Invalidity dossier
US 6393012
System for allocating resources in a communication system
Current assignee: Qualcomm Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 9:33:28 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: US6393012B1
Title: System for allocating resources in a communication system
Patent number: US6393012B1
Application number: US09/479,735
Inventor: Rajesh K. Pankaj
Original/Current Assignee: Qualcomm Inc (assignment to QUALCOMM INCORPORATED recorded 2000-04-17)
Priority date: 1999-01-13 (claimed from US09/229,432)
Filing date: 2000-01-07
Publication/grant date: 2002-05-21
Legal status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2019-01-13
Purpose and plain-language scope (based only on the supplied text):
The patent concerns allocating resources in a communication system. The source's "Prior art keywords" are customer, node, data, queue, nodes, indicating a queue-based scheduling approach. Classifications place it in wireless network resource management (H04W28/16, H04W28/18, H04W72/52, H04W72/56) and data-network queue scheduling (H04L47/50 and subclasses covering dynamic/variable bandwidth allocation, weighted service order, delay-aware scheduling, past bandwidth allocation, queue load conditions, and provisions for avoiding starvation of low-priority queues).
The abstract/indexing terms hint at biological-transmission and calculation methods, but the supplied excerpt does not include the actual claim language or written description, so the precise claimed scope cannot be stated from this text alone.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6393012](/patent/US6393012)/en
What the excerpt does not establish:
- The text of any claim, the abstract, or the detailed description (these were omitted/excerpted).
- The specific algorithm or method steps actually claimed.
- Any legal conclusion about validity, enforceability, or claim interpretation; the status listed is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
- Family-member details beyond listed priority filings and the noted external priority to US6229795B1.
- Litigation, ownership transfers beyond the recorded assignment, or prior-art analysis (excluded per instructions).
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:10 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6393012. 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.