Invalidity dossier
US 5652916
Prestaging method, buffer management method and file system
Current assignee: Fujitsu Ltd
Added 8/27/2026, 1:49:32 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Auto-generating section 1 of 7: Litigation summary…
Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
I'll search for this specific patent number in the USPTO database and CAFC dockets.
Let me search for more details, particularly the complete claim set and any litigation/docket history.
Let me verify the complete claim set and check for any CAFC/appellate activity.
US Patent 5,652,916 (US5652916A) — Summary
Bibliographic data (verified against the USPTO patent image PDF and Google Patents)
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | Prestaging method, buffer management method and file system |
| Patent number | 5,652,916 (publication US5652916A) |
| Inventors | Takeo Murakami; Satoru Torii (both of Kawasaki, Japan) |
| Assignee | Fujitsu Limited, Kawasaki, Japan |
| Application no. | 08/576,402 |
| Filing date | December 21, 1995 |
| Issue date | July 29, 1997 |
| Parent application | Continuation of Ser. No. 08/077,056, filed June 16, 1993, now abandoned |
| Earliest priority date | June 29, 1992 |
| Current legal status | Expired – Fee Related (Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2013-06-16) |
Abstract (as issued)
"A prestaging method is adapted to a computer system comprising a central processing unit, a buffer and a secondary storage, where the prestaging method reads input data of a submitted job into the buffer from the secondary storage before executing the submitted job so as to carry out a prestaging. The prestaging method includes the steps of (a) obtaining a number of jobs for which prestagings are to be carried out simultaneously as the prestaging for the submitted job, (b) obtaining an effective data transfer speed based on the number of jobs and a data transfer speed of the secondary storage which stores the input data of the submitted job for which the prestaging is to be carried out, and (c) setting a prestaging start time from which the prestaging for the submitted job is to start by subtracting an effective data transfer time from a scheduled job start time from which the submitted job is to start, where the effective data transfer time is defined as a time which is obtained by dividing an amount of the input data by the effective data transfer speed."
Technology in plain language
The patent addresses the growing speed gap between CPUs and disk I/O. It "prestages" a job's input data from slow disk (14) into a faster buffer/disk cache (13) before the job starts, and solves the problem of when to start prestaging. Instead of using a fixed, static start time, the patent computes the start time dynamically from the disk's transfer speed, the amount of input data, the number of concurrently-prestaged jobs, and/or the current or predicted load on the data-transfer path — so prestaging finishes just-in-time (right before job execution), avoiding both premature cache occupation/takeover and incomplete prestaging. A second group of embodiments manages the buffer with three free lists ("used," "unused," "in-use") so sequentially-accessed blocks are recycled efficiently rather than using a plain LRU policy.
Independent claims — plain-language overview
Claim 1 (prestaging start time from concurrent-job count): A method that (a) counts how many jobs will be prestaged simultaneously with the submitted job; (b) computes an "operative/effective" data-transfer speed as a function of the disk's transfer speed and that job count; and (c) sets the prestaging start time = scheduled job start time − (total input data ÷ effective transfer speed).
Claim 10 (start time from current path load): At job submission, (a) detects the load on the data-transfer path between secondary storage and buffer; (b) computes effective transfer speed by subtracting that load from the disk's transfer speed; and (c) sets the prestaging start time by subtracting (total input data ÷ effective speed) from the scheduled start time.
Claim 12 (start time from predicted path load at prestaging): (a) Calculates the predicted load on the data-transfer path at the time prestaging will begin; (b) calculates the data-transfer speed by subtracting that predicted load from the disk's transfer speed; and (c) sets the prestaging start time accordingly.
Claim 14 (start time from reserved path): (a) Secures/reserves in advance the data-transfer path needed for prestaging; (b) obtains a "reserved" data-transfer speed based on the secured path; and (c) sets the prestaging start time by subtracting (input data ÷ reserved speed) from the scheduled start time (the reserved path guarantees that speed).
Claim 16 (correction of prior jobs' start times): (a) Sets the prestaging start time for the newly submitted job; and (b) after doing so, corrects the prestaging start time of a previously submitted job to account for the change in data-transfer-path load caused by the new job.
The remaining claims (2–9, 11, 13, 15, and 17+) are dependent. Claims 2, 11, 13, and 15 limit the buffer to the computer's main storage. Claims 3–9 (depending from claim 2) add the buffer-management features: at least three free lists ("used," "unused," "in-use") with block release into a list chosen by buffer state (claim 3); the state comprising transfer kind and amount (claim 4); queue placement by block position within the file (claim 5); queue placement based on whether the whole block was transferred (claim 6); distinct queuing of invalidated blocks on file deletion (claim 7); allocating by searching used→unused→in-use lists in that order (claim 8); and using per-block map information/access counts to judge whole-block transfer completion (claim 9).
Uncertainty notes
- CAFC 2026 docket search: No results were found for patent 5652916 in any CAFC, PTAB, or other appellate docket search. This is consistent with the patent having expired (fee-related) around 2013, but I cannot affirmatively confirm the absence of any historical or current litigation; the docket search returned no hits either way.
- Complete claim count/text: I verified claims 1–10 verbatim from Justia's copy and claims 10–17 from EveryPatent's copy (both consistent with the Google Patents record). The exact text of any claims beyond 17 could not be fully retrieved in this search session, so I cannot state with certainty whether the patent contains, e.g., a separately independent file-system claim (the specification's Summary describes file-system embodiments) or a re-prestaging independent claim (sixth embodiment). The claim set includes at least 17 claims.
- The abstract quoted above is the official issued abstract as reproduced in the USPTO PDF and Google Patents record.
Sources: USPTO patent image PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/45/ab/88/e20fa8483136d6/US5652916.pdf); Google Patents record US5652916A; Justia patent record (patents.justia.com/patent/5652916); EveryPatent record (everypatent.com/comp/pat5652916.html).
Generated 8/27/2026, 1:50:06 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5652916. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.
Keep exploring
Other patents in Software Technology & Computing Systems (T)
- US 5586264Summary of U.S. Patent No. 5,586,264 (US5586264A) Bibliographic data (confirmed via Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and USPTO-derived records) | Field | Value | |---|---| | Patent number | US 5,586,264 A (US5586264A) | | Title | Video…
- US 10963070US Patent 10,963,070 — Summary Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative Google Patents record provided) | Field | Value | |---|---| | Patent number | US 10,963,070 B2 | | Title | Fingertip mouse and base | | Inventor | Michael P. Bailen…
- US 9261983I'll search for this patent across the USPTO and court dockets. Let me run several searches in parallel. The patent data is confirmed. The CAFC docket searches came back empty, so let me try a couple more targeted queries to see if there's…
- US 9092075I'll search for this specific patent number and any related CAFC 2026 docket activity. The first search returned an unrelated patent (9,210,254) and the second returned no results. Let me refine the searches for this exact patent and any…
- US 11086392Summary: US Patent 11086392 (US11086392B1) Bibliographic Data | Field | Value | |---|---| | Title | Devices, systems, and methods for virtual representation of user interface devices | | Patent Number | US 11,086,392 B1 (Application No…
- US 11222448Summary of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,448 B2 Verified against live search results (USPTO/PTAB records, E.D. Tex. docket, and press reports), which I prioritize over training data where they differ. Core bibliographic data | Field | Value |…
- US 11570034Summary of US Patent 11,570,034 B2 (US11570034) — "Cluster computing" I searched for the literal number 11570034 (US Patent 11,570,034 B2). Below is what is confirmed from the authoritative Google Patents record (the full patent text you…
- US 5870553Search Results Summary I searched for the exact patent number 5870553 (US5870553A). The searches confirmed the USPTO record via Google Patents, USPTO.report, and Unified Patents. I found no CAFC (Federal Circuit) docket entries for 2026…