Invalidity dossier
US 5956716
System and method for delivery of video data over a computer network
Current assignee: Intervu Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 10:31:37 AM
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 5956716 A
Title: System and method for delivery of video data over a computer network.
Patent number / application: US 5,956,716 A; Application No. US 08/660,540.
Inventors: Brian Kenner and Harry Gruber.
Assignee: Intervu Inc (original assignee; current assignee listed as Intervu Inc).
Key dates: Priority date 1995-06-07; filing date 1996-06-07; publication/grant date 1999-09-21; anticipated expiration 2015-06-07. Legal status listed as "Expired - Lifetime."
Purpose (plain language): The patent concerns delivering video data over a computer network. According to the supplied classifications, it relates to serving video/content from servers, including secondary servers such as proxy servers, caching content, selecting among replicated servers based on factors like server workload, network conditions, or client/server location, allocating bandwidth, and billing for subscription services. The listed "prior art keywords" are clip, video, clips, user, and storage, indicating a focus on managing and storing video clips for users.
Scope as reflected in the excerpt: The excerpt provides bibiographic data, classifications, and family/priority links, but not the claims or written description. Based on the classification scheme alone, the disclosed subject matter appears directed to networked video delivery involving server selection/load balancing, proxy/caching servers, and content storage. Related applications/continuations listed include US 6003030, US 6269394, US 6154744, US 6502125, and US 6665706.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not supply the actual claims, specification text, drawings, or detailed description, so the precise legal scope of the invention cannot be determined from the excerpt. It also does not establish prosecution history, claim construction, or the accuracy of the listed assignee/status (Google Patents expressly notes these are assumptions, not legal conclusions). No litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is provided or attempted here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:01:32 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5956716. 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.