US 5719786

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

Let me check for any 2026 court activity and verify the claim structure.

Let me retrieve the actual claim set to identify the independent claims precisely.

US Patent 5,719,786 — Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal number "5719786" (and "5,719,786"). I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, IPR, or 2026 litigation involving this patent. Hits that surfaced for "5719786 + 2026" were unrelated documents bearing different identifiers (e.g., the Taction v. Apple verdict concerned U.S. Patents 10,659,885 and 10,820,117; an IPR exhibit mentioned '786 only as a prior-art search string). I also note the search engine returned AU5719786A, which is an entirely different document (a fuel-burning apparatus) — I have not conflated it with the U.S. patent you asked about. Treat any claim of 2026 activity for US 5,719,786 as unverified.

Bibliographic data (from the patent document itself)

Assignee history is unusually complex (Fluent → Novell → security interests recorded by Credit Suisse and Bank of America → Micro Focus Software Inc. change of name → JPMorgan Chase as successor agent). Because the patent expired in 2015, the current assignee listing reflects recorded security/name-change documents rather than an enforceable asset.

Abstract (verbatim summary of the disclosed subject matter)

A computer-based media data processor controls transmission of digitized media data in a packet-switching network. On receiving a client request for presentation of specified media-data stream presentation-unit sequences, the processor retrieves media data from a corresponding media access location, determines the media data type of each presentation unit, and designates each retrieved presentation unit to a specific presentation-unit sequence based on that type determination. It assembles a sequence of presentation descriptors for each sequence — all descriptors in an assembled sequence being of a common media data type — then assembles transmission presentation-unit packets each composed of at least a portion of a presentation descriptor and its media data, again all of one media data type. The packets are released for transmission over the network to the requesting client node.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent discloses two facets — a stand-alone presentation processor and a networked client/server transmission processor — plus corresponding method claims. Based on the SUMMARY section and the claim text visible in secondary sources, the independent claims are:

1. Stand-alone media-data processor claim (claim 1). A media "input manager" pulls media from storage in response to a presentation request, sorts each presentation unit by media type (e.g., audio vs. video) into separate sequences, builds a descriptor (token) for each presentation unit, attaches a presentation time and duration to each descriptor (from the retrieved data), and links the descriptors into a progression. A media "interpreter" then runs the presentation: it keeps a current presentation time, counts each processed unit per stream, multiplies count × unit duration, and — comparing that product to the current time — releases the next unit when they match and drops (deletes) the next unit when the count has fallen behind. This is the core "self-synchronization" idea (implicit timing).

2. Networked media-data processor claim (claim 44) — the primary transmission claim. A packet-switched network with multiple client nodes. A remote media data controller receives a client's request and retrieves media data; a remote input manager type-sorts presentation units into per-type descriptor sequences with times/durations and linked order; a remote network media data manager assembles transmission packets, each carrying descriptors and media data of only one media type (no interleaving), and releases them to the requesting client; a local media data controller sends the request and handles start/stop; a local network media data manager reassembles the per-stream descriptor sequences at the client; and a local interpreter plays units one at a time, synchronizing presentation to its own maintained current time (by direct time-stamp comparison or by count × duration comparison).

3. Additional independent media-data-processor claims (appear to be claims 73 and 74). Dependent claim 75 recites "the media data processor of either of claims 73 or 74," and claim 73 is referred to together with 74 — indicating parallel independent processor claims covering the same network scheme, likely directed to the rate-scaled / null-substitution variant: the remote controller receives a requested transmission data rate from the local side and causes a portion of the descriptors to be designated as carrying null media data, so the stream is transmitted at the specified (reduced) rate rather than its nominal rate.

4. Independent method claim (claim 82). A method counterpart to the above (claims 83–87 depend from 82), reciting the steps of requesting presentation-unit sequences over the network, receiving the type-separated packets, and synchronizing presentation.

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: I could retrieve verbatim claim language for claims 44 and 73–87 (via uspto.report and the patent's SUMMARY), but I could not retrieve the complete, verbatim claim set. The precise number and wording of independent claims 1, 44, 73/74, and 82 is therefore partly inferred from the specification's two-aspect structure and from cross-references in dependent claims. I recommend confirming the exact independent-claim list against the USPTO Patent Center / the granted patent's claims, pages 11+.

Notable claim-level features (confirmed)

• Recurring "intracoded video frame" limitation: motion-JPEG-style frames where each frame is independently coded (claim 75).
• Preferred dependents cover: audio prioritized so all audio presentation units are transmitted while video units may be dropped/substituted (claims 76, 77); user-specified data rate (claim 78); adaptive rate control based on monitored token-queue availability at the client, raising the rate at a preset high-availability threshold and lowering it at a preset low-availability threshold (claims 79–81).
• Deletion of late presentation units (when current time exceeds the unit's presentation time) is expressly claimed, not merely disclosed.

Bottom line

US 5,719,786 is a 1993-priority, 1998-issued Novell patent (now expired as of Feb. 17, 2015) covering separate, non-interleaved management of time-based media streams — type-based stream separation, descriptor/token assembly with per-unit timing, single-media-type transmission packets, and receiver-side self-synchronization with adaptive rate scaling. I found no 2026 Federal Circuit or USPTO activity tied to this specific number; given its expiration, any such activity would be legally improbable. If you are relying on a court docket citing "5719786," please provide the docket/case number so I can verify it directly, as identifiers in litigation documents are sometimes mistyped.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5719786 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases and specific party names.

Summary Finding

I found no record of any litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,719,786. Every hit my searches returned for the string "5719786" was either (a) a prior-art citation to the patent inside other patents' file histories and IPR exhibits, or (b) an assignment/security-interest record — not a court case in which the '786 patent was asserted as a patent-in-suit.

What I searched

• Open web searches combining "5719786" with terms such as litigation, lawsuit, infringement case, and patent infringement.
• Patent-litigation aggregators your prompt suggested, including the Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, and PlainSite.
• The Google Patents page for US5719786A (authoritative text provided), including its full assignment/reassignment and legal-status record.

None of these surfaced a complaint, docket entry, judgment, or litigation caption naming US 5,719,786 as an asserted patent.

What the searches did return (and why it is not litigation)

The Gantt entries on the Google Patents page dated 2011–2023 (Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, etc.) are security interests and releases, not litigation. Likewise, the Fluent/Novell reassignments are ownership transfers.

Key context from the patent record (not litigation)

• Patent: US 5,719,786 A — "Digital media data stream network management system"
• Inventors: David L. Nelson, Premkumar Uppaluru, Pasquale Romano, Jeffrey L. Kleiman
• Priority/filing: 1993‑02‑03; granted: 1998‑02‑17
• Original assignee: Novell Inc. (with early 1993 assignments to Fluent Incorporated, later reassigned to Novell)
• Current listed assignees: Micro Focus Software Inc.; JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.; Fluent Inc.
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration ~2015‑02‑17)

Because the patent expired in 2015, any past assertion window has closed, which is consistent with the absence of active litigation.

Important caveats

• I could not confirm a true negative with certainty. PACER is paywalled and I cannot run a full federal-docket search here; my negative result reflects only the free/aggregator sources reachable in this session. It is possible (though I found no evidence) that a short-lived or sealed case exists that these sources did not index.
• Security-interest and assignment filings are frequently mistaken for litigation — I have deliberately excluded them.
• I did not auto-correct any identifier; all references above are to the literal string "5719786."

Recommended next steps to close the loop

To definitively confirm "no litigation," run the '786 patent through a fee-based docket service that indexes complaints and IPR/PGR petitions:

1. Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (patent-specific litigation analytics; search by patent number).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP full-text docket search for "5,719,786" and "5719786."
3. USPTO PTAB search for any IPR/PGR/CBM naming the patent (I saw none).

If you'd like, I can draft the exact query strings to use in those systems, or prepare a short "no known litigation" declaration suitable for a patent portfolio or diligence file.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against public sources.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 5,719,786 as the challenged patent, and my web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal in which the '786 patent was the subject of an AIA trial — the patent appears in PTAB records only as prior art cited in the file histories of other patents (e.g., the DivX/Netflix IPR2020-00558 record and the IPR2016-01655 record), never as the challenged patent itself.

Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated in AIA trial 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB-driven claim cancellation to point to, and no IPR estoppel to exploit — but there is also no need for one. The far more important fact is that the patent's term expired on 2015-02-17 ("Expired – Lifetime" per the structured data, with the anticipated-expiration event recorded 2015-02-17). This is a pre-URAA patent (filed 1993-02-03, granted 1998-02-17), so it received 17 years from grant. There is no live infringement exposure from 2015-02-18 forward. Any demand letter asserting this patent today can only be pursuing pre-expiration damages, which are themselves capped by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical structured list is empty and I could not corroborate any AIA trial from public sources, I am not going to generate per-proceeding entries. Doing so would require inventing proceeding numbers, which is precisely what the task forbids. If you have internal intel suggesting a petition exists that ODP has not indexed, the places to check are:

• PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (https://ptab.uspto.gov) — search by patent number 5,719,786.
• USPTO Patent Center for application 08/013,009 — "Trial Proceedings" tab.
• CourtListener RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com) and PTAB Decisions on the USPTO site for any FWD or CAFC opinion.
• Third-party trackers: Docket Navigator, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents' patent-assertion portal.

Absence of PTAB activity here is partly structural, not merely a signal about the patent's strength: CBM review only became available on 2012-09-16 and this patent expired 2015-02-17, leaving a ~2.5-year window. An IPR challenging an expired patent is generally a poor investment because the patentee cannot obtain prospective relief, which depresses petitioner incentives. So the empty PTAB docket should not be read as "the claims were tested and survived" — the claims were never tested at the Board at all.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED — none. SUSTAINED in an AIA trial — none. UNTESTED — all. The '786 patent's claims (1–30 apparatus/method claims shown in the patent's renumbered claim set, plus the broader claim set reflected through claim 87 in the published version) were never subjected to an AIA trial. There is no FWD, no certificate of cancellation or correction issued under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), and therefore no claim-level outcome to report. Anything you hear about particular claims being "killed at the PTAB" would be inaccurate.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) is not in play. Because no IPR/PGR was instituted against this patent, there is no statutory estoppel barring any party from raising any prior-art ground in district court. That cuts both ways: a defendant has the full universe of prior art available, including art that (had an IPR occurred) would have been subject to estoppel. The Herrtwich "Time Capsules: An Abstraction for Access to Continuous-Media Data" reference, which the specification itself identifies and attempts to distinguish in the Background section, is fair game, as are the interleaved-storage prior-art systems the patent characterizes as conventional. But note the practical reality: the patent is expired, so invalidity defenses matter only to defeat pre-expiration damages, and the § 286 lookback means the damages window is at most 2020-09-(30 minus 6 years) forward — i.e., accrual ending 2015-02-17 and, for a suit filed today, a recovery period reaching back roughly to late 2020, which post-dates expiration entirely. That is worth checking carefully against your specific accrual theory, because a reasonable reading is that no recoverable damages period exists for a complaint filed today.

Pattern signals: none available. There is no repeat petitioner, no joinder history, no patent-owner appeal pattern, and no evidence of a defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents or RPX having filed on this patent. The ownership chain in the structured data is the ordinary corporate trail: inventors assigned to Fluent Incorporated (1993-04-05), then to Novell, Inc. (1994-07-13), through a long series of security-interest liens (Credit Suisse, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase), a change of name to Micro Focus Software Inc. (2016-09-13), with Fluent Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA still listed among current assignees as successor agent/collateral holder. The recorded liens are security interests, not ownership transfers — a plaintiff's standing and the identity of the real party in interest should be confirmed from the Patent Center assignment record before conceding either point.

Recommended next steps

1. If you received a demand letter citing US 5,719,786, lead with expiration. The structured record shows a legal status of "Expired – Lifetime" with the anticipated expiration event on 2015-02-17. That is the single most valuable fact on this page. Assert it in writing and demand the sender's damages theory and accrual dates.
2. Verify the trial-proceeding record yourself before finalizing any position. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E and the Patent Center trial tab, and capture screenshots for your file. My conclusion rests on the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block plus web searches; I did not have direct live access to PTAB E2E. If E2E shows a proceeding I could not surface, treat that as controlling over this memo.
3. Do not build a defense around an IPR. For an expired patent there is typically no injunctive relief to stay and limited damages to defend, so the cost of an IPR (which cannot undo past damages) is usually not justified. If prior art matters to your damages defense, raise it in the district court, where no § 315(e)(2) estoppel constrains you.
4. Confirm the real party in interest and the chain of title. Given the layered security interests held by Credit Suisse, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, and the Novell → Micro Focus change of name, a standing or RPI challenge is worth a look if litigation is actually filed.
5. Note the untested-validity risk if you are negotiating a license. Nothing here establishes that the claims are valid — only that no one has attempted to invalidate them at the Board. If the counterparty is leveraging a presumption of validity, the expiration date and the six-year damages lookback are the cleaner levers.

Confidence note: I am highly confident there is no PTAB activity on this patent based on the structured data provided, and no public evidence contradicting it. I am not able to verify E2E-level records directly, and I cannot confirm whether the EP counterparts (EP0682833B1 / EP0683951B1) were subject to European oppositions or their outcomes — that is a separate track from AIA trials and would require a separate EPO Register check.

I'll start by attempting to pull additional ownership-record detail from live sources, then reconstruct the chain from the authoritative patent text provided.

Let me dig into the assignment-specific records and the Fluent/Novell corporate history.

Good — I'm building a clear picture. Let me resolve the Fluent/Novell acquisition timing and the later corporate chain.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 5,719,786

Patent: US 5,719,786 A — "Digital media data stream network management system"
App. No.: 08/013,009 · Filed: 1993-02-03 · Issued: 1998-02-17 · Expired (anticipated): 2015-02-17

Sourcing note / limitation. The authoritative record I was given (the Google Patents legal-events table for US5719786A) exposes the conveyance type, assignor, assignee, execution/recording dates, and — for the release instruments — some reel/frame numbers embedded in the event descriptions. It does not expose the correspondent of record, and it omits reel/frame for the majority of entries. I was unable to open the interactive USPTO Assignment Center query in this session, so I have not populated correspondent fields, and I have not invented reel/frame numbers. Where I cite a reel/frame below, it is because that number was literally present in the fetched record. Everything else is marked "not exposed in fetched record — verify at Assignment Center."

Primary verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5719786 or application 08/013,009); legacy mirror https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
Corroborating third-party mirror used: PlainSite Fluent Inc. profile — https://www.plainsite.org/profiles/fluent-inc/page-3/table-patents.h66x88k4/sort-documentnumber

Inventors

Unusual patterns to note (evidence-based, not inferred):

• All four inventors assigned to Fluent Incorporated on 1993-04-05 — approximately two months after the 1993-02-03 filing date. This is a normal employee/founder invention-assignment cadence, not a departure pattern.
• The genuine anomaly is corporate, not personnel: Fluent was acquired by Novell, and the patent was then re-assigned from the inventor group directly to Novell, Inc. on 1994-07-13 — with the inventors named again as assignors, not Fluent. So the record shows two assignments out of the same four individuals (1993 → Fluent; 1994 → Novell), with a ~12-month gap between the Novell deal and the formal IP recordation. I could not locate a recorded Fluent→Novell corporate assignment instrument; if one exists it did not surface in the fetched events.
• I did not verify post-Fluent career moves for any inventor in this session; treat any "where are they now" narrative as unverified.

Original assignee

Novell, Inc. is the assignee named on the issued patent (1998-02-17). Note the distinction from the first recorded assignee, Fluent Incorporated (1993-04-05).

• Fluent Incorporated / Fluent Inc. (Natick, Massachusetts) — an operating company, not a holding vehicle. It built and sold networked full-motion video products: the FM/1 Multimedia Development System (Fluent Machines line — advertising literature is cited as prior art in later patents), and the FluentLinks NetWare Loadable Module (released ~January, enabling multiple users to stream motion video from a remote file server). Investors included Intel, Cirrus Logic, NYNEX, and Olivetti (Tech Monitor; MIT thesis "Interactive Information Kiosks"). Status today: dissolved as an independent entity — acquired by Novell. Press reported Novell paid $17.5M for Fluent, with a one-time write-off booked in the quarter ending July 31 (Tech Monitor, "Buying again, Novell pays $17m for Fluent and its video software"; Computerwoche, 16 July). Note a date tension: press and a court opinion (below) point to a July 1993 stock acquisition, whereas the patent assignment to Novell was recorded 1994-07-13. I flag this rather than resolve it.
• Novell, Inc. — operating company; its primary line of business was network operating systems (NetWare) and network services. It shipped a product embodying the technology: it launched a server version of NetWare Video derived from the Fluent acquisition (Tech Monitor, "Novell launches server version of NetWare video"). Status: acquired/absorbed. Novell was acquired by Attachmate Corporation (2011); the Attachmate Group (including Novell) was acquired by Micro Focus (2014); Novell, Inc. was renamed Micro Focus Software Inc. (change-of-name recorded 2016-09-13); Micro Focus was acquired by OpenText (2023). These downstream corporate steps are consistent with the recorded lien/release dates but I did not independently verify each closing date in this session.

Contradiction flag vs. the prior litigation section. The earlier-generated note listed "Fluent Inc" and "JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A." among current assignees. Per the assignment record, neither is a current owner: Fluent ceased to be assignee in 1994 (it is a former assignee), and JPMorgan Chase is a security-interest/agency party, not an owner (the 2017-10-11 and 2018-07-26 filings are liens and a successor-agent notice). The Google Patents "Current Assignee" panel conflates historical assignees and lienholders. Correcting for this, the current owner is Micro Focus Software Inc. (f/k/a Novell, Inc.), now within the OpenText group. The earlier section's core conclusion (no litigation, expired 2015) is unaffected and is consistent with this record.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from the authoritative legal-events record. Reel/frame shown only where the fetched text supplied it.

• 1993-02-03 (filed) — no reel/frame exposed

  • Conveyance: Application filing (Google Patents lists applicant as "Novell Inc" — likely a Google Patents artifact, since the executed assignment two months later ran to Fluent, not Novell; flag for verification)
  • Assignor: n/a · Assignee: n/a · Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: initial filing of app. 08/013,009.

• 1993-04-05 / recorded 1993-04-05 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Nelson, David L.; Uppaluru, Premkumar; Romano, Pasquale; Kleiman, Jeffrey L. (each listed individually)
  • Assignee: Fluent Incorporated
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record (PlainSite lists the four as separate assignor rows; the individual instrument for each may carry a different correspondent)
  • Context: founder/employee invention assignment to the operating startup that employed them — routine, pre-acquisition.

• 1994-07-13 / recorded 1994-07-13 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("see document for details")
  • Assignor: Romano, Pasquale; Nelson, David L.; Kleiman, Jeffrey L.; Uppaluru, Premkumar (the inventor group again)
  • Assignee: Novell, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: acquisition / post-closing IP cleanup — Novell consolidated Fluent-origin IP following its purchase of Fluent; the assignor being the inventors rather than Fluent is the notable feature (see contradiction flags below).

• 2011-05-12 / recorded 2011-05-12 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Grant of patent security interest (first lien)
  • Assignor: Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record (lender-side counsel expected)
  • Context: securitization — typical collateral grant in connection with the Attachmate acquisition financing.

• 2011-05-13 / recorded 2011-05-13 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Grant of patent security interest (second lien)
  • Assignor: Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — second-lien layer of the same financing.

• 2012-05-22 / recorded 2012-05-22 — Reel/frame exposed in event text: releases RF 026275/0018 and 027290/0983

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest in patents (second lien)
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse AG, as collateral agent · Assignee: Novell, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization refinancing — release (and immediate re-grant, below) of the lien package.

• 2012-05-22 / recorded 2012-05-22 — Reel/frame exposed in event text: releases RF 026270/0001 and 027289/0727

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest in patents (first lien)
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse AG, as collateral agent · Assignee: Novell, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization refinancing.

• 2012-05-23 / recorded 2012-05-23 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Grant of patent security interest (first lien)
  • Assignor: Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Credit Suisse AG, as collateral agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — re-grant one day after release.

• 2012-05-23 / recorded 2012-05-23 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Grant of patent security interest (second lien)
  • Assignor: Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Credit Suisse AG, as collateral agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — re-grant.

• 2014-11-24 / recorded 2014-11-24 — Reel/frame exposed in event text: releases RF 028252/0216 and 028252/0316

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest (two releases)
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse AG · Assignee: Novell, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization wind-down — lien release consistent with the Micro Focus/Attachmate Group transaction (Nov. 2014). Note the two released reels (028252/0216 and /0316) are the practical place to look up the 2012 lien correspondents.

• 2015-05-13 / recorded 2015-05-13 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Security interest
  • Assignor: Attachmate Corporation; Borland Software Corporation; Micro Focus (US), Inc.; NetIQ Corporation; Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — new lender collateral package across the Micro Focus/Attachmate family after the 2014 combination. (Bears a recording date three months after the patent's 2015-02-17 expiry — lien recorded against an about-to-expire asset.)

• 2016-09-13 / recorded 2016-09-13 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Change of name (no change of ownership)
  • Assignor: Novell, Inc. · Assignee: Micro Focus Software Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: internal reorg / change of name only — this is the last ownership event; current owner traces here.

• 2017-05-02 / recorded 2017-05-02 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Notice of succession of agency
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A., as prior agent · Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — administrative change of collateral agent, no ownership effect.

• 2017-10-11 / recorded 2017-10-11 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record

  • Conveyance: Security interest
  • Assignor: ArcSight, LLC; Attachmate Corporation; Borland Software Corporation; Entit Software LLC; Micro Focus (US), Inc.; Micro Focus Software, Inc.; NetIQ Corporation; Serena Software, Inc. · Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — the group-wide JPMorgan collateral package.

• 2018-07-26 / recorded 2018-07-26 — Reel/frame not exposed in fetched record (event text references reel 042388 / frame 0386 as the corrected record)

  • Conveyance: Corrective assignment (correcting a typo: application no. 10708121 → 10708021)
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A., as prior agent · Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization — clerical correction; note this instrument concerns a different application number, not '786.

• 2023-02-02 / recorded 2023-02-02 — Reel/frame exposed in event text: RF 035656/0251

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · Releasees: Borland Software Corporation; NetIQ Corporation; Attachmate Corporation; Micro Focus Software Inc. (f/k/a Novell, Inc.); Micro Focus (US), Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization wind-down — lien release consistent with the OpenText/Micro Focus closing.

• 2023-02-02 / recorded 2023-02-02 — Reel/frame exposed in event text: RF 044183/0718

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · Releasees: NetIQ Corporation; Micro Focus LLC (f/k/a Entit Software LLC); Micro Focus (US), Inc.; Micro Focus Software Inc. (f/k/a Novell, Inc.); Attachmate Corporation; Serena Software, Inc.; Borland Software Corporation
  • Correspondent: not exposed in fetched record
  • Context: securitization wind-down.

• 2015-02-17 — Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration), per Google Patents; no later owner-assertion event.

(Also in the official record but not assignments: the 1994-02-02 PCT/national-stage priority filings — WO1994018771, WO1994018776, EP0682833, EP0683951, AU61321/94, AU66955/94, CA2155353, CA2155354, JP6518178, JP6518182 — and the 2001-04-10 Japanese divisional grants JP3523217B2 / JP3523218B2. Foreign-family ownership is outside the US assignment record.)

Summary of the chain: Inventors → Fluent Incorporated (1993) → Novell, Inc. (1994) → [Credit Suisse / BofA / JPMorgan liens 2011–2023] → Micro Focus Software Inc., f/k/a Novell, Inc. (change of name 2016) → (OpenText group, 2023). There is exactly one operating-company-to-operating-company transfer (Fluent→Novell) and one change of name. No assignment to any licensing entity ever occurred.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5719786
    1993 : Inventors assign to Fluent Inc
         : Filed 3 Feb 1993
         : Novell buys Fluent Jul 1993
    1994 : Recorded assignment to Novell Inc
    1998 : Patent issued 17 Feb 1998
    2011 : Attachmate buys Novell
         : Credit Suisse first and second lien
    2012 : Liens released and re granted
    2014 : Micro Focus buys Attachmate Group
         : Credit Suisse liens released
    2015 : Bank of America security interest
         : Patent expires 17 Feb 2015
    2016 : Novell renamed Micro Focus Software Inc
    2017 : JPMorgan becomes successor agent
    2023 : JPMorgan liens released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the entire chain carries an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix or a registered-agent-style address. The two ownership transfers are Fluent Incorporated (operating startup) → Novell, Inc. (operating vendor) on 1994-07-13, and a change of name only (Novell → Micro Focus Software Inc., 2016-09-13). Every other recording (2011-05-12 through 2023-02-02) is a security interest, release, or agency succession, i.e., a lender/collateral-agent filing, not a transfer of title.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Checked each assignee against the named asserter set (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities): none appear. The named parties are Fluent Inc., Novell Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Bank of America N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., and Micro Focus Software Inc. — lenders, agents, and operating vendors. No Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff match surfaced in the sources reached.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not assessable from the data obtained). The fetched authoritative text does not expose the correspondent of record for any entry, and I did not retrieve it. Therefore I make no finding here rather than inferring one. Two cautions for the follow-up analyst: (a) on this chain a repeating correspondent across 2011–2017 is expected and benign — lender counsel and the borrower's IP-recording firm routinely handle lien packages and their releases; recurrence there is not an NPE tell; (b) the place a repeat-player would be diagnostic is the 1993 and 1994 instruments, which ran through the four inventors. Action: pull correspondent from Assignment Center for the 1993-04-05 and 1994-07-13 records, and from the lien reels 026270/0001, 026275/0018, 027289/0727, 027290/0983, 028252/0216, 028252/0316, 035656/0251, 044183/0718 (the only reel numbers the record exposed).

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The apparent clustering is an artifact of financing, not entity-churn. The 2011–2012 window is a grant → release → immediate re-grant of the same collateral to the same secured party (2011-05-12/13 grants; 2012-05-22 releases; 2012-05-23 re-grants) — the signature of a secured refinancing, not a chain of LLCs. The 2015–2017 window is a single new lender (BofA) with a successor agent substitution (JPMorgan) — again not title movement. No assignees share a registered-agent address, and no two consecutive title transfers occurred within 24 months (the only two title events are 1994 and 2016).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment sits within 6 months before any infringement suit naming this patent, because (per the companion litigation analysis) no such suit was found. The nearest owner-side instrument, the 2015-05-13 BofA security interest, is dated after the patent's 2015-02-17 expiration and is a lien, not a title transfer. Nothing in the record suggests venue- or standing-engineering.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT for this patent (though the vendor had distress history). Fluent-origin IP changed hands via Novell's stock purchase, not a bankruptcy sale; Novell retained the patent through to the Micro Focus change of name. Worth noting for provenance: ProtoComm Corp. v. Novell, Inc. (CourtListener) involved a judgment ProtoComm held against Fluent and fraudulent-conveyance/wrongful-dividend claims against the former Fluent shareholders over the Novell stock transaction — a distressed-seller backdrop, but it did not result in a sale of the '786 patent and does not change the ownership analysis.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating-company→NPE transfer followed by assertion on the operating company's behalf. The chain ends inside an operating vendor (Micro Focus Software Inc., now OpenText) with the asset expired; no third-party asserter was ever interposed.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN, and the patent does not appear (per the searchable sources reached) in those organizations' records. No neutralization event occurred — the patent simply expired in place on 2015-02-17 while held by an operating vendor.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting (nearest applicable category — see caveat)

Justification. The assignment record shows a clean, single-lane operating-company ownership chain: the four inventors → Fluent Incorporated (1993-04-05) → Novell, Inc. (1994-07-13) → change of name to Micro Focus Software Inc. (2016-09-13), with every intervening recording being a security interest, release, or agency succession (Credit Suisse grants 2011-05-12/13 and re-grants 2012-05-23; releases RF 026270/0001 / 026275/0018 / 027289/0727 / 027290/0983 on 2012-05-22 and RF 028252/0216 / 028252/0316 on 2014-11-24; Bank of America 2015-05-13; JPMorgan Chase 2017-05-02/2017-10-11 and 2018-07-26; releases RF 035656/0251 / 044183/0718 on 2023-02-02). Signals 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are all not present; signal 3 is unclear for lack of correspondent data; signal 6 is a vendor-distress footnote only. No NPE ever entered the chain and no assertion was found; the asset expired 2015-02-17.

Caveat on the label: the category's parenthetical ("chain terminates at a defensive aggregator") does not literally apply — the chain terminates at an operating vendor (Micro Focus Software Inc. / OpenText), not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified. I select "Defensive / non-asserting" over the other four options because "NPE — high/moderate" fails (zero signals), "Operating-company assertion" fails (no suit against competitors was found), and "Insufficient data" fails (the record is complete and legible). The functionally correct characterization is therefore "no NPE exposure — operating-company-held, never asserted, now expired."

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ → search 5719786. To close the two open items, retrieve (a) the correspondent of record for the 1993-04-05 and 1994-07-13 instruments and (b) the reel/frame for all non-release entries, which the fetched record did not expose.

I'll search for the specific patent and its citations.

Let me search for the specific cited references section and any related prior art.

Let me try to locate the patent's front-page citation list directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,719,786

⚠️ Critical limitation on this result (read first)

I must be explicit: I was unable to retrieve the front-page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" list for US 5,719,786 from the sources reachable in this session. The Google Patents page and its snippets contain the abstract, summary, and description, but the citations block did not render in any search result I could reach. PACER/USPTO full-text citation search is also not directly queryable in this environment.

Per my operating rules, I will not fabricate U.S. Patent Documents numbers to fill that list. Everything below is grounded in what the searches did return, and each item is labeled by what it actually is (backward reference vs. forward citation vs. family member).

1. Confirmed reference actually discussed in the '786 specification (backward reference)

§ 102 relevance: This is the one reference on the record that the applicant engaged with directly. Its disclosure of a time stamp + duration value per data item and a clock for periodic access maps most closely onto the '786 subject matter of associating each presentation descriptor with a presentation duration and presentation time and synchronizing presentation via a clock/reference time base (the implicit- and explicit-timing aspects of the Summary). Under § 102 it would be directed at the time-stamp/duration synchronization concepts. However — important — the applicant's own remarks and the disclosure's silence on (a) the interleaved-format network transport and (b) distinct non-interleaved packet-per-stream design suggest it would not anticipate the network-transmission claims (remote/local network media managers, common-media-type packets). I cannot map to specific claim numbers because the claims text is not present in the record provided to me — treat this as mapping to claim concepts/aspects, not numbered claims.

2. Forward citations (patents citing '786) — not prior art to '786

These are the reverse direction: later patents that cite '786. They are not "references cited for 5719786" and create no § 102 exposure. I list them only to correct a common mix-up and to show what the searches returned:

• US 10,341,698 — lists "5,719,786 A 2/1998 Nelson et al." in its cited references.
• US 10,464,976 — same (front-page "References Cited" block includes the 1998 Nelson et al. entry).
• US 9,928,146 and US 10,148,989 — surfaced via Justia as forward citations ("5719786 Nelson et al., Feb. 17, 1998").
• IPR exhibits (IPR2020-00558 Netflix/Hulu v. DivX; IPR2016-01655; IPR2015-00441) list "5719786" as a prior-art citation in other patents' file histories.

None of these can anticipate '786, because they post-date it.

3. Family members (same priority) — not prior art

From the Google Patents record, the 1993-02-03/1994-02-02 PCT family (not usable as § 102 art against '786 because of common priority):

• WO1994018776A2 and WO1994018771A1 (PCT/US1994/001177 and PCT/US1994/001171)
• EP0683951B1 and EP0682833B1 (plus AT94914690T / AT94907949T)
• DE69406650 / DE69405976
• CA2155353 and CA2155354
• JP2846956B2; later JP3523217B2 / JP3523218B2

4. What I could not verify (stated plainly, not fabricated)

• The U.S. Patent Documents (56) list actually cited during prosecution of '786 — I could not retrieve it.
• Any foreign patent documents cited during prosecution of '786 — not retrieved.
• Any additional NPL beyond the Herrtwich reference — not retrieved.
• The claims of '786 are not in the authoritative text provided to me (the Description references Appendices A–M via ##SPC1##, but no claim set is rendered). Therefore I cannot cite claim numbers; all mappings above are to claim concepts.

5. To close the gap (exact sources to pull the real cited list)

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full-Text (PatFT) → open US 5,719,786 → "Front Page" / "References Cited."
2. Google Patents → https://patents.google.com/patent/US5719786/en → scroll to the "Citations" table (Patent Citations + Non-Patent Citations), which lists each citing reference with its own Google Patents link.
3. USPTO PTAB / USPTO Public Search for the file wrapper (IFW) to see the examiner's Form PTO-892 (References Cited) and any 102/103 rejections — this is the authoritative source of what was actually applied, not merely listed.

If you can paste the "References Cited" block (the (56) U.S. Patent Documents table) or the claim set for US 5,719,786, I will produce the exact per-reference table you requested — full citation, publication/filing date, description, and the specific § 102 claim mapping — grounded in that text rather than inferred from the summary.

I'll research the prior art referenced in this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me try to retrieve the patent's front-page "References Cited" list to ground the combination analysis in actual prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 5,719,786 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Scope of sources (and a hard limitation you should know about)

The task asks me to use "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." For US5719786A, that section of the Google Patents page contains:

• Prior art keywords: presentation, media data, presentation unit, sequence, sequences
• The definitional/background material the page renders under "Definitions," which includes the only prior-art reference the patent itself names: Herrtwich, "Time Capsules: An Abstraction for Access to Continuous-Media Data."

Limitation, stated plainly: the page content I was given does not include the patent's front-page "References Cited" list (neither the U.S. patent references nor the foreign documents). I attempted to retrieve it and could not within my search budget. A production-grade § 103 analysis starts from the examiner-cited references; I cannot supply that list and I will not invent it. Everything below is anchored on (a) Herrtwich, which the patent itself concedes as prior art, and (b) references I could actually retrieve and verify, each flagged as to source and date.

One search-result hygiene note (carried over from the earlier litigation section): queries for the string 5719786 return PTAB/IPR documents about U.S. Patent 6,757,796 ("the '796 Patent") — a different patent. I have not conflated the two; nothing below relies on that material.

2. What I am analyzing

The literal claim text is not in the provided page. I therefore analyze the limitations as recited in the patent's own Abstract and "Summary of the Invention," which map one-to-one onto the claim set (the patent states: "Further aspects, features, and advantages of the invention are set forth in the following specification and the claims"). Two independent-claim families are identifiable:

The patent also contains method claims — the public claim listing at uspto.report/patent/grant/5719786 shows claim numbering reaching at least the 80s. I flag that numbering as not independently verified; I am not relying on specific claim numbers.

3. The primary reference: Herrtwich (1990/1991) — element mapping

Retrieved and verified as pre-dating the 1993‑02‑03 filing:

• IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, Orlando, Dec. 1990, pp. 11–20 — https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/[128722](/patent/128722)/references#references#1
• Journal version, Real-Time Systems 3(4): 355–376 (Dec. 1991) — https://dblp2.uni-trier.de/rec/journals/rts/Herrtwich91.html

3.1 Contradiction flag (important)

The '786 specification asserts that Herrtwich "does not provide any technique for synchronizing time-based data based on the time capsule abstraction." That characterization is at minimum overstated, and a challenger will attack it:

• The journal version's §5.2.3 ("Process start times") computes a start-time delay ΔT₀ for each thread clock — "ΔT₀ ensures synchronization throughout the application" — via a two-phase protocol over the application graph.
• Herrtwich's own introduction frames the paper's target as "the storage, retrieval, transport, synchronization, and presentation of CM data."

This does not contradict anything in the previously generated litigation summary (which correctly reported no litigation and a 2015 expiry). But it is a direct internal tension between the patent's Background and the reference, and it materially weakens a non-obviousness argument built on "the art never synchronized continuous media."

4. Where the reference set has gaps — and the references that fill them

Date caveat on Rangan & Vin: the passage above is from the Aug. 1993 TKDE issue (manuscript received 1992‑06‑01, revised 1992‑12‑01). Publication post-dates the 1993‑02‑03 filing, so on its face it is not § 102 prior art. It is still highly probative as evidence of the state of the art / POSITA knowledge as of early 1993, and its companion Rangan & Vin, "Designing file systems for digital video and audio," 13th ACM SOSP, Oct. 1991 is pre-dating and would need to be checked for the same teaching. Do not cite the 1993 passage as § 102 art without that check.

5. The obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — Herrtwich renders Family A claims obvious (and arguably anticipates the explicit/implicit sync claims)

A single reference teaches: typed units, duration + time stamps, ordered/linked streams, a reference clock, index-based release timing, late-unit deletion, and rate variation. If the independent presentation-processor claim is read as written in the Summary, Herrtwich is a serious § 102 problem, not merely a § 103 one. POSITA motivation: none is needed for a single-reference case.

Ground 2 — Herrtwich + ST-II (RFC 1190) → Family B obvious

Herrtwich supplies the descriptor/timing/synchronization architecture; ST-II supplies real-time packet transport of coordinated logical streams. Motivation: Herrtwich's own stated scope includes "transport"; Herrtwich cites ST-II as [79]; running a continuous-media abstraction over a real-time packet protocol is the ordinary next step, not an inventive leap. KSR applies squarely: combining a known data abstraction with a known transport to obtain the predictable benefit of networked delivery.

Ground 3 — Herrtwich + Little & Ghafoor → multi-stream client-side sync obvious

Herrtwich's clocks/start-time delays do not by themselves specify cross-stream synchronization at a client. Little & Ghafoor supply reference-time-base synchronization across temporally related objects, including over broadband networks. Motivation: the problem addressed (independent audio and video streams that must be presented in lockstep) is the same problem; the combination yields no more than the expected result.

Ground 4 — Herrtwich + Rangan & Vin (SOSP '91 / state-of-the-art evidence) → the "no interleaving" core obvious

The stated point of novelty of the '786 patent is that streams are handled as distinct, non-interleaved streams end-to-end, including in the network packets. Rangan & Vin explicitly identify interleaved storage as requiring "additional processing for combining them during storage, and for separating them during retrieval," and name separate storage with explicit temporal relations as the alternative. Motivation: this is a textbook case of a reference teaching away from the interleaved approach that the patent itself admits was conventional — i.e., it supplies the motivation to make the very change the patent claims. Combined with the patent's admitted background (Intel AVSS-style interleaved storage; interleaved network transmission), the remaining difference is essentially "stop interleaving," which is a design choice with a predictable benefit.

Ground 5 — Herrtwich + transport-level media scaling → the "null media data" rate-control claims

The rate-control claims require designating a portion of descriptors to carry null media data so the sequence attains a specified transmission rate while preserving sequential continuity. Herrtwich gives rate variation via clock speed and gives the life-span/"ignore-late" concept; a transport-level media-scaling reference (Heidelberg/HeiTS line) gives source-side encoding modification keyed to available network bandwidth. Motivation: adaptive bandwidth management, explicitly claimed as the patent's advantage, is the stated purpose of the secondary reference.

6. Where a challenger is weakest

1. The "token"/descriptor indirection layer. The specific architecture — a linked-descriptor ("token") representation interposed between storage format and transport format, with a separate pipe per constituent stream and a three-agent (controller / I/O manager / interpreter) decomposition with independently schedulable processes — is a system-level design that no single reference I retrieved reproduces. Expect the patentee to argue this is the inventive core.
2. End-to-end non-interleaving with per-packet media-type homogeneity (the "all presentation descriptors and media data in an assembled packet being of a common media data type" limitation). I did not retrieve a reference that literally recites this packet-composition rule. ST-II's separate logical streams is a close analogue but the literal mapping must be argued, not assumed.
3. Null-data descriptors as a rate-achieving mechanism (as opposed to a starvation-recovery mechanism). The spec distinguishes rate control (skip + substitute) from flow control (virtual units when the pipe runs dry). I have not verified a reference teaching the rate-control use of null descriptors at the source for a client-specified rate.
4. Claim construction risk cuts both ways. "Presentation descriptor," "presentation unit," "null media data," and "sequence" are all broad/functional terms. A narrow construction (e.g., requiring the specific descriptor-linked list and separate-pipe architecture) makes Herrtwich less anticipatory but makes the § 103 combination argument turn on the "predictable design choice" framing. A broad construction makes anticipation by Herrtwich more likely.

7. Objective indicia (§ 103 rebuttal — assessed, largely unavailable)

I could not verify any of the classic secondary considerations with evidence: no commercial-success data, no industry-praise evidence, no copying evidence, no licensing-revenue evidence, and no nexus evidence tying any of the above to a specific claim. What the record does show is that the patent was used as collateral (Credit Suisse, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase security interests) and that the technology line was commercially pursued (Novell → Fluent → Micro Focus) — that is not probative of non-obviousness. Note also the expired status (anticipated expiration 2015‑02‑17), so any live invalidity fight is off the table; this analysis is historical/diligence-grade only.

One point that cuts against the patent on unexpected results: the specification itself grounds the audio-priority design in admitted empirical knowledge ("humans can perceive motion if the presentation rate is between 15 and 30 frames/sec"). A benefit derived from a known perceptual fact is unlikely to qualify as an unexpected result.

8. Bottom line

The strongest single sentence in the entire prior-art set is Rangan & Vin's: interleaved components require extra processing to combine on storage and separate on retrieval, whereas storing them separately requires explicit temporal relationships to ensure synchronous retrieval. That is, verbatim, the problem statement and the solution direction of US 5,719,786.

Before relying on any of this, obtain and read the patent's front-page References Cited list and the full literal claim set — neither was available in the page material I was given, and both are prerequisites for a defensible § 103 opinion.