Invalidity dossier
US 7921028
Added 10/21/2026, 6:01:03 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US7921028B2
Title: Systems and methods of partnering content creators with content partners online
Assignee (as listed): Original assignee Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (source lists current assignee as Indieriser LLC; per the patent text, this reflects an assignment recorded in 2023.)
Dates (per the source): Priority and filing date: 2005-04-12. Application number: US11/103,696. Publication of the pre-grant application US20060229893A1: 2006-10-12. Granted and published as US7921028B2: 2011-04-05. The source also lists legal status as "Active" with "adjusted expiration" 2030-01-24.
Inventor: Douglas W. Cole
Purpose: The text frames the invention as an "online agent" that brokers creative works to consumers, commercial content distributors, content developers, agents, and others in the relevant industry "in a secure, timely, and cost-effective manner." It addresses the problem that contest/talent-show formats turn away most artists without substantive feedback, and that existing Internet sites offer posting/selling forums but do not work with agents or industry.
Plain-language scope (from the excerpt): A content creator uploads creative content electronically to a host ("brokering service"). Two-tier feedback is described: (1) peer review, where the creator agrees to review others' content in exchange for review of his or her own; and (2) an optional fee-based review by a contract reviewer such as an industry expert. Content satisfying an initial approval threshold (e.g., 60% peer approval) may advance to a higher tier of professional review. Creators may be matched with content partners such as agents, studios, or buyers, potentially leading to a sale or a partnership. The text also mentions offering creative content to agents and buyers on a first-come, first-served basis, and alludes to a fee structure (text truncated).
What the excerpt does not establish:
- The actual wording, number, or scope of granted claims (none are reproduced; the excerpt shows only summaries, figures list, and classification data).
- The full detail of the "fee structure" passage, which is truncated.
- Specific algorithms, data structures, or security mechanisms.
- Any enforceable scope comparison to prior art (also outside the requested scope).
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7921028](/patent/US7921028)/en
Generated 10/21/2026, 6:01:08 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7921028. 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.
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.
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.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.