Invalidity dossier

US 7827284

Method and arrangement in a communication system

Current assignee: NetSocket Inc

Added 9/23/2026, 6:54:23 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

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

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US 7,827,284 B2

Title: Method and arrangement in a communication system

Assignee/Current Assignee (as listed): NetSocket Inc (original assignee NetSocket Inc)

Key dates:

  • Priority date: 2002-12-20 (priority claimed from SE0203872A)
  • Filing date: 2003-09-30
  • Publication date: 2010-11-02
  • Adjusted expiration: 2026-12-22
  • Status: Active – Reinstated

Purpose: The patent relates to a method for making admission control, and to a network node comprising software for performing admission control. According to the supplied text, configuring an asynchronous network for multiple services—some offering guarantees or assurances on forwarding quality—requires dividing forwarding resources (buffer capacity and forwarding capacity) into different classes; admission to classes carrying guaranteed/assured traffic must then be controlled (admission control). Admission control can also maintain guarantees or assurances in single-service networks.

Plain-language scope: The disclosed mechanism concerns controlling whether traffic is admitted to a resource class so that forwarding-quality guarantees or assurances are upheld. Admission control may be distributed across network nodes or centralized in servers/dedicated computers—all referred to as a "node." It may be invoked by, e.g., a signalling protocol; its location does not directly affect the forwarding quality guaranteed or assured, though it may affect scalability and performance.

The excerpt discusses traffic characteristics relevant to admission decisions, including peak-rate (maximum rate an ADF can send in a given time interval) and average-rate (typically calculated over a long interval). It notes that where the sum of peak-rates for ADFs sharing a common link exceeds the link's forwarding capacity or the allocated portion, while the sum of average rates does not, statistical properties matter. Such properties may be known beforehand (e.g., from a speech codec definition) or estimated through measurements—measurement being preferable for unpredictable ADFs (e.g., video conferencing). The excerpt then truncates ("Another approach to offer assurances...").

Classifications: H04L47/00, H04L47/70, H04L47/82, H04L47/822, among others.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7827284/en

What the excerpt does not establish: The full claim language, the complete detailed description, and the specific admission-control algorithms or thresholds are not reproduced; the excerpt is explicitly truncated. It also does not establish validity, enforceability, or the accuracy of the listed assignee/status, which the source itself notes are assumptions.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:26 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7827284. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

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

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

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

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

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

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

Prior art

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

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

Obviousness

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

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

Extensions

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

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

Derivative works

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

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