Invalidity dossier

US 7113485

Latency evaluation in a ring network

Current assignee: Corrigent Corporation

Added 9/23/2026, 7:42:55 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challenges3 lawsuits on fileasserted by Corrigent Corporation

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US 7,113,485 B2

Title: Latency evaluation in a ring network

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7113485/en

Bibliographic data (from the supplied text): Application number US09/947,183; filed 2001-09-04; priority date 2001-09-04; published as US20030048754A1 on 2003-03-13; granted as US7113485B2 on 2006-09-26. Inventor: Leon Bruckman. Original assignee: Orckit Corrigent Ltd; current assignee listed as Corrigent Corp. Legal status listed as "Expired - Lifetime," with adjusted expiration 2024-07-08. Classifications include H04L41/5003 (managing SLA/QoS interaction), H04L43/0858 (one-way delays), and H04L43/0864 (round trip delays).

Purpose: The patent relates to network communication systems and protocols, specifically latency measurement in packet-switched networks, particularly ring networks. The problem addressed: a service provider committing to a service level agreement (SLA) with latency-related parameters must be able to monitor latency to verify compliance, and existing round-trip methods include the destination node's processing time, contaminating the measurement.

Plain-language scope: The described protocol defines a latency measurement packet (LMP). An originating node sends a LMP, recording the time of transmission and, preferably, a serial number (SN), enabling identification of each LMP on return and latency determination based solely on information in the packet—permitting multiple, frequent, precise measurements even at overlapping times. The LMP may also indicate a class of service (CoS), so nodes transmit it at that priority, giving a CoS-specific measurement for each of multiple CoS levels. A peer node records its receipt time using its own (unsynchronized) clock, then records its transmission time on the return ring, letting the originating node compute turnaround time as the difference. The originating node subtracts that turnaround time from its own total round-trip time to find net round-trip latency. The text states the protocol is geared to bidirectional ring networks but may apply, mutatis mutandis, to other topologies.

Not established by the excerpt: The full claims and their exact scope, the detailed embodiments, the complete list of cited prior art, and the omitted portion of the description are not available in the supplied text.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:52 PM

Cases on file (3)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7113485. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

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.

Current assignee: Corrigent Corporation

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.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

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.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Keep exploring