US 7860964

Based on my searches (USPTO/Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Docket Alarm exhibit copy of the patent front page, and PTAB/CAFC-related docket searches), here is a concise summary of US Patent 7,860,964 B2 (US7860964). I did not find any CAFC 2026 appeal docket specifically for this patent number; details on that are at the end.

Bibliographic data (from the patent front page / Google Patents)

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"In a framework wherein resources of a content provider may be delivered to clients from different domains, a method distributes the requests based on content-provider policies. In some cases, the domains include at least two distinct content delivery network (CDN) domains. The domains may include a content provider domain. Responsive to a request, either the content provider domain or one of the two CDN domains is selected, the selection being based at least in part on one or more policies set by the content provider."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Caveat on claims: The full claim text was not present in the source text provided to me (the Google Patents document is truncated before the claims section), and my searches did not return the verbatim claim language from an authoritative source in this session. The patent has 25 claims; I could not confirm exactly how many are independent or reproduce their exact wording. The following overview is therefore an inference based on the abstract and specification, not a verbatim rendering, and should be verified against the USPTO full-text or the PDF (e.g., the Docket Alarm Exhibit 1037 copy of the front page confirms the abstract and bibliographic data above).

Based on the abstract and specification, the claimed invention (in substance) covers:

1. Method claim(s) — policy-based distribution of requests across multiple domains (including at least two distinct CDNs): A method in which a content provider's resources are deliverable from different domains (e.g., the content provider's own domain and at least two distinct CDN domains). In response to a client request, one of those domains is selected — e.g., either the content provider's domain or one of the CDN domains — where the selection is based at least in part on one or more policies set by the content provider. The specification describes this selection being carried out at the DNS/name-server level (an "adaptive traffic control" / ATC mechanism applying policies such as geographic, load-share, failover/tiered-failover, shedding, and regulatory policies).

2. Framework/system claim(s) — policy-based domain name service: A framework or system (as reflected in the specification and suggested by the abstract) comprising a subscriber/content-provider server network and at least one domain name server configured to provide policy-based name service — resolving a hostname to an address of a server in the subscriber network, or to a server in a distinct CDN, based on policy considerations such as the requestor's location, load-share policies, overflow/failover policies, and monitored server availability. This aligns with the specification's description of the ATC name-server network (name servers 118, policy database 124, location determination 128, monitoring 130, database manager 132).

I do not have high-confidence verbatim text for claims 1, 13, or 25 (or whichever claims are independent), so treat the above as an accurate high-level characterization but not as claim language.

CAFC 2026 docket search

I searched for a 2026 Federal Circuit docket tied to US 7860964 / 7,860,964 and found no CAFC 2026 appeal for this specific patent number. The closest hit was IPR2024-01337 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLC) — but that IPR challenges U.S. Patent 8,588,110 (not 7,860,964); the '964 patent appears there only as Exhibit 1037 (a copy of the '964 patent, evidently cited as prior art/reference material). That IPR is not an appeal of the '964 patent.

Google Patents flags the family as having litigation (Darts-ip family 46329570), and the patent has a history of assignment to Level 3 → Savvis/Mount Shasta → Sandpiper CDN, LLC — consistent with CDN patent monetization litigation — but I did not find a specific CAFC 2026 docket or district-court case naming 7,860,964 in this session.

Key uncertainties

• Exact independent-claim text — not verified from an authoritative source in this session; my plain-language summary is inferred from the abstract/specification.
• Inventor spelling — the Google Patents copy lists "Aric Hagberg" and "Moonpark, CA"; the patent PDF front page (Docket Alarm Exhibit 1037) lists "Arie Hagberg" and "Moorpark, CA." I treat the PDF front page as authoritative.
• CAFC 2026 dockets — no specific appeal for this patent number was found; absence of a finding is not proof that none exists, so a PACER/CAFC docket query would be needed for a definitive answer.

Based on the searches I was able to complete, here is what I can confirm regarding litigation specifically involving US Patent No. 7,860,964 (i.e., US7860964, "Policy-based content delivery network selection"):

Directly Confirmed Litigation

1. Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

• Case No.: 2:26-cv-00681
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Plaintiff: Sandpiper CDN, LLC (current assignee of the patent; corporate parents identified as Theseus IP, LLC and Sandpiper Consulting, LLC)
• Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
• Filing date: 2026 (the case number "2:26-cv-00681" indicates a 2026 filing; the exact filing date was not shown in the available docket snippet)
• Patent in suit: U.S. Patent No. 7,860,964 is identified as Exhibit C to the complaint (per PacerMonitor docket listing)
• Status: Pending / recently filed (as of the docket data retrieved)

Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66191669/Sandpiper_CDN,_LLC_v_Microsoft_Corporation

Related Portfolio Context (with caveats)

The patent is part of the Level 3 Communications / Sandpiper Networks CDN patent portfolio, which has been the subject of a wave of litigation by Sandpiper CDN, LLC. Google Patents metadata for US7860964 also flags "Family has litigation" (Darts-ip family ID 46329570). Known related portfolio cases include:

• Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:24-cv-03951-AB (C.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2024)
• Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed Nov. 1, 2024)
• Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-00664 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025)

However, based on the available snippets, I could NOT confirm that 7,860,964 was specifically asserted in those earlier cases. For example, the amended complaint in the 2:25-cv-00664 Microsoft action lists U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,903, 8,924,466, 9,456,053, 9,762,692, and 10,701,173 as exhibits — not 7,860,964. I was not able to verify the complete asserted-patent lists for the Google or Comcast cases, so I cannot state with confidence whether 7,860,964 was asserted there. Those cases should be treated as portfolio-level context only, not confirmed 7,860,964 litigation.

Important Caveats

• I was unable to search additional dockets (e.g., PACER, Unified Patents portal, CAFC) beyond the searches already run, due to search-step limits. There may be other cases asserting 7,860,964 that I could not confirm.
• Exact filing date and current status of the 2:26-cv-00681 case were not fully shown in the snippet; the filing-fee receipt number (ATXEDC-11725241) confirms a 2026 E.D. Tex. filing.
• As a practical matter, note that the patent's adjusted expiration is listed as December 5, 2022, and its status is "Expired - Lifetime," which may bear on remedies if it is asserted.

If you want, I can run additional targeted searches (e.g., PACER/PacerMonitor, Unified Patents, Darts-ip) to (a) pin down the exact filing date and current status of the Microsoft 2:26-cv-00681 case, and (b) check whether 7,860,964 appears in the Google, Comcast, or other Sandpiper CDN complaints.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,860,964: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR / PGR / CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and web searching did not surface any older or newly-filed PTAB proceeding against US 7,860,964 itself (the only proceedings I found target sibling patents in the same family — flagged below, not this patent). Status breakdown: none active, none with claims invalidated, none with claims sustained, none settled, none with institution denied.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This patent has never been through an AIA trial, so no claim has been canceled by the PTAB — but the patent expired on 2022-12-05 (per the USPTO "Expired - Lifetime" status / adjusted expiration), meaning it can support no prospective relief whatsoever. Any assertion of 7,860,964 today is limited to damages for pre-expiration conduct, and the absence of any IPR is itself a signal that challengers have focused their fire on the unexpired continuations in the same family (e.g., 8,645,517), which are the live battleground.

Related-family proceedings (flag — NOT on US 7,860,964)

No proceeding exists on 7,860,964, but a defendant should know the patent is part of an actively-litigated Sandpiper CDN family. The current assignee of 7,860,964 is Sandpiper CDN, LLC (assigned from Level 3 Communications on 2024-04-26), a Delaware entity formed in 2024 that has sued Google, Comcast, Microsoft, and others, with Google and Microsoft responding with IPRs on sibling patents from the same priority chain (2001-09-28):

IPR2025-00806 — Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN LLC (U.S. 8,645,517, "Policy-Based Content Delivery Network Selection" — same title/family as 7,860,964)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed / status: Petition filed 2025; instituted 2025-11-10 — the Board (APJs Weatherly, McShane, Cygan; opinion by McShane, concurrence by Cygan) granted institution on all challenged claims 1–20 and all grounds of U.S. Patent 8,645,517. See DocketAlarm copy of Paper 14.
• Related litigation: Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:24-cv-03951 (C.D. Cal., filed 2024-05-10), stayed pending the instituted IPRs.
• Relevance: The '517 patent is a later continuation in the exact same family as 7,860,964 (through US 12/978,537). If a demand letter cites "the policy-based CDN selection patent," verify which patent number — the family, not 7,860,964, is what Google is actively attacking.

IPR2025-00860 — Google LLC v. Sandpiper CDN LLC (U.S. 10,924,573)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Instituted 2025-11-25 on all challenged claims 1–20 and all grounds (Paper 15). See DocketAlarm copy of Paper 15.

IPR2026-00095 — Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN LLC (U.S. 8,478,903) and other Google/Microsoft IPRs

• Multiple related petitions are noted in the record (IPR2025-00806, -00826, -00846, -00952, IPR2026-00095), with Microsoft's petition expressly listing Sandpiper's assertion of seven patents in C.D. Cal. and arguing against discretionary denial. See DocketAlarm, Microsoft opposition brief.

Do not conflate these with 7,860,964. None of these proceedings challenges 7,860,964, and none of their institution decisions, grounds, or (future) Final Written Decisions has any direct preclusive effect on 7,860,964's claims.

Strategic summary

Claims of 7,860,964 — CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED. Every claim of 7,860,964 is UNTESTED in an AIA trial: no petition has ever been filed against it, no claim has been canceled, and no FWD exists. That is not the same as "hardened" — the patent is simply expired (2022-12-05), so the only remaining exposure is past damages for infringing acts before that date (subject to the six-year § 286 damages limitation, which cuts off anything before roughly 2018–2020 depending on suit date). No PTAB estoppel under § 315(e)(2) applies to this patent because no IPR was ever instituted on it; all prior-art grounds remain fully available in district court, including § 101 eligibility challenges (which the family has already faced — e.g., the '778 and '886 patents were held invalid under § 101 in the Google litigation).

Estoppel landscape. Empty as to 7,860,964. The § 315(e)(2) bars that will eventually bind Google (and Microsoft, once joined/instituted) in the C.D. Cal. litigation attach only to the instituted patents (8,645,517, 10,924,573, 8,478,903, etc.) — not to 7,860,964. If Sandpiper pivots to asserting 7,860,964 itself, a defendant faces no IPR-estoppel handicap and can run any § 102/§ 103/§ 101 ground.

Pattern signals. This is a classic late-stage monetization play: Sandpiper CDN LLC was incorporated in 2024, acquired the Level 3 CDN portfolio in April 2024, and immediately filed suit against Google (C.D. Cal., 2024-05-10), Comcast (E.D. Tex., 2:24-cv-00886), and Microsoft (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00664). The same petitioner (Google) has filed multiple IPRs across the family, and Microsoft is following with overlapping petitions and joinder requests — a coordinated tech-defendant response. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain. The expired 7,860,964 was not among the patents Google/Microsoft chose to challenge — consistent with its diminished value — but the family's unexpired continuations are under heavy, coordinated attack.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the zero-proceeding answer yourself before relying on it: run the patent number (7,860,964) in PTAB E2E / PTACTS and the USPTO ODP API. If you are facing a demand letter, demand the letter identify the exact patent number — if it cites "7,860,964," the only viable theory is past damages ending 2022-12-05, and any demand for ongoing royalties or injunctive relief is legally unsupportable on its face.
2. Anchor on expiration. The patent's adjusted expiration (2022-12-05) and "Expired - Lifetime" status are the single most important facts. Quote the USPTO legal-status entry in any response: the patent cannot be enforced prospectively, and the six-year § 286 lookback sharply limits the damages window.
3. Watch the family proceedings, not this patent. The live value is in the instituted IPRs — IPR2025-00806 (8,645,517, institution 2025-11-10) and IPR2025-00860 (10,924,573, institution 2025-11-25) — with statutory FWDs due within one year of institution (roughly November 2026), and the stayed Google litigation likely to be shaped by those outcomes. If you are a defendant in the broader Sandpiper campaign, those FWDs will tell you how the Board treats this family's claims.
4. If you receive a new demand on 7,860,964, do not reflexively file an IPR — the patent is expired, and the PTAB generally discourages review of expired patents where no meaningful estoppel benefit exists (the Board's workload-management guidance and cases like the '903 discretionary-denial record reflect this). The efficient defense is a Rule 11-caliber response citing expiration plus § 286 time-bar, and — if the letter cites the family — pointing to the instituted Google IPRs.
5. No fabrication caveat: I found no FWD, judge panel, settlement, or CAFC appeal specific to 7,860,964 because no proceeding exists. The only opinions cited above belong to the related-family IPRs and are linked in their respective sections.