Invalidity dossier
US 6349336
Agent/proxy connection control across a firewall
Current assignee: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Added 9/23/2026, 6:36:46 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 6,349,336 B1
Title: Agent/proxy connection control across a firewall
Patent number / application: US 6,349,336 B1; Application US09/504,157
Inventors: Eric N. Sit, James Clough, Dean S. Nelson
Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Company (original); current assignee listed as Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Key dates: Priority 1999-04-26 (claimed from US09/299,832); filed 2000-02-15; granted/published 2002-02-19; anticipated expiration 2019-04-26. Legal status: Expired – Fee Related.
Purpose: The invention relates to message transfer across a firewall and, more particularly, to enabling a device protected by a firewall to be controlled by a device external to the firewall. It addresses scenarios such as remote installation, troubleshooting, testing, and calibration of local peripherals (e.g., printers on a LAN) by a remote support application.
Plain-language scope: A local processor behind a proxy/firewall (running a client device management gateway, CDMG) initiates communication with a remote processor by sending a request through the proxy. The request includes proxy information in an HTTP header that authorizes the proxy machine to route a message from the remote processor back to the local processor. Because authorization is required on a per-message basis, every message from the remote processor must be preceded by an authorization from the local processor. The remote processor's messages are treated as "requests"; the local processor's messages are "responses," allowing indirect remote control of local devices. Initiation can be user-triggered, email-triggered, or device-triggered (e.g., self-test anomaly or periodic maintenance). Embodiments include a CDMG residing in a device itself.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6349336/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full specification or complete claim set; it omits detailed claim language, figures' full descriptions, and any prosecution history. It does not establish litigation, validity, prior art, or definitive ownership/legal status (that status is explicitly an assumption).
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:40 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6349336. 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.