PTAB challenges

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provides a strong defensive posture for any defendant, as all claims of the patent have been found unpatentable and are no longer valid.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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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. 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), 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.](/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). 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) 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.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), 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.