior art.

The safest statement: these family members cannot be used for a §102 anticipation attack on the '352 claims; at most they raise §101/§112 or obviousness-type double-patenting questions.

Part E — Confidence and what you must verify to make this defensible

Confidence levels

• High: the family-level citation list in Part B (CN 107113454 B search report) and the filing/priority/publication dates of the references.
• Moderate: the technological relevance of US 10,652,343 to the two-domain limitation, and of Lewis/Strasman/Pantos to the surrounding elements — these are field-based judgments, not face-page matches.
• Low / unverified — and the central gap: whether any of these are the actual references cited on the '352 face page, and which claims they map to. I do not have the '352 claim text and could not pull its (56) list, so I cannot responsibly state "Reference X anticipates claim 3" as a fact.

To close the gap (steps I could not complete):

1. Pull the (56) References Cited block for appl. 16/173,043 from USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center or the Google Patents "References Cited" section for US11533352 — this is the authoritative list the task asks for.
2. Pull the prosecution file wrapper (IDS submissions, Examiner citations, and any §102/§103 rejections) — the applicant's own IDS is often hundreds of references in this family.
3. Obtain the granted claim set so the §102 element-by-element mapping can be pinned to actual claim numbers instead of the abstract-based reconstruction.
4. Check the EP/CN/PCT counterparts' search reports (e.g., WO2016/069896, EP3219093/EP3219094-lineage) for examiner-cited art, since those often mirror the US citations in this family.
5. Confirm US 10,652,343's §102(a)(2) date math against the '352's 2014-10-29 effective filing date before relying on it.

Bottom line: Based on what I could retrieve, the references most likely to matter for US 11,533,352 are the same-priority family's examiner citations (Part B) plus US 10,652,343 B2 and the Lewis/Strasman manifest-generation art (Part C) as §102 candidates against the reconstructed independent claims. But I could not verify the '352 front-page citation list itself, so treat the specific "which claims" attributions as inference pending the face-page and claim text, not as confirmed §102 mappings.

I'll first try to recover the two things this analysis depends on: the literal claim language of US 11,533,352, and the prior-art references cited on the patent's own face (which the "Prior Art" section you reference would normally contain — notably, that section was not included in the authoritative text supplied to me, whose fetch terminated mid-paragraph in the specification).

Let me obtain the actual claim language and the patent's cited references, since those drive any § 103 analysis.

Obviousness analysis — US 11,533,352 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Date of analysis: April 26, 2026 (per task). Analyst note up front: this is a technical prior-art/§ 103 assessment, not a legal opinion or freedom-to-operate advice.

0. Two mandatory scope flags (read before the analysis)

(a) The "Prior Art section of this page" was not included in the material supplied to me. The authoritative text provided in this thread is the Google Patents page for US 11,533,352, and its fetch terminated mid-specification (in the paragraph beginning "the character string 'digserv,' rather than t…"). It contains no "References Cited" list, no Cited-By list, and no Similar-Documents list. I therefore could not "use the results from the Prior Art section" as instructed, because I was never given it. I attempted to reconstruct it; see §2.

(b) Contradiction flag — the earlier-generated sections are now partially outdated. The Patent summary and Litigation summary both state that "the literal claim set was not available to me." That was true for the material supplied in those sections, but in this session I did recover literal fragments of the claims (claims 8, 14, and 15–20, plus the abstract-aligned independent claim text) from the Justia record at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11533352](/patent/11533352)#21. I use those fragments below and label exactly what is verified versus inferred. Nothing in the earlier sections' bibliographic data is contradicted.

1. Claim framework used (verified vs. inferred)

Independent-claim count: at least three (claims 1, 8, 15), all sharing the same core inventive concept — a server-side intermediary that rewrites a source manifest into an issued manifest whose segment URLs point into two or more different domains, one of which is a fleet of segment file servers the intermediary directly selects and measures.

2. Prior art actually available to me (with provenance)

I recovered a truncated list of examiner-cited U.S. patents from the same Justia record: 8,051,166 (Baumback); 8,145,782 (McGowan); 8,234,350 (Gu); 8,327,013 (McGowan); 8,495,675 (Philpott); 8,539,523 (Philpott); 8,561,102 (Mack); 8,645,504 (McGowan); 8,762,564 (Philpott); 9,197,559 (Cloonan); 9,363,329 (Kolam); 9,426,089 (Gordon); 9,509,742 (Gordon); 9,532,092 (Suryanarayanan); 9,613,042 (Joseph); 9,800,639 (Gordon). The list is cut off mid-list; I could not open the documents themselves in this session and will not attribute disclosures to them. Two important consequences:

• The Gordon references (9,426,089; 9,509,742; 9,800,639) are the applicant's own DLVR family sharing the 2014-10-29 priority (14/709,171 → US 9,426,089). They are not § 102 prior art against claims entitled to that date — see §5.
• The third-party CDN/distribution patents (Baumback, McGowan, Philpott, Gu, Mack, Cloonan, Kolam, Suryanarayanan, Joseph) are, on their face, in the CDN resource-assignment/content-distribution field. I treat them as candidate art only (UNVERIFIED in this session).

Prior art whose content I can ground from retrieved material (all predating the 2014-10-29 priority):

Nothing above is a § 102 anticipation of the '352's claims standing alone (none of them, as disclosed in these excerpts, configures one issued manifest that mixes a provider-operated segment-file-server domain with a third-party infrastructure-service-provider domain). The § 103 case is therefore a combination case, which is what the task asks for.

3. Proposed grounds of obviousness

Ground 1 — Lewis in view of Pyle (and, optionally, Strasman/Gabin) → claims 1 and 15 (and their method/media counterparts)

Motivation / rationale (KSR-style):

1. Explicit teaching in the references. Lewis states its own purpose — directing the client to the delivery network "in closest proximity to the client device" — which is exactly the '352's stated problem (performance variability across providers/network paths). Pyle expressly contemplates composing a new manifest "optimized in connection with delivery or presentation" based on the device, form factor, or network conditions. Both point in the same direction as the '352.
2. Same field, known techniques. Both are HTTP adaptive-streaming manifest systems; both manipulate the URL set of a manifest. Combining a manifest-rewriting server (Lewis) with manifest-composition-by-condition (Pyle) is "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results" (KSR).
3. Design need / predictable results. Latency reduction, load spreading, and redundancy across delivery domains are acknowledged objectives in the art; a POSITA would expect success in mixing per-segment URLs across two delivery domains because the HLS/DASH clients in question resolve each URL independently.

Claim 15 falls with claim 1 (same steps as stored instructions).

Ground 2 — Pyle/Lewis in view of Chen + OAI + 3GPP(BaseURL) + Brueck → claim 8 (and dependent claims 9–14, 16–20)

Claim 8's distinguishing limitations are (i) selecting particular video segment file computer servers from a plurality, (ii) a manifest containing both URLs to those selected servers and URLs to an infrastructure service provider, (iii) interspersed according to a determined interspersing pattern, and (iv) the preferred-network-path / current-characteristics / device-characteristics limitations of claims 16–19.

Motivation: (a) load balancing across a provider fleet and a third-party CDN; (b) redundancy/failover (a single provider outage should not stop playback); (c) comparative performance measurement — alternating segments between an in-house fleet and an external provider is the natural way to measure both under identical conditions, which the '352's own specification identifies as the problem in the art ("difficult to monitor in actual use … across multiple service providers"). (d) Predictability: HLS/DASH clients fetch each segment URL independently, so interspersing domains cannot break playback; the result is a predictable aggregation of known techniques.

Ground 3 — Device-characteristic-based server selection (claims 8/18/19) in view of Barraclough '545 and Pyle

Barraclough '545 expressly teaches classifying remote devices and using that classification "in selectively configuring … data to the remote device"; Pyle teaches optimization by device capability, form factor, network conditions and preference. Motivation: tailoring delivery to the requesting device is the stated purpose of both references; one of ordinary skill would apply the same conditional-selection logic to which server serves each segment.

Ground 4 — HLS/DASH baseline (RFC 8216 / 3GPP TS 26.234–26.247) in view of Grounds 1–3 (general knowledge — flagged as such)

HLS master/variant playlists, per-segment .ts URLs, and absolute-or-relative URL resolution are the standard framework within which all of this occurs; the abstract's "ordered list of URLs … at a particular reference bitrate" is simply the HLS variant playlist. Under KSR, "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" — on the recovered record, the '352's contribution looks like the predictable use of manifest rewriting + CDN selection + load balancing.

4. What I could NOT verify (and what would sink or save these grounds)

1. The examiner-cited third-party patents (Baumback, McGowan, Philpott, Gu, Mack, Cloonan, Kolam, Suryanarayanan, Joseph) — I retrieved only names/numbers and the list was truncated. If any of them routes per-segment requests across two provider domains (some Amazon/McGowan/Pilpott CDN patents plausibly do), the § 103 case strengthens materially; I could not confirm that here.
2. Full claim 1 text and claims 2–7, 9–13 — the "second domain" language in claim 1 may be narrower than the abstract suggests (e.g., it may require the second domain to be the infrastructure service provider's, or may require a specific interleaving), which would change the mapping. Until the claims are read verbatim, Grounds 1 and 2 are proposed, not established.
3. Claim construction of "determined interspersing pattern" — if construed as a non-routine, dynamically computed distribution (claim 8 arguably imports this via the "current characteristics" and "preferred network path" limitations), the load-balancing art may not reach it, and a POSITA-motivation showing would need to be stronger.
4. Teaching-away risk. The DivX IPR record shows exactly how a patent owner attacks a "rewrite manifest URLs to a closer CDN" rationale: the patent owner argued such modification "adds overhead and complexity … for no intended benefit" (Ex. 2010 ¶¶179–80 in the IPR2020-00647/00648 record, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1533653/...). The '352 owner (now Adeia) would likely run the same play: characterizing dual-domain interspersing as added complexity. A petitioner would need expert testimony that the benefit (measurement, failover, load spreading) was recognized in the art before 2014-10-29.
5. Secondary considerations — none evidenced in the record I have; the 2025 DLVR→Adeia transfer and Bank of America security interest are corporate/financing facts, not objective indicia of non-obviousness.

5. Priority-date issue that materially affects the § 103 analysis (and an OTDP flag)

• The '352's anticipated expiration is 2035-05-11 — i.e., 20 years from May 11, 2015, the filing date of parent 14/709,171, not from the '352's own 2018-10-29 filing. That is the signature of a terminal disclaimer tying the '352's term to the parent. Inference (moderate confidence): the '352 was likely subject to an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over one or more of its own siblings (the '089 / '742 / '639 / '964 / '708 continuations sharing this specification), which is itself a § 103-adjacent vulnerability and, if the disclaimer is in place, an admission that the claims are not patentably distinct from the family.
• If any claim limitation is argued to be new matter not supported in the 2014-10-29 priority application, the claims would take an effective filing date of 2018-10-29, which would make the family's own intervening publications (e.g., US 2018/0013809 A1, published 2018-01-11, DLVR, and the issued US 9,661,049 / 9,800,639 family) available as prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). However, this cuts both ways: the recovered text of US 9,661,049 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/c6/cb/60fb5bb6151221/US9661049.pdf, Fig. 5 and ¶ describing URLs 502–524) shows the same mixed-domain issued variant manifest (sfs.b.manifestserver.net mixed with content-provider.service-provider.net), which suggests the feature is in the shared family disclosure — supporting the 2014 priority and simultaneously demonstrating how old the concept is within this family. Also note AIA § 102(b)(2)(C): commonly owned family disclosures are excepted from being prior art, so a § 102(a)(2) attack using DLVR's own publications would likely fail unless common ownership is broken.

6. Bottom line and confidence

If you want a defensible § 103 opinion, the minimum inputs are: (1) the verbatim claim set (all 20 claims) from USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center for application 16/173,043; (2) the complete PTO-892 / "References Cited" list from the '352 file wrapper, plus the file-history rejections; (3) the terminal disclaimer (if any) and the sibling claims it disclaims over; and (4) the full text of Pyle, Lewis, Strasman, Guzman, Gabin, Barraclough, Chen, OAI, 3GPP TS 26.247 and Brueck. I can run element-by-element charts against the literal claims once (1) is in hand.