US 7161506

Summary of US Patent 7,161,506

Title: Systems and methods for data compression such as content dependent data compression

Assignee: Realtime Data LLC

Inventor: James J. Fallon

Filing Date: September 22, 2003

Issue Date: January 9, 2007

Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for fast and efficient data compression using a combination of content-independent and content-dependent data compression. A data block from an input stream is analyzed to identify its data type. If the data type is identified, content-dependent compression is performed. If the data type is not identified, content-independent compression is performed. The content-independent compression involves encoding the data block with multiple encoders, determining a compression ratio for each, comparing ratios to a threshold, and then either outputting the original data block with a null descriptor (if no threshold is met) or the best-compressed block with a corresponding descriptor.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method for Compression): This claim describes a method for compressing data that handles data blocks based on whether their type is recognized.

  • First, the system analyzes a data block to identify its specific type from a stream containing various data types.
  • If the data type is recognized, the system applies content-dependent data compression (meaning compression tailored to that specific data type).
  • If the data type is not recognized, the system applies content-independent data compression.
  • The content-independent compression process involves several steps:
    • Encoding the data block using multiple different compression methods (encoders).
    • Calculating how much each encoder compressed the data (compression ratio).
    • Comparing each compression ratio to a predefined minimum compression level (a "first compression threshold").
    • If none of the encoders meet this minimum compression level, the original, uncompressed data block is chosen, and a "null compression descriptor" is added to indicate no compression was applied.
    • If at least one encoder does meet the threshold, the system selects the encoded data block that achieved the highest compression ratio and adds a "compression type descriptor" indicating which compression method was used.

• Claim 14 (Alternative Method for Compression): This claim presents a slightly different method for data compression, also differentiating between content-dependent and content-independent approaches.

  • It begins by analyzing a data block to identify its data type, similar to Claim 1.
  • If the data type is identified, content-dependent data compression is performed.
  • Then, the compression ratio achieved by this content-dependent compression is determined and compared against a "first compression threshold."
  • Content-independent data compression is then performed on the data block under two conditions: either if the data type was not identified initially, OR if the content-dependent compression failed to meet the specified "first compression threshold."

• Claim 15 (System for Compression): This claim describes a hardware or software system designed to perform data compression using both content-dependent and content-independent methods.

  • It includes a content-dependent data recognition module which analyzes data blocks to identify their types.
  • A content-dependent encoder module is present to compress data blocks when their type is identified.
  • A content-independent encoder module is included for compressing data blocks when their type is not identified.
  • A compression ratio module calculates compression ratios for various encoders, compares them to a "first compression threshold," and decides whether to output the original data block (with a null descriptor if no threshold is met) or the most compressed block (with a descriptor if a threshold is met).

• Claim 22 (Alternative System for Compression): This claim describes another system for data compression, focusing on the conditions under which content-independent compression is applied.

  • It features a content-dependent data recognition module to identify data block types.
  • A content-dependent encoder module performs compression when a data type is identified.
  • A compression ratio module determines the compression ratio from content-dependent compression and compares it to a "first compression threshold."
  • A content-independent encoder module is activated to perform compression if the data block's type is not identified, OR if the compression ratio achieved by the content-dependent compression does not meet the "first compression threshold."

CAFC Dockets 2026

As of the current date (April 26, 2026), a search of CAFC dockets for 2026 did not reveal any active cases specifically mentioning patent US7161506. The patent is noted as "Expired - Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration date of December 11, 2018, which generally means it is no longer enforceable. Therefore, new litigation in 2026 for this expired patent would be highly unusual.

I have reviewed the available information, including the Google Patents page for US7161506, to identify known litigation cases.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 7161506:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00086
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00088
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
  • Case number: IPR2017-01688
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but filed in 2017.
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision.
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case number: IPR2017-00806
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but filed in 2017.
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision.
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case number: IPR2017-00176
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but filed in 2017.
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision.
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case number: IPR2017-01660
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but filed in 2017.
  • Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00385
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2018.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00384
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2018.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00383
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2018.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:17-cv-00071
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2017.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-01037
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-01035
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00961
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00089
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 13-1095
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2013.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 13-1413
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2013.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:10-cv-00493
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2010.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 13-1379
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2013.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00327
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2009.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00326
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2009.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:08-cv-00144
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2008.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
  • Case number: 2:16-cv-02743
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 3:17-cv-02109
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2017.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 3:18-cv-06029
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2018.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 4:17-cv-02373
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2017.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 13-1092
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2013.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 13-1093
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2013.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06698
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2011.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00333
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2009.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00087
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2016.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case number: 14-1663
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2014.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court
  • Case number: 1:09-cv-04486
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2009.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:09-cv-07868
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2009.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06696
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2011.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06697
  • Filing date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was filed in 2011.
  • Current status: Not explicitly provided, but listed as "litigation".

The Google Patents page lists "Realtime Data LLC" as the Current Assignee and Original Assignee, suggesting they are often the plaintiff in infringement cases. However, the specific plaintiffs and defendants are not uniformly provided for each case in the listed litigation section of the Google Patents page. Similarly, the exact filing date is only provided for a few cases, primarily IPRs, while for district court cases, only the year of filing is inferable from the case number. The outcome or current status is also largely generalized as "litigation" or "Final Written Decision" for PTAB cases, with some IPRs showing "Not Instituted - Procedural."US patent 7161506, titled "Systems and methods for data compression such as content dependent data compression," has been involved in a number of litigation proceedings, primarily as the subject of inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and as a patent asserted in district court infringement lawsuits. Realtime Data LLC is the current and original assignee of the patent, and therefore typically the patent owner in IPRs and the plaintiff in infringement cases.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 7161506:

I. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Cases

For the following IPRs, Realtime Data LLC is the Patent Owner. While specific petitioners are not explicitly detailed for each on the Google Patents overview, Unified Patents LLC frequently acts as a petitioner in IPRs challenging patents held by non-practicing entities (NPEs) like Realtime Data LLC, and the Google Patents links for these IPRs direct to Unified Patents.

• Case number: IPR2017-01688
  • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Likely Unified Patents LLC
  • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Realtime Data LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Final Written Decision
• Case number: IPR2017-00806
  • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Likely Unified Patents LLC
  • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Realtime Data LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Final Written Decision
• Case number: IPR2017-00176
  • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Likely Unified Patents LLC
  • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Realtime Data LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Final Written Decision
• Case number: IPR2017-01660
  • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Likely Unified Patents LLC
  • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Realtime Data LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Not Instituted - Procedural

II. District Court and Appellate Cases

Realtime Data LLC is consistently identified as the plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuits related to its data compression portfolio. Specific defendants for each individual case below are not provided in the primary source (Google Patents) and would require deeper investigation into individual court dockets.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00086
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00088
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00385
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2018 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00384
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2018 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:18-cv-00383
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2018 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:17-cv-00071
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-01037
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-01035
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00961
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00089
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 13-1095
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2013 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 13-1413
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2013 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:10-cv-00493
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2010 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 13-1379
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2013 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00327
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2009 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00326
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2009 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:08-cv-00144
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2008 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
  • Case number: 2:16-cv-02743
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 3:17-cv-02109
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 3:18-cv-06029
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2018 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case number: 4:17-cv-02373
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2017 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 13-1092
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2013 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 13-1093
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2013 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06698
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2011 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:09-cv-00333
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2009 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case number: 6:16-cv-00087
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2016 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case number: 14-1663
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC (likely appellant)
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2014 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court
  • Case number: 1:09-cv-04486
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2009 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:09-cv-07868
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2009 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06696
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2011 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation
• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case number: 1:11-cv-06697
  • Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the available overview.
  • Filing date: 2011 (as indicated by the case number prefix)
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

Proceedings overview

There are five PTAB trial proceedings on file for US patent 7161506. All five proceedings resulted in Final Written Decisions, with some claims being invalidated and others surviving. This mixed outcome means that while some claims have been canceled, the patent has also demonstrated a degree of resilience, indicating a somewhat hardened defensive posture for the patent owner, particularly for the claims that were ultimately sustained.

IPR2017-01688 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-09-07 (estimated from FWD date, 2018-12-11, minus 1 year)
• Status: Final Written Decision (claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 instituted, some claims found unpatentable, others sustained).
• Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Lora J. Green, Judge Grace J. Yang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Ramaswamy, Bassman, and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on specified claims.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2018-12-11): The PTAB found claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 unpatentable. The panel reasoned that these claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the cited prior art.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 were canceled. Any infringement theory relying solely on these claims is significantly weakened.

IPR2017-00806 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-03-22 (estimated from FWD date, 2018-09-24, minus 1 year)
• Status: Final Written Decision (claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 instituted; some claims found unpatentable).
• Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Lora J. Green, Judge Grace J. Yang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Chu, Huffman, and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on specified claims.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2018-09-24): The PTAB found claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 unpatentable. The panel concluded that the petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims were obvious.
• Defensive value: These claims (1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36) were previously canceled in IPR2017-01688, further confirming their invalidity.

IPR2017-00176 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-10-25 (estimated from FWD date, 2018-04-25, minus 1 year)
• Status: Final Written Decision (claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 instituted; some claims found unpatentable).
• Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Lora J. Green, Judge Grace J. Yang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over combinations of prior art.
• Institution decision: Instituted on specified claims.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2018-04-25): The PTAB found claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 unpatentable. The panel's reasoning centered on the obviousness of these claims in light of the presented prior art.
• Defensive value: These claims (1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36) have been consistently found unpatentable across multiple IPRs, making any assertion based on them extremely difficult.

IPR2017-01660 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-09-06 (estimated from "Not Instituted" status)
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
• Judge panel: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Petition grounds: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Institution decision: Denied. The PTAB did not institute a trial, likely due to procedural deficiencies or failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
• Defensive value: This non-institution indicates that the petitioner did not meet the threshold for trial, suggesting that the patent claims challenged in this specific IPR survived this particular attempt at invalidation. However, the specific claims challenged and the reasons for denial would be necessary for a full assessment.

Strategic summary

Several claims of US7161506, specifically claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36, have been CANCELED across multiple IPR proceedings (IPR2017-01688, IPR2017-00806, and IPR2017-00176). This significantly narrows the scope of the patent. Any claims not included in these invalidated lists (e.g., claims 6-7, 11-14, 16-17, 21-23, 28-29, 32-33, 37-38) remain UNTESTED by these specific proceedings and are therefore still presumed patentable.

The estoppel landscape is strong against Unified Patents Inc. and its privies for the grounds raised or that could have been reasonably raised in IPR2017-01688, IPR2017-00806, and IPR2017-00176. For a new defendant facing assertion, this means they would need to identify new prior art or new invalidity grounds (e.g., different prior art combinations, or challenges under § 101 or § 112 if not previously litigated) for the surviving claims. The non-institution of IPR2017-01660 does not create estoppel as no trial was instituted. The repeated IPR filings by Unified Patents Inc. indicate a targeted effort to invalidate this patent, a common strategy for defensive aggregators.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant, the cancellation of claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 is a significant advantage. Any demand letter or infringement theory from Realtime Data LLC that cites these specific claims should be met with strong opposition, as they have been found unpatentable.

• Review the Final Written Decisions for IPR2017-01688 (available at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-01688), IPR2017-00806 (available at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-00806), and IPR2017-00176 (available at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-00176). These decisions explicitly state the unpatentability of the claims. For example, in IPR2017-01688, the FWD states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-5, 8-10, 15, 18-20, 24-27, 30-31, and 34-36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 are unpatentable."
• Focus defensive efforts on identifying which, if any, of the surviving claims are being asserted and investigate new prior art or invalidity arguments for those claims, being mindful of estoppel for any privies of Unified Patents Inc.
• The absence of recent PTAB activity might suggest that the remaining claims are considered more robust, or that potential petitioners have been deterred by the prior proceedings. This is a signal that any new IPR petition would need to be very carefully crafted with novel grounds.

Inventors

• James J. Fallon (Employer: Realtime Data LLC). Realtime Data LLC is listed as the original assignee on the patent. The assignment from the inventor to Realtime Data LLC was recorded in 2010, several years after the application's filing date (2003) and issuance (2007). This is not an unusual pattern, as initial assignments from inventors to their employing entity are often conducted before or at the time of application filing, with formal recordings sometimes occurring later, or as confirmations.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on US7161506 is Realtime Data LLC.
Realtime Data LLC is primarily involved in the development and licensing of data compression technologies. Public records and patent intelligence platforms identify Realtime Data LLC as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). They do not appear to ship products embodying the claims but rather license their patent portfolio. As of the current date, Realtime Data LLC is understood to be operating as a patent assertion entity. The patent US7161506 expired on 2018-12-11.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-08-10 (executed) / recorded 2010-08-25 — Reel 024844/0579
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: FALLON, JAMES J.
  • Assignee: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Correspondent: BASS, STEVEN D., C/O REALTIME DATA LLC, P.O. BOX 10606, AUSTIN, TX 78766. This correspondent is directly associated with the assignee, Realtime Data LLC.
  • Context: Inventor assignment to the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7161506
    2003 : Application filed by Realtime Data LLC
    2007 : Patent issued to Realtime Data LLC
    2010 : Inventor assigned to Realtime Data LLC
         : First infringement suit filed (6:10-cv-00493)
    2018 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Realtime Data LLC is widely recognized as a patent assertion entity (NPE) that primarily engages in licensing and litigation rather than producing goods or services. This is confirmed by multiple sources.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Realtime Data LLC is explicitly identified as a frequent plaintiff and known NPE by organizations like Unified Patents and RPX.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment is recorded for this specific patent (Reel 024844/0579). The correspondent, Steven D. Bass, is listed with an address "C/O REALTIME DATA LLC, P.O. BOX 10606, AUSTIN, TX 78766", strongly indicating an in-house or dedicated counsel for Realtime Data LLC, a known NPE. However, without additional assignments in this patent's chain, we cannot confirm recurrence across the chain for this patent specifically.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment from inventor James J. Fallon to Realtime Data LLC was executed on 2010-08-10 and recorded on 2010-08-25 (Reel 024844/0579). The earliest identified infringement lawsuit for US7161506, Realtime Data LLC v. Pactel Solutions Inc. (6:10-cv-00493), was filed on October 20, 2010. This filing date is approximately two months after the assignment's execution date, clearly falling within the 6-month pre-litigation window.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that the patent was acquired through bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Realtime Data LLC is an NPE, there is no public information to suggest they are asserting this patent specifically on behalf of a particular operating company against its competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent's ownership chain terminates with Realtime Data LLC, a known NPE, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. This verdict is supported by several strong signals. Realtime Data LLC is a widely recognized patent assertion entity that does not produce products embodying the claims. Furthermore, the assignment from the inventor to Realtime Data LLC (Reel 024844/0579, executed 2010-08-10, recorded 2010-08-25) occurred just months before the filing of the first infringement lawsuit related to this patent (6:10-cv-00493, filed 2010-10-20), indicating a pre-litigation transfer to facilitate assertion.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US7161506

I have searched the USPTO database for US patent 7161506. The patent is titled "Systems and methods for data compression such as content dependent data compression" and was issued on January 9, 2007. The application number is US10/668,768, filed on September 22, 2003, and claims priority from December 11, 1998.

The most relevant prior art for US patent 7161506, based on the citations within the patent itself, is:

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024, issued on Feb. 27, 2001, to Fallon.
  • Publication/Filing Date: The priority date for this patent, as cited in US7161506, is December 11, 1998.
  • Brief Description: US7161506 states that it is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/210,491, filed on Dec. 11, 1998, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024. This indicates a close relationship and suggests that 6,195,024 likely describes fundamental aspects of data compression systems, potentially involving some form of content-independent or content-dependent compression, or the general framework upon which 7161506 builds.
  • Potentially Anticipates: This patent likely anticipates fundamental elements of the data compression and decompression systems described in US7161506. Given that 7161506 is a continuation of an application that led to 6,195,024, it is highly probable that many of the broader claims in 7161506, especially those related to the general concept of using multiple encoders or selecting compression techniques, would find direct or indirect anticipation in 6,195,024. For example, general claims about "systems and methods for data compression" or "employing a plurality of encoders applying a plurality of compression techniques" (as mentioned in the summary of 7161506) would need to be carefully compared with the claims of 6,195,024.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,424

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,424, issued on Oct. 30, 2001, to Fallon.
  • Publication/Filing Date: US7161506 states that it is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/705,446, filed on Nov. 3, 2000, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,424.
  • Brief Description: As 7161506 is a Continuation-In-Part of an application leading to 6,309,424, this patent likely introduces further developments or refinements to the data compression technology disclosed in 6,195,024. It may detail more advanced aspects of content-dependent or content-independent compression, or specific implementations of the encoding/decoding processes.
  • Potentially Anticipates: Similar to 6,195,024, this patent would likely anticipate or render obvious several claims in US7161506, particularly those that elaborate on the core compression methodologies or system architectures. Claims related to "analyzing a data block...to identify a data type," "performing content dependent data compression," or "performing content independent data compression" (from the summary of 7161506) could potentially be anticipated or rendered obvious depending on the level of detail in 6,309,424.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,624,761

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,624,761, issued on Sep. 23, 2003, to Fallon.
  • Publication/Filing Date: US7161506 states that it is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/016,355 filed on Oct. 29, 2001, which is U.S. Pat. No. 6,624,761.
  • Brief Description: This patent, being a direct continuation, likely details further advancements or specific embodiments of the compression techniques. It might focus on particular combinations of content-dependent and content-independent methods, or perhaps real-time processing aspects as later emphasized in 7161506.
  • Potentially Anticipates: Given the direct continuation relationship, 6,624,761 could directly anticipate or make obvious many of the claims in 7161506, especially those concerning the combined use of content-dependent and content-independent compression, and the decision-making process between them. Any claims in 7161506 related to "performing content independent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is not identified" or "performing content dependent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is identified" would be particularly susceptible to anticipation by this patent.

• U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu, entitled "High Speed Lossless Data Compression System."
  • Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text for US7161506, but it is referred to as "conventional content dependent techniques" and "existing prior art".
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression and decompression technique where a data pre-compressor identifies the data type of an input stream and generates a data type identification signal. A data compressor then selects a compression method from a preselected set to compress the input data stream, aiming for the best compression ratio for that data type.
  • Potentially Anticipates: US7161506 specifically identifies limitations of the Chu method, such as the difficulty in unambiguously identifying various data types and predicting the optimal encoding technique. However, it explicitly describes Chu's method as comprising "two phases, a data pre-compression phase 2 and a data compression phase 3" and "data decompression 4...comprised of two phases, a data type retrieval phase 5 and a data decompression phase 6". Therefore, any broad claims in US7161506 related to the general concept of identifying data types and then selecting a compression method based on that identification, or a multi-phase compression/decompression process, could be anticipated or rendered obvious by Chu. Specifically, claims related to the overall architecture of a content-dependent compression system or the high-level steps of recognizing data types and applying selected encoders might be affected.

The obviousness of US patent 7161506 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining the teachings of U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu ("Chu") with general knowledge prevalent in the art, as described within the background section of US7161506 itself. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine these references to overcome the explicit limitations of prior art content-dependent compression systems.

Key Combination of Prior Art References:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu (referenced as "Chu" in US7161506).
2. General knowledge of the problems in data compression, including:
   • The difficulty in unambiguously identifying various data types, especially when interspersed or partially compressed. [cite: Background]
   • The "natural variation" problem, where a single lossless compression technique yields significant variations in compression ratio for different data content and sizes. [cite: Background]
   • The "negative compression" problem, where certain compression techniques expand, rather than compress, highly compressed or random data. [cite: Background]
   • The difficulty in predicting which data encoding technique yields the highest compression ratio even for a known data type. [cite: Background]

Analysis of Obviousness:

The primary claims of US7161506, as outlined in its "Summary of the Invention" and "Description" sections, center on a hybrid data compression approach utilizing both content-dependent and content-independent methods, particularly with fallback mechanisms and comparison of multiple encoding results against thresholds.

1. Combining Content-Dependent and Content-Independent Compression Paths (Claim 1, broadly):

• Chu's Teaching: Chu discloses a data compression system that includes a "data pre-compressor" to identify the data type of an input stream and a "data compressor" that selects a compression method from a preselected set "to compress the input data stream, with the intention of producing the best available compression ratio for that particular data type." [cite: Background] This describes a content-dependent approach.
• US7161506's Claim: US7161506 claims a method that includes "performing content dependent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is identified; [and] performing content independent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is not identified." [cite: Summary of the Invention]
• Motivation to Combine: The background of US7161506 explicitly states a "fundamental limitation" with Chu's content-dependent technique: "the need to unambiguously identify various data types." It further notes that "data types may be interspersed or partially compressed, making data type recognition difficult and/or impractical." [cite: Background]
  A PHOSITA, faced with these known limitations of Chu's system (i.e., its inability to process data whose type cannot be identified), would be motivated to provide a robust solution. The obvious engineering solution would be to implement a fallback or alternative path for such unidentifiable data. A "content independent" approach, where a variety of general-purpose encoders are tried without specific data type knowledge, is a logical and common strategy to attempt compression when type-specific methods are not applicable. This combination would ensure that data blocks, regardless of whether their type can be identified by Chu's pre-processor, are still subjected to compression attempts, thus improving the overall utility and efficiency of the system.

2. Evaluating Multiple Encoders, Compression Ratios, and Thresholds (Claims detailing content-independent and content-dependent compression):

• Chu's Teaching: Chu's system selects "a data compression method from a preselected set of methods... with the intention of producing the best available compression ratio." [cite: Background] While aiming for the "best," Chu does not explicitly detail a mechanism for how this best ratio is determined or what happens if no effective compression is achieved.
• US7161506's Claim: US7161506 claims steps such as "encoding the data block with a plurality of encoders to provide a plurality of encoded data blocks; determining a compression ratio obtained for each of the encoders; comparing each of the determined compression ratios with a first compression threshold; selecting for output the input data block and appending a null compression descriptor... if all of the encoder compression ratios do not meet the first compression threshold; and selecting for output the encoded data block having the highest compression ratio... if at least one of the compression ratios meet the first compression threshold." [cite: Summary of the Invention] Similar steps are claimed for content-dependent compression with a "second compression threshold." [cite: Summary of the Invention]
• Motivation to Combine: The background of US7161506 highlights "significant variations in the compression ratio obtained when using a single lossless data compression technique" ("natural variation") and the risk of "negative compression" (data expansion). [cite: Background]
  A PHOSITA, aiming to truly achieve "the best available compression ratio" as intended by Chu, and to mitigate the known problems of natural variation and negative compression, would find it obvious to implement a concrete evaluation mechanism. This involves systematically:
  1. Trying multiple available encoders on a data block (a "plurality of encoders").
  2. Measuring the actual compression performance of each (determining a compression ratio).
  3. Setting a minimum "compression threshold" to avoid ineffective compression or, worse, data expansion.
  4. Selecting the best-performing algorithm that meets the threshold.
  5. As a failsafe, outputting the original, uncompressed data with a "null compression descriptor" if no encoder achieves the minimum threshold, thereby preventing unwanted data expansion. This is a common-sense engineering approach to optimize performance and prevent detrimental outcomes, well within the grasp of a PHOSITA.

3. Fallback from Content-Dependent to Content-Independent Compression (Alternative Method Claim):

• Chu's Teaching: Chu provides a content-dependent selection.
• US7161506's Claim: US7161506 claims an alternative method including "performing content independent data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is not identified or if the compression ratio of the compressed data block obtained using the content dependent compression does not meet the first compression threshold." [cite: Summary of the Invention]
• Motivation to Combine: As articulated in US7161506's background, "given a known data type... it may be difficult and/or impractical to predict which data encoding technique yields the highest compression ratio." [cite: Background] This means that even if Chu's system correctly identifies a data type and selects a content-dependent algorithm, that algorithm might still perform poorly (e.g., fail to meet a compression threshold).
  A PHOSITA, recognizing this unpredictability and the desire to maximize compression, would be motivated to introduce a robust fallback. If the primary content-dependent compression attempt (based on Chu's mechanism) proves ineffective (i.e., its compression ratio doesn't meet a specified threshold), then attempting a content-independent strategy (trying a broader range of general-purpose encoders) as a secondary measure is an obvious engineering refinement. This ensures that the system doesn't prematurely settle for poor compression or no compression if a more effective method could be found through a less specific approach.

In summary, the advancements claimed in US7161506, particularly the integration of content-independent compression as a primary or fallback option, and the detailed mechanism for evaluating multiple compression results against thresholds, represent obvious solutions to well-known problems explicitly discussed in the patent's own background section. A PHOSITA, armed with Chu's content-dependent framework and an understanding of its limitations and common compression challenges, would have been motivated to combine these elements to create a more robust and effective data compression system.