Invalidity dossier
US 6006264
Method and system for directing a flow between a client and a server
Current assignee: Cisco Technology Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 1:11:30 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 6006264 A
Title: Method and system for directing a flow between a client and a server
Patent number: US 6006264 A (application US09/050,524)
Original assignee: Arrowpoint Communications Inc; current assignee listed as Cisco Technology Inc.
Key dates (as listed in the source):
- Prior art date: 1997-08-01
- Filing date: 1998-03-30
- Publication/grant date: 1999-12-21
- Anticipated expiration: 2018-03-30; legal status: Expired – Lifetime
Inventors: Steven Colby, John J. Krawczyk, Raj Krishnan Nair, Katherine Royce, Kenneth P. Siegel, Richard C. Stevens, Scott Wasson.
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent concerns directing a data flow between a client and a server. Based on the supplied text, the subject matter relates to selecting one among multiple replicated servers for a network request, i.e., load balancing and content-aware server selection. The classifications indicate: server selection for load balancing, including selection based on a hash applied to IP addresses or costs; selection based on server parameters (memory/workload), network conditions, compliance of requirements with available server resources, the content of a request, and client or server locations; controlling server operation by a load balancer (adding or removing servers); and application-aware switching, e.g., for HTTP. Other classifications reference admission control and resource allocation (including reservation during connection setup, RSVP, and QoS/priority-aware handling) and network services discovery/management and location of the user terminal. Listed prior-art keywords are: server, client, content, candidate, request.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6006264/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The source is an excerpt only, so the full claims, detailed description, figures, and exact mechanisms are not available here. Nothing in the excerpt establishes claim scope with precision, the specific server-selection algorithm, litigation, ownership transfer timing beyond the listed assignments, patent validity, or prior-art effect. Reassignment entries are noted only as listed by the source.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:00:48 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6006264. 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.