Invalidity dossier
US 5911043
System and method for computer-based rating of information retrieved from a computer network
Current assignee: F Poszat HU LLC
Added 9/23/2026, 9:43:49 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 5,911,043
Title: System and method for computer-based rating of information retrieved from a computer network
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5911043/en (fetched 2026-09-23)
Bibliographic data (per source): Application US08/725,342; filed 1996-10-01; priority date 1996-10-01; granted and published 1999-06-08; status "Expired – Lifetime," with anticipated expiration 2016-10-01. Inventors: Robert A. Duffy and Lyle N. Griffin. Original assignee listed as Baker and Botts LLP; current assignee (as listed, accuracy not represented) F. Poszat HU LLC. Per the source's reassignment entries: assigned 1996-10-01 to Intergo Communications, Inc. (Texas); 1999-04-19 to Baker & Botts, L.L.P.; 2004-10-04 to Organce Computer LLC; corrected 2004-11-17 to Orange Computer LLC; 2016-01-26 to F. Poszat HU, L.L.C. (merger).
Purpose: To "substantially reduce or eliminate" the problems of rating information retrieved from a computer network, and to provide "an automated rating technique adaptable to a wide variety of access technologies" (browser/WWW, FTP, Gopher, UseNet, TelNet, Archie, bulletin boards, newsgroups, email). The stated motivation is that Internet material may be inappropriate for particular age groups.
Plain-language scope (from the excerpt): A server retrieves a document from the network using a document address (e.g., IP or URL) via a retrieve module; a rate module applies rules from a rating-rules database to the document's content and generates a document rating; a database stores the rating with the address. Rules may specify words or phrases and a rule rating (e.g., 0.0–0.5) and may include proximity requirements, so "breast" near "nudity" rates higher than in "breast cancer." Rules may be grouped into rule-sets by category (sex, violence, profanity). A user rating may define the range of document ratings a user can access. Wildcards in addresses can cover higher- and lower-level documents. Screening may work either by looking up stored ratings by address or by dynamic rating at retrieval time. Ratings may be re-evaluated, overwritten, or updated by user assessment, and may be stored in a "rate file."
Not established by this excerpt: the full text of the claims; complete figure/flowchart details; the remainder of the description of rate file 24; and any statement about validity, enforceability, or litigation.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:34:03 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5911043. 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.