Invalidity dossier
US 6226752
Method and apparatus for authenticating users
Current assignee: Oracle America Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 10:48:19 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 6,226,752 B1
Title: Method and apparatus for authenticating users
Patent Number: US 6,226,752 B1
Application Number: US09/309,341
Inventors: Abhay Gupta, Chris Ferris, Alejandro Abdelnur
Original Assignee: Sun Microsystems, Inc. (later recorded as Oracle America, Inc.)
Priority/Filing Date: 1999-05-11
Publication (Grant) Date: 2001-05-01
Legal Status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2019-05-11)
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6226752/en
Purpose: The patent addresses authenticating users on a network. The background explains that prior-art mechanisms require each individual application (e.g., internet email software, word processing software, ATM machines) to separately implement each authentication mechanism, such as username/password, serial number, or ID card/PIN. If a different authentication mechanism is desired, each application must undergo implementation changes. The stated need is a method and apparatus for authenticating users without modifying individual applications.
Plain-language scope: The disclosed approach lets authentication be handled independently of the applications being accessed, so applications need not be rewritten when authentication requirements change. Authentication may vary based on where the client/user is located (e.g., office versus home). The excerpt also describes network context, HTTP as a stateless protocol, firewalls/proxies, URLs, CGI gateway programs, and HTML documents. The patent is classified in H04L63/08, H04L63/0807 (authentication using tickets, e.g., Kerberos), H04L63/0815 (single-sign-on or federations), G06F21/31, and G06F21/33 (certificates).
What the excerpt does not establish: No claims text is present, so the exact claimed scope is not shown. No specification details of the actual authentication method/apparatus are provided beyond the background problems. No prior-art references, litigation, ownership-transfer analysis, or validity conclusions are established by the excerpt. Dates are noted as assumptions per the source.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:09 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6226752. 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.