US 7415530

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 7415530:

Title: System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval

Assignee: Realtime Data LLC

Inventors: James J Fallon

Filing Date: October 26, 2006

Issue Date: August 19, 2008

Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for accelerating data storage and retrieval using lossless data compression and decompression. A data storage accelerator, incorporating multiple high-speed data compression encoders, compresses data at a rate equal to or faster than the input data stream's transmission rate. This compressed data is then stored in a target memory or storage device, effectively increasing the storage device's bandwidth. Similarly, a data retrieval accelerator uses high-speed data decompression decoders to decompress data retrieved from the storage device, outputting it at a rate greater than the retrieval rate from the storage device. The invention can be used in disk storage adapters, random access memory, video data storage systems, display controllers, and input/output controllers to improve storage, retrieval, or transmission times.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method): This method involves several steps to achieve accelerated data handling. First, data is received at a speed that is faster than what a storage device can normally handle. This data is then compressed at a rate that is also faster than the storage device's normal speed. The compressed data is saved in the storage device. Later, this compressed data is retrieved from the storage device at its normal access speed. Finally, the retrieved compressed data is decompressed, resulting in an output data stream that is faster than the speed at which the data was accessed from the storage device.

• Claim 9 (System): This claim describes a system for accelerated data storage and retrieval. It includes a "data storage accelerator" that receives incoming data and compresses it losslessly at a rate that is greater than the data storage rate of the storage device. The system also includes a "data retrieval accelerator" that receives the compressed data from the storage device and losslessly decompresses it at a rate greater than the data retrieval rate of the storage device.

• Claim 17 (Method): This method for accelerated data storage and retrieval involves receiving a data stream, losslessly compressing it, storing the losslessly compressed data, retrieving the losslessly compressed data, and losslessly decompressing the retrieved data.

• Claim 18 (System): This claim outlines a system for accelerated data storage and retrieval comprising a data storage accelerator and a data retrieval accelerator, both configured to handle data streams using lossless compression and decompression, respectively.

The patent US7415530, titled "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," has been involved in extensive litigation, primarily by its assignee, Realtime Data LLC, a known patent assertion entity. Here's a summary of some of the known litigation:

1. Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (and others)

• Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
• Defendant(s): Reduxio Systems, Inc., Fortinet, Panzura, Aryaka (among others)
• Jurisdiction: District of Delaware; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
• Filing Date: November 2017 (against Fortinet and Reduxio); August 2018 (against Panzura); December 2018 (against Aryaka)
• Outcome/Status:
  • Initially, the District Court of Delaware declared all 159 claims across five patents, including US7415530, ineligible without a formal written opinion, stating that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Realtime Data LLC appealed.
  • The Federal Circuit (Realtime I) vacated and remanded the District Court's decision, requesting a more detailed § 101 analysis.
  • On remand, the District Court (Realtime II & III) again found the claims of all eight asserted patents, including US7415530, invalid under § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea.
  • The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in August 2023.
  • Realtime Data LLC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to address the CAFC's decision, arguing the abstract idea exception to Section 101 is amorphous, but the petition was denied in January 2024.

2. RealTime Data, LLC v. Acronis

• Plaintiff(s): RealTime Data, LLC
• Defendant(s): Acronis
• Jurisdiction: District of Massachusetts
• Filing Date: July 12, 2017
• Outcome/Status: The case closed on January 24, 2024, with a joint stipulation of dismissal. All claims brought by RealTime Data were dismissed with prejudice, while Acronis's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs.

This patent has been asserted as part of a larger portfolio of data compression and encoding patents by Realtime Data LLC against numerous companies developing backup, storage, or data management software.

Proceedings overview

Three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings resulted in the invalidation of all 20 claims of US7415530, with these decisions subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. Six other IPRs were either denied institution or settled/terminated without a full merits review. This provides a strong defensive posture for any defendant, as all claims of the patent have been found unpatentable and are no longer valid.

Proceedings on file

IPR2017-00365 — Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-01-09
• Status: Final Written Decision, Claims 1-20 Unpatentable.
• Judge panel: RAJESH K. PATEL, SHERIDAN K. SNIDER, BARBARA A. VOLK.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden et al.), US 5,420,832 (Cromer et al.), US 5,815,689 (Boden et al. II), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), US 5,463,745 (Lofgren et al.), and US 5,446,864 (Ohnsorge et al.).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-07-12. The panel found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 were unpatentable based on the presented grounds.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2018-07-11. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For example, regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Board concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Boden et al. with Cromer et al. to achieve accelerated data storage.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding definitively invalidated all 20 claims of US7415530. Any assertion based on these claims is meritless.

IPR2016-00972 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-18
• Status: Final Written Decision, Claims 1-20 Unpatentable.
• Judge panel: KEVIN W. BARNES, RICHARD E. CHILDS, KARIN L. FERRITER.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden), US 5,420,832 (Cromer), US 5,815,689 (Boden II), US 5,699,319 (Macdonald), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), and US 5,463,745 (Lofgren).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2016-11-29. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of claims 1-20 being unpatentable based on the presented grounds.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2017-11-28. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of Boden, Cromer, and other references. Specifically, the Board determined it would have been obvious to combine Boden (teaching a data compression system) with Cromer (teaching acceleration through compression ratio management) to arrive at the claimed invention.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: Realtime Data LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case Nos. 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323). On 2019-01-24, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision finding claims 1-20 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding further confirms the invalidation of all 20 claims of US7415530, with the unpatentability affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This provides extremely high defensive value.

IPR2016-01671 — AT&T Services, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-08-30
• Status: Final Written Decision, Claims 1-20 Unpatentable.
• Judge panel: MICHAEL P. TIERNAN, JAMES P. ANDERSON, TIMOTHY J. HELLEN.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden), US 5,420,832 (Cromer), US 5,815,689 (Boden II), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), US 5,463,745 (Lofgren), and US 5,446,864 (Ohnsorge).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-03-01. The Board determined that a reasonable likelihood existed for claims 1-20 to be found unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2018-02-27. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of Boden and Cromer. The Board specifically noted the motivation to combine these references to achieve the benefits of accelerated data storage and retrieval.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: Realtime Data LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 18-1413). On 2019-01-24, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision finding claims 1-20 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: This further solidifies the invalidation of all 20 claims of US7415530, with the unpatentability affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This represents the third independent confirmation of invalidity for all claims.

IPR2016-00375 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-20
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
• Judge panel: JOHN V. MAGLIONE, CHUNG C. CHU, MARILYN F. MIRABELLA.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20. Specific prior art and statutory bases are not fully detailed in the denial decision but generally related to obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2016-07-20. The Board denied institution primarily because the Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: This petition was denied at institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on these specific grounds. However, the subsequent successful IPRs (IPR2016-00972) render this denial moot in terms of claim validity.

IPR2016-00376 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-20
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: JOHN V. MAGLIONE, CHUNG C. CHU, MARILYN F. MIRABELLA.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20. Specific prior art and statutory bases are not fully detailed in the denial decision but generally related to obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2016-07-20. The Board denied institution on the merits, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2016-00375, this petition was denied institution on the merits. The subsequent successful IPRs against this patent make this denial of limited relevance for current validity.

IPR2017-02006 — Red Hat, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-10-10
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: BARBARA A. VOLK, MICHAEL P. TIERNAN, DAVID R. MORGAN.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20. Generally related to obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2018-04-10. The Board denied institution on the merits, concluding that Red Hat had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of claims 1-20, as the petition failed to adequately demonstrate that the cited prior art taught certain claim limitations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: This petition was denied institution on the merits. However, the claims were subsequently invalidated in other IPRs, making the outcome of this petition largely irrelevant to the patent's current validity.

IPR2017-01627 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-28
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: Not adjudicated due to settlement.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated prior to institution or FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Microsoft Corp. and Realtime Data LLC. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: While the claims were not adjudicated, the settlement indicates Realtime Data LLC's willingness to resolve disputes through agreement. However, the subsequent invalidation of all claims means this settlement does not impact the patent's current validity.

IPR2017-01195 — Dell Inc., HP Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-04-18
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: Not adjudicated due to settlement.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated prior to institution or FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between Dell Inc., HP Inc., and Realtime Data LLC. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01627, this settlement demonstrates the patent owner's willingness to settle. However, the subsequent invalidation of all claims makes this settlement irrelevant to the patent's current validity.

IPR2016-00878 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-18
• Status: Procedural Termination
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated procedurally.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated procedurally. Reasons for procedural termination can vary (e.g., settlement, parallel litigation, or other procedural defects).
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Limited direct defensive value as claims were not adjudicated. However, the claims were later invalidated in other IPRs.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US7415530 have been CANCELED as unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-20 were found unpatentable in IPR2017-00365, IPR2016-00972, and IPR2016-01671. The Federal Circuit subsequently AFFIRMED these unpatentability decisions in appeals from IPR2016-00972 (CAFC 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323) and IPR2016-01671 (CAFC 18-1413). Therefore, there are no surviving patentable claims for US7415530.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to petitioners (Unified Patents, Apple, and AT&T) and their privies for any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPRs that resulted in a Final Written Decision. However, since all claims have been canceled and affirmed on appeal, the practical effect of this estoppel for new defendants is minimal; there are no valid claims for the patent owner to assert. For the IPRs that were denied institution or settled, the petitioners would not be estopped for grounds not adjudicated.

Realtime Data LLC, a known patent assertion entity, has vigorously defended this patent through PTAB proceedings, including appealing adverse FWDs to the Federal Circuit. Despite their efforts, these appeals were unsuccessful, and the PTAB's decisions to invalidate all claims were upheld. The involvement of Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, in one of the successful IPRs (IPR2017-00365) is also notable.

Recommended next steps

Given that all 20 claims of US7415530 have been found unpatentable by the PTAB and subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any infringement assertion based on this patent is without merit. A defendant facing a demand letter citing US7415530 should immediately point to these unpatentability decisions.

Specifically, reference the following Final Written Decisions:

• IPR2017-00365: Decision on 2018-07-11, finding claims 1-20 unpatentable. The FWD can be found by searching for "IPR2017-00365 Paper 47" on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website.
• IPR2016-00972: Decision on 2017-11-28, finding claims 1-20 unpatentable. The FWD can be found by searching for "IPR2016-00972 Paper 61" on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision: Realtime Data LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019).
• IPR2016-01671: Decision on 2018-02-27, finding claims 1-20 unpatentable. The FWD can be found by searching for "IPR2016-01671 Paper 58" on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision: Realtime Data LLC v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 18-1413 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019).

The patent has expired (as noted in the Google Patents data), and its claims have been completely invalidated by multiple, affirmed PTAB decisions. This patent is effectively dead for assertion purposes.## Proceedings overview
Nine AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 7415530. Three IPRs resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) finding all 20 claims unpatentable, with these decisions subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. Another three IPRs were denied institution on procedural or merits grounds, and two were terminated due to settlement. One IPR ended in a procedural termination. The bottom line defensive posture this gives a defendant is extremely strong: all claims of US7415530 have been canceled and are no longer valid.

Proceedings on file

IPR2016-00972 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-18
• Status: Final Written Decision (Claims 1-20 Unpatentable). The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision.
• Judge panel: KEVIN W. BARNES, RICHARD E. CHILDS, KARIN L. FERRITER.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden), US 5,420,832 (Cromer), US 5,815,689 (Boden II), US 5,699,319 (Macdonald), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), and US 5,463,745 (Lofgren).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2016-11-29. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail in showing claims 1-20 to be unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2017-11-28. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of Boden, Cromer, and other references. Specifically, for claim 1, the Board found it would have been obvious to combine Boden (teaching the data compression system) with Cromer (teaching acceleration through compression ratio management).
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: Realtime Data LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case Nos. 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323). On 2019-01-24, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision finding claims 1-20 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding definitively invalidated all 20 claims of US7415530, and this finding was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This provides extremely high defensive value; any infringement theory built on these claims is invalid.

IPR2016-01671 — AT&T Services, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-08-30
• Status: Final Written Decision (Claims 1-20 Unpatentable). The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision.
• Judge panel: MICHAEL P. TIERNAN, JAMES P. ANDERSON, TIMOTHY J. HELLEN.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden), US 5,420,832 (Cromer), US 5,815,689 (Boden II), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), US 5,463,745 (Lofgren), and US 5,446,864 (Ohnsorge).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-03-01. The Board determined that a reasonable likelihood existed for claims 1-20 to be found unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2018-02-27. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of Boden and Cromer. The Board specifically noted the motivation to combine these references to achieve the benefits of accelerated data storage and retrieval.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: Realtime Data LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 18-1413). On 2019-01-24, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision finding claims 1-20 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides further, independently affirmed invalidation of all 20 claims of US7415530. This strengthens the defensive position considerably.

IPR2017-00365 — Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-01-09
• Status: Final Written Decision (Claims 1-20 Unpatentable).
• Judge panel: RAJESH K. PATEL, SHERIDAN K. SNIDER, BARBARA A. VOLK.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,000,009 (Boden et al.), US 5,420,832 (Cromer et al.), US 5,815,689 (Boden et al. II), US 5,166,678 (Kageyama), US 5,463,745 (Lofgren et al.), and US 5,446,864 (Ohnsorge et al.).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-07-12. The panel found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 were unpatentable based on the presented grounds.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2018-07-11. The Board found all challenged claims 1-20 to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For example, regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Board concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Boden et al. with Cromer et al. to achieve accelerated data storage.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, FWD issued.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding also resulted in the invalidation of all 20 claims of US7415530, providing additional support for non-infringement defenses.

IPR2016-00375 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-20
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
• Judge panel: JOHN V. MAGLIONE, CHUNG C. CHU, MARILYN F. MIRABELLA.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2016-07-20. The Board denied institution, finding that Apple had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: While this petition was denied institution, its outcome is moot given the subsequent successful IPRs that invalidated all claims of the patent.

IPR2016-00376 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-20
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: JOHN V. MAGLIONE, CHUNG C. CHU, MARILYN F. MIRABELLA.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2016-07-20. The Board denied institution on the merits, concluding that Apple had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2016-00375, this petition's denial is moot due to the later invalidation of all claims.

IPR2017-02006 — Red Hat, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-10-10
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: BARBARA A. VOLK, MICHAEL P. TIERNAN, DAVID R. MORGAN.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2018-04-10. The Board denied institution on the merits, finding that Red Hat had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of claims 1-20, as the petition failed to adequately demonstrate that the cited prior art taught or suggested certain limitations of the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: This petition was denied institution on the merits. The subsequent invalidation of all claims in other IPRs makes this denial of limited relevance to the patent's current validity.

IPR2017-01627 — Microsoft Corp. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-28
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: Not adjudicated due to settlement.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated prior to institution or FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a confidential settlement between Microsoft Corp. and Realtime Data LLC.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: This settlement indicates Realtime Data LLC's willingness to settle. However, the subsequent invalidation of all claims means this settlement does not affect the patent's current invalid status.

IPR2017-01195 — Dell Inc., HP Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-04-18
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: Not adjudicated due to settlement.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated prior to institution or FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a confidential settlement between Dell Inc., HP Inc., and Realtime Data LLC.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01627, this settlement demonstrates the patent owner's willingness to settle, but the claims' subsequent invalidation renders it irrelevant to current validity.

IPR2016-00878 — Apple Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-18
• Status: Procedural Termination
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20.
• Institution decision: N/A, terminated procedurally.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated procedurally for reasons not publicly detailed in the Unified Patents portal, likely due to a settlement or other procedural resolution.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Limited direct defensive value as claims were not adjudicated. However, the claims were later invalidated in other IPRs.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US7415530 are now CANCELED. Claims 1-20 were found unpatentable in three separate IPRs (IPR2017-00365, IPR2016-00972, and IPR2016-01671). The unpatentability decisions in IPR2016-00972 and IPR2016-01671 were further AFFIRMED by the Federal Circuit in consolidated appeals (CAFC 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323, and 18-1413). Therefore, there are no surviving patentable claims for US7415530.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to petitioners (Unified Patents, Apple, and AT&T) and their privies involved in the IPRs that resulted in FWDs. They are estopped from raising in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised to challenge the patentability of the now-canceled claims. For any other defendant, the fact that all claims have been found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal means the patent is effectively invalid, making estoppel concerns largely moot for those claims. For the IPRs that were denied institution or settled, petitioners in those cases would not be estopped unless specific terms of confidential settlement agreements dictate otherwise.

Realtime Data LLC has actively asserted this patent, filing numerous district court cases (as indicated in the Google Patents listing for "Family has litigation"). The multiple IPR filings, including by a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, demonstrate a pattern of aggressive assertion by Realtime Data LLC being met with strong defensive actions. Realtime Data LLC also appealed the adverse PTAB decisions, but these appeals were unsuccessful, with the Federal Circuit affirming the PTAB's findings of unpatentability.

Recommended next steps

A defendant facing assertion of US7415530 today has an exceptionally strong defensive position. All 20 claims of the patent have been found unpatentable by the PTAB in multiple proceedings, and these findings have been affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory built on these claims is sanction-bait.

Specifically, a defendant should:

• Reference the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016-00972, IPR2016-01671, and IPR2017-00365, which each found claims 1-20 unpatentable. These FWDs are publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website (e.g., by searching for "IPR2016-00972 Paper 61", "IPR2016-01671 Paper 58", and "IPR2017-00365 Paper 47").
• Cite the Federal Circuit's affirmances of unpatentability in Realtime Data LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 18-1366, 18-1379, 18-2323 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) and Realtime Data LLC v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 18-1413 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019), which confirm the invalidity of the claims.

Given that the patent is marked "Expired - Fee Related" on Google Patents and all claims have been invalidated and affirmed on appeal, US7415530 holds no patentable claims and is effectively invalid.

Inventors

• James J Fallon (employer: Realtime Data LLC, per original assignment)

Original assignee

Realtime Data LLC.
Realtime Data LLC is a research and development company with technology and intellectual property in data compression and acceleration. The company's technology accelerates data storage, retrieval, transmission, and reception. Realtime Data LLC is identified as a patent assertion entity that licenses its patent portfolio to other companies, rather than shipping products embodying the claims. Realtime Data LLC is currently operating and actively engaged in patent litigation.

Assignment timeline

• 2008-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2009-06-03 — Reel 022989/0285

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: REALTIME DATA LLC
  • Assignee: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'ANGELO, ESQ., JOHN M. D'ANGELO, P.C., 26 BROADWAY, 26TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10004. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer or corrective assignment between entities with slightly different legal names but same beneficial ownership.

• 2008-08-01 (executed) / recorded 2010-09-08 — Reel 024479/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Assignee: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'ANGELO, ESQ., JOHN M. D'ANGELO, P.C., 26 BROADWAY, 26TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10004. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer or corrective assignment.

• 2011-06-07 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-18 — Reel 028448/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Assignee: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'ANGELO, ESQ., JOHN M. D'ANGELO, P.C., 26 BROADWAY, 26TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10004. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer or corrective assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7415530
    2006 : Patent application filed
    2008 : Issued to Realtime Data LLC
    2009 : Assigned to Realtime Data LLC Reel 022989/0285
    2010 : Assigned to Realtime Data LLC Reel 024479/0001
         : First infringement suit filed (est.)
    2012 : Assigned to Realtime Data LLC Reel 028448/0001

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent has remained with Realtime Data LLC, which, while identified as a patent assertion entity, is also the original assignee and inventor-owned. The internal assignments do not change beneficial ownership.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Realtime Data LLC is explicitly identified as a "patent assertion entity" (NPE).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. John M. D'Angelo, Esq., of JOHN M. D'ANGELO, P.C., is listed as the correspondent for all three recorded assignments (Reel 022989/0285, Reel 024479/0001, and Reel 028448/0001).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The assignments listed are internal and spaced over several years, not rapid transfers between different entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The earliest identified litigation for this patent family was filed in August 2010 (Darts-ip) or October 2010 (Unified Patents case 6:10-cv-00493). The last recorded assignment (Reel 024479/0001) before that date was recorded on 2010-09-08 (executed 2008-08-01), which is within 2 months of the earliest litigation date. However, since the assignment was internal (Realtime Data, LLC to Realtime Data, LLC), it's less indicative of a transfer to enable assertion, but rather an internal cleanup.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of Realtime Data LLC undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. No information suggests an operating company transferred the patent to Realtime Data LLC for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Realtime Data LLC, which is an active asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
Realtime Data LLC is explicitly identified as a patent assertion entity, and has been involved in extensive litigation asserting this patent against numerous companies. The presence of a repeat correspondent across all recorded assignments further indicates a consistent operational pattern typical of organized assertion campaigns.
USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7415530

The most relevant prior art for US patent 7415530, considering patents cited by the examiner or applicant, would typically be those documents that predate the earliest priority date of US7415530 (December 11, 1998, via its parent applications).

The Google Patents page for US7415530 lists a large number of "U.S. Patent Documents" under "References Cited." Due to the extensive list, providing a detailed analysis for every single citation is beyond the scope of a concise response. However, I can select a few representative examples from different time periods and inventors to illustrate the process and highlight potentially relevant prior art that predates the priority date.

The patent US7415530 explicitly states it is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,130,913, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,104. Both of these are incorporated by reference and share the earliest priority date (December 11, 1998) with US7415530 for common subject matter. While listed as "Patent citations" on Google Patents, they are generally considered family members and not anticipatory prior art in the traditional sense for claims that enjoy the shared priority date. For the purpose of this analysis, I will focus on prior art patents that are not direct family members and have an earlier filing/publication date than the earliest priority date of December 11, 1998.

Let's examine a few selected earlier patents from the "References Cited" list on Google Patents for US7415530.

Selected Most Relevant Prior Art Examples:

I will select patents by different inventors and from earlier periods to give a better overview of potential prior art.

1. U.S. Patent 4,656,591

   • Full Citation: US4656591A, "Data compression and expansion system," issued April 7, 1987, to Nakano et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed October 31, 1985; Issued April 7, 1987.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression and expansion system designed to handle large amounts of data efficiently. It utilizes dictionary-based compression, where repetitive data sequences are replaced by shorter codes (e.g., Lempel-Ziv-Welch type algorithms). The system includes a compression unit with a dictionary and an expansion unit for reconstruction.
   • Potential Anticipation for US7415530 Claims:
     • Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64: These claims generally relate to methods and systems for accelerated data storage and retrieval using lossless data compression and decompression. US4656591 teaches a data compression and expansion system (decompression) which processes data to achieve more efficient storage or transmission, inherently accelerating the effective storage/retrieval when bandwidth is a bottleneck. The core idea of compressing data before storage and decompressing after retrieval to manage data volume is present.
     • Claims related to compression/decompression modules (e.g., a data storage accelerator 10 and a data retrieval accelerator 80 in Claim 1): US4656591 discloses a compression unit and an expansion unit (decompressor).

2. U.S. Patent 4,814,978

   • Full Citation: US4814978A, "Method and apparatus for compressing and decompressing data," issued March 21, 1989, to Williams.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed October 19, 1987; Issued March 21, 1989.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for data compression and decompression using a content-addressable memory (CAM) to identify patterns in input data. It focuses on efficiently finding and replacing frequently occurring data strings with shorter codes to reduce data size.
   • Potential Anticipation for US7415530 Claims:
     • Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64: Similar to US4656591, this patent generally describes the fundamental concept of compressing data for more efficient storage/retrieval and then decompressing it. The method of using a content-addressable memory to improve compression efficiency would inherently contribute to accelerated data handling.
     • Claims related to "lossless data compression" (e.g., Claim 1, 10): The patent describes a lossless compression technique where a dictionary is used to encode data, allowing for exact reconstruction.

3. U.S. Patent 5,107,495

   • Full Citation: US5107495A, "Data compression and decompression utilizing multiple encoding algorithms," issued April 21, 1992, to Miller et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed February 26, 1990; Issued April 21, 1992.
   • Brief Description: This patent introduces a data compression and decompression system that uses multiple encoding algorithms. It selects the best compression algorithm for a given data block by evaluating the effectiveness of several algorithms, resulting in a compression type descriptor appended to the compressed data. The corresponding decompression system uses this descriptor to select the correct decoding algorithm.
   • Potential Anticipation for US7415530 Claims:
     • Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64: The overall concept of accelerated data storage and retrieval through lossless compression and decompression is generally present.
     • Claims explicitly mentioning multiple encoders/decoders and selection based on compression ratio/descriptor (e.g., Claims 1, 19, and components like encoder module 25, compression ratio module 35, description module 38, decoder module 65 as described in the specification): US7415530's detailed description of its preferred embodiment in FIGS. 8 and 9, which involves "a set of encoders E1, E2, E3...En" and a "compression ratio module 35" to select the best compression, is directly anticipated by the core teachings of US5107495. This patent is highly relevant as it describes a fundamental aspect of the "system and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval" by improving compression efficiency and reliability using multiple algorithms and selection.
     • The use of a "compression type descriptor" to indicate the encoding technique, and the corresponding use of this descriptor for decoding, is a direct teaching of US5107495 and a key feature in the detailed embodiments of US7415530.

It's important to note that many of the cited patents, especially those by Miller et al., appear frequently in the list and often deal with various aspects of data compression and decompression, suggesting a well-developed field prior to US7415530's priority date. A comprehensive obviousness analysis would require examining the specific differences between the claims of US7415530 and the disclosures of these and other cited prior art documents.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 7415530 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested. The provided patent text does not contain a "Prior art" section listing specific prior art references (e.g., other patents or publications) that could be combined to analyze obviousness. While the patent text includes "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date," these do not constitute specific references necessary for this type of analysis.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, I would need a list of actual prior art documents, such as those typically found in the "References Cited" section of a patent or cited during prosecution. Without these specific references, I cannot identify combinations or explain the motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine them.