US 8630529

I'll run a few targeted searches for this specific patent number and any appellate docket activity.

Let me search specifically for the claims text and any litigation history.

Let me check the NPE litigation database for this specific patent and any 2026 appellate activity.

Scope and confidence note

I do not have a live connection to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the Federal Circuit's docket system. My searches ran against public web sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, EPO Global Patent Index, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database). I found no results indicating any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket activity in 2026 for this patent; the two 2026-targeted queries returned either nothing or unrelated hits. If a 2026 CAFC appeal exists, I could not confirm it.

Bibliographic data — US 8,630,529 B2

Prosecution chain (from the patent's own cross-reference): divisional of Ser. No. 11/053,658 (filed 2005-02-07), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 09/595,615 (filed 2000-06-16), now U.S. Pat. No. 6,882,793.

Related family members surfaced in search: U.S. Pat. No. 8,867,894 B2 (Ser. No. 13/919,825, granted 2014-10-21); U.S. Pat. No. 9,390,755 B2 (Ser. No. 14/518,989); U.S. Pat. No. 7,668,438 B2 (Ser. No. 11/053,658); EP 1310086 B1; DE 60143663 D1; WO 0199403 A2.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630529/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/d7/bb/62d859dcaeeb4c/[US8867894](/patent/US8867894).pdf

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus for producing video content. The method includes acquiring video data from a source. If the video data is not digitized, then the video data is digitized. The method includes generating scene indexes for the video data including a representative still image for each scene and combining the video data and scene indexes along with a media player on a video disc. The video player is operable to play the video data in accordance with the scene indexes including playing a scene from the video data on a client computer while displaying the representative stills for other of the scenes available for display on the video disc."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: the patent document I retrieved contains the abstract, summary, and description, but the numbered claims section was not included in the retrieved text. I therefore cannot quote claim language or confirm claim numbering, count, or whether apparatus/system and CRM claims exist. What follows is reconstructed from the specification's "Summary" section, which in this patent tracks the independent claims closely (the abstract appears to mirror the first independent claim). Treat this as an accurate description of the claimed subject matter, not as verbatim claim text.

Independent claim A — "method for producing a video disc" (corresponds to the abstract):

1. Acquire video data from a source; if the data is not already digitized, digitize it.
2. Generate scene indexes for the video data, where the indexes include a representative still image for each scene.
3. Combine the video data, the scene indexes, and a media player onto a video disc (specifically contemplated as a CD or DVD).
4. The media player must be operable to play the video data in accordance with the scene indexes — including playing a scene on a client computer while simultaneously displaying representative stills for other scenes available on the disc.

Independent claim B — "method for producing a video-based product":

1. Acquire video data.
2. Generate temporal indices by analyzing the video data to detect them, the indices indicating a division of the video data into distinct segments (i.e., automatically derived, not user-supplied).
3. Provide a media player operable to play the video data on a client computer in accordance with those temporal indices.
4. Package the video data, temporal indices, and media player onto a physical medium for delivery to the client computer.

Representative dependent/aspect features described in the summary (these likely appear as dependent claims; I cannot confirm which were actually claimed): capturing from analog or digital sources; transition detection via color difference and/or motion difference against preset thresholds; cropping frames to remove boundary/camera noise before comparison; scene-break confirmation by comparing plural frames to the last frame of the preceding scene; representative-still selection from an introductory group of frames by best match to the scene's color distribution; generating a contact sheet; display of representative stills during playback; and use of a media editor that generates edit lists so edits defined on one computer can be replicated on another and then distributed to user-designated distributees; plus streaming/webcast packaging alternatives.

Technical gist of the disclosure (not limited to the claims): an end-to-end pipeline — capture/digitize (multiplexed VHS/SVHS/8 mm, VCD, DVD, camcorder inputs), automated scene-break detection using a 2-D normalized red/green color histogram intersection plus pixel-intensity motion difference, a "tentative mode" with a ~⅓-second time-out counter to suppress false positives from flashes and fast motion, representative-still extraction using a running average scene histogram compared against a buffered "segment intro," bad-segment detection via per-channel standard deviation thresholds, dual-resolution streaming encoders and scene splitters, web-based album editing/browser UI, and CD/DVD production with labels and contact sheets.

Litigation

Google Patents flags this family as "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" (Darts-ip family link: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=24383971). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists two suits associated with the YesVideo family:

Source: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8867894 and https://npe.law.stanford.edu/cases-by-patent

Caveat: the database page I retrieved (above) is keyed to 8,867,894, the continuation. That page lists both suits, and the two cases are also listed in YesVideo's case-by-patent listing, so US 8,630,529 was very likely asserted alongside it — but I could not independently confirm that 8,630,529 (as opposed to only the 8,867,894 continuation) is a specifically identified asserted patent in those complaints. Note also the "IMR16" caption spelling in the Stanford database; I have not auto-corrected it.

Bottom line

US 8,630,529 is YesVideo's consolidated claim to the consumer video-to-DVD service concept: automated scene segmentation of home camcorder footage, extraction of a best-match representative still per scene, and shipping the video plus those scene indexes plus a player so the end user can browse scene thumbnails while watching. It expired in 2023 for failure to pay maintenance fees. I found litigation in E.D. Tex. (2015) and D. Ariz. (2016) involving the YesVideo family, and no evidence of CAFC 2026 appellate activity for this patent number.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8630529.

Let me dig deeper into the specific patent and these cases.

Let me verify which patents were actually asserted in these cases and check Unified Patents.

I was able to run several searches before hitting the tool limit. Here is what I found for US Patent 8,630,529 specifically.

Scope note / confidence caveat

US 8,630,529 B2 is titled "Video processing system," assigned to YesVideo, Inc. (original assignee YesVideo, Inc.), with a priority date of 2000‑06‑16. It is a divisional of application 11/053,658 (filed 2005‑02‑07), which is itself a continuation of 09/595,615 (filed 2000‑06‑16, now US 6,882,793). It sits in the same patent family as US 8,867,894 and US 9,390,755 (Darts‑ip family 24383971).

The Google Patents record itself flags "Family has litigation" (a Darts‑ip family‑litigation link), which confirms litigation exists somewhere in this family.

Important limitation: I could confirm YesVideo litigation that the NPE Litigation Database ties to the family, but the database pages I retrieved explicitly list the family member 8,867,894 — not 8,630,529 — as the patent associated with those cases. My searches to confirm whether 8,630,529 itself was specifically asserted in the pleadings were cut off (tool limit). I am therefore reporting the family‑related cases below with that distinction made explicitly, rather than asserting that 8,630,529 was named in the complaints.

Known litigation (YesVideo as plaintiff/patent asserter)

1. YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc.

• Plaintiff: YesVideo, Inc.
• Defendant: iMemories, Inc. (a practicing/operating company, not an NPE)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case number: 2:15‑cv‑00809
• Filing date: 2015‑05‑21
• Cause of action: Patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271)
• Status/outcome: Closed — termination date 2016‑03‑29 (the searchable case summaries do not state a damages award, so the disposition was likely settlement or dismissal; I could not confirm the exact termination reason)
• Source: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[169192](/patent/169192) and https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:15-cv-00809/yesvideo-inc-v-imemories-inc
• Note: The NPE database lists this case in connection with US 8,867,894, a sibling patent in the same family — not confirmed as 8,630,529.

2. YesVideo Incorporated v. IMR16 Incorporated

• Plaintiff: YesVideo Incorporated
• Defendant: IMR16 Incorporated (related to iMemories)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
• Case number: 2:16‑cv‑00865
• Filing date: 2016‑03‑30
• Cause of action: Patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271); defendant filed counterclaims
• Status/outcome: Closed (docket period noted through 2016‑08‑10)
• Source: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[175969](/patent/175969) and https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-arizona/noscat-10/nos-830?page=17
• Note: Also tied in the NPE database to US 8,867,894, not confirmed as 8,630,529.

Bottom line

• Litigation does exist involving the YesVideo patent family that includes 8,630,529: the two cases above, both brought by YesVideo as plaintiff (making YesVideo a practicing entity, not an NPE).
• I could not verify from the retrieved records that US 8,630,529 specifically was asserted in either complaint; the databases I reached attribute these suits to the sibling patent 8,867,894. To state definitively whether 8,630,529 was named in the pleadings, the complaint documents (via PACER for 2:15‑cv‑00809 and 2:16‑cv‑00865) or a direct query of the Darts‑ip family‑litigation link (family 24383971) would need to be checked — I did not complete that verification and will not assert it without the source.

I should flag honestly that I could not complete verification of the specific patent asserted in these suits, so treat the 8,630,529‑specific link as unconfirmed pending the PACER/Darts‑ip check.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

Let me search more specifically for YesVideo litigation and any PTAB filings.

Found YesVideo's own assertion campaign (iMemories, IMR16). Let me check whether those defendants filed IPRs against this patent family.

PTAB proceedings on file

No AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 8,630,529. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) for this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal involving this patent number. I could not find any proceeding that a defendant could cite, and I am not going to manufacture one.

One false-positive to warn you about before you search yourself: a query for "529 patent" plus "IPR" returns IPR2021-01081, Bank of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLC, which concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,881,529 — an unrelated patent (Nant's mobile-image processing patent). That is not this patent. Do not let a keyword search conflate the two.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on this patent: 0. There is no breakdown to give — nothing was filed, so nothing was instituted, invalidated, sustained, or settled. The "family has litigation" flag on the Google Patents page reflects district court litigation, not PTAB activity (see below). The bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to lean on in either direction. This patent has never been validity-tested at the Board, so there is no IPR estoppel binding anyone under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), and no claims have been canceled that you can point to. The absence of PTAB activity is not evidence the claims are strong — it is evidence that the patent never got asserted hard enough, long enough, to attract a petition. And there is a much bigger defensive fact in this file: the patent's adjusted expiration is 2023-03-30 and its legal status is "Expired – Fee Related," meaning as of today (2026-09-13) there is no live patent term to enjoin.

No AIA proceeding to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to populate. For completeness, here is what does exist in the public record and why it did not produce a PTAB case:

• What was asserted instead: YesVideo's only public assertion campaign targeted the '894 patent (US 8,867,894) — a continuation of the '529 (the '894's specification states it is a "[c]ontinuation of application No. 12/683,370, filed on Jan. 6, 2010, now Pat. No. 8,630,529"). YesVideo's 2015-05-22 press release announcing suit against iMemories identifies only the '894 as the asserted patent; the '529 is not named. (YesVideo press release, 2015-05-22)
• District court dockets (Stanford NPE database, not PTAB): YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.); YesVideo Incorporated v. IMR16 Incorporated, No. 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.). (Stanford NPE — YesVideo party page)
• Why no IPR followed: the accused products' features were mapped to the '894, and the '894 — not the '529 — was the claim set the defendants had to attack. Any IPR the iMemories/IMR16 defendants filed would therefore have named the '894. I found no IPR on the '894 either, but I did not complete an exhaustive docket sweep of that patent, so treat that as an unverified observation, not a finding.

Confidence statement: I am high confidence there is no PTAB proceeding on the '529 indexed in public sources. I am not in a position to prove a negative — a petition filed and terminated before public indexing, or a proceeding indexed only in PTAB E2E, could escape a web sweep. Verify directly at PTAB E2E (ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) using the "Search by Patent Number" tab, and cross-check the file wrapper in USPTO Patent Center (patentcenter.uspto.gov) for application 12/683,370.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim of US 8,630,529 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board, because no AIA trial was ever instituted. I will not guess at which claims are independent or dependent, and I will not represent that any claim has "survived" anything — surviving an IPR you were never in is not a validity holding. Note the file does carry a Darts-IP "family has litigation" flag, but that flag is driven by the YesVideo v. iMemories / IMR16 suits, which pleaded the '894, not the '529.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR was instituted as to this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar. A current defendant retains the full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 arsenal in district court — you are not limited to grounds that some earlier petitioner put on the table. Practically, though, the more important gate is the statutory time bar: if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '529, § 315(b) gives you one year from service to petition. Miss it and the IPR option is gone regardless of estoppel.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner on this patent (there are zero petitioners). No PTAB appeals by the patent owner — there is nothing to appeal. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, et al.) appears anywhere in this family's chain; the only public adverse party is a commercial competitor, iMemories. The picture is a non-practicing-assertion-adjacent pattern in reverse: a practicing company (YesVideo) asserting an operating patent against a competitor, one time, and then stopping — which is precisely the profile that produces no PTAB docket.

The expiry fact dominates everything. Per the structured record, legal status is "Expired – Fee Related" with an adjusted expiration of 2023-03-30. For a defendant in 2026, that means: no injunction, no ongoing royalty for post-expiration conduct, and a damages window capped by the six-year lookback (35 U.S.C. § 286), i.e. roughly 2020-2023 at the outside. That is a far stronger defensive point than any IPR outcome would have been.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative yourself. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E "Search by Patent Number" (ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) and check the 12/683,370 file wrapper in Patent Center. Also pull the Darts-IP family link on the Google Patents page to see the full litigation family — the '529's absence from that litigation list is itself confirmatory. (US 8,630,529 on Google Patents)
2. Do not build a defense on the '529 at all — build it on expiry. If a demand letter cites US 8,630,529, the dispositive responses are (a) statutory disclaimer of term / expiration 2023-03-30, and (b) the § 286 six-year damages bar. Ask the sender whether they are actually asserting the '529 or the '894; the public record shows their real vehicle has been the '894.
3. Check the related patents, not just this one. The same priority-2000-06-16 family includes US 6,882,793 (the original), US 7,668,438, US 8,867,894, and US 9,390,755. If you are being approached on YesVideo-family patents today, the live question is which member of that family carries enforceable term and whether that member has PTAB history. Verify each separately in PTAB E2E.
4. If you are served now, diary the § 315(b) date immediately. With no existing estoppel, you have the option to petition on any ground — but only within one year of service, and only if the claims remain amendable/practically worth attacking. Given the 2023-03-30 expiry, weigh whether an IPR is worth the spend versus a § 286 / expiration-based summary judgment strategy.
5. Track via CourtListener for any CAFC activity (courtlistener.com) — an appeal or a revived assertion campaign would be the leading indicator that this dormant family is being reactivated.

If you take only one thing from this file: there is no PTAB proceeding to cite, so your defense is not an IPR-estoppel or claim-cancellation story. It is an expiration story — the patent lapsed effective 2023-03-30, and any damages theory is confined to conduct before that date minus the six-year § 286 window.

I'll research the assignment record, corporate history, and litigation posture for US 8630529 before drafting.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,630,529 B2 ("Video Processing System")

Verification note: The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and its legacy mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) were not retrievable in this session — I could not pull the raw reel/frame images. The reconstruction below is built from (a) the authoritative Google Patents legal‑events record in the patent text supplied, (b) Stanford's NPE Litigation Database, and (c) Plainsite's assignment index for YesVideo. No reel/frame number is stated below because I could not verify one — I will not fabricate it. See the closing link for the exact query to run.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• All six inventors conveyed to the same assignee (YesVideo, Inc.) in one recorded instrument, so this is a conventional employee‑to‑company chain, not a fragmented inventor‑held portfolio.
• No "mass departure within 12 months of filing" signal. The operative filing for this patent is the 2010‑01‑06 divisional (US 12/683,370); the earliest priority is 2000‑06‑16. Sai‑Wai Fu is documented as leaving YesVideo around 2012 to found Kuna Systems (theorg.com profile; getkuna.com/about) — roughly 2 years after the divisional filing and 12 years after the original priority date. That is a founder transition, not a pre‑fire‑sale exodus.
• Inventor set is stable across the family: the same names recur on sibling applications (US 11/053,658; US 10/792,598), per Plainsite's index.

Original assignee

YesVideo, Inc. (originally incorporated/doing business as YesVideo.com, Inc.), Cupertino/Campbell, California.

• Primary line of business: consumer media digitization — transferring consumer analog videotape, film, slides and prints to CD/DVD/Blu‑ray, plus a cloud viewing/editing platform (MemorySafe). Distribution was primarily B2B2C through retail photo counters (Kodak/Qualex, Fujifilm, Walgreens, Costco, Walmart, CVS, Best Buy, Target, Rite Aid), reaching ~34,000 retail locations. Sources: https://www.capture.com/about and https://www.yesvideo.com/pages/our-story.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The asserted claims recite digitizing source video, generating scene indexes with representative stills, and packaging the video + scene indexes + media player onto a disc whose player shows stills of other scenes while one scene plays. YesVideo's YesCD / YesDVD / MemoryEditor / MemorySafe product line is squarely this practice — the company publicly describes "licensing their patented technology in Canada and Japan" during 2002–2006.
• Current status: Operating. Not acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy. It rebranded to Capture in 2021 (https://www.capture.com/about) and continues to sell digitization services; it also piloted a Google Photos partner program in 2018.
• Sibling assets in the same family: US 8,867,894 B2 (continuation, filed 2013‑06‑17 as US 13/919,825) and US 9,390,755 B2 (filed 2014‑10‑20 as US 14/518,989) — both trace to the same 2000‑06‑16 priority chain and the same original assignee.

Assignment timeline

Only one post‑filing assignment is of record for this patent. I found no evidence of any post‑issuance transfer.

• 2010‑01‑06 (executed, by operation of the filing/assignment) / recorded 2010‑01‑25 — Reel not verified (Assignment Center not reachable; Google Patents legal events confirms the recordation date)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST — see document for details)
  • Assignor: Ahmad, Subutai; Edwards, Jeffrey Layne; Fu, Sai‑Wai; Honey, Sadie Louise; Sit, Hon Pun; Ullal, Adwait (all six named inventors)
  • Assignee: YESVIDEO, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not determinable in this session. Assignment Center exposes the correspondent of record (the filing attorney/firm); I could not retrieve it, and Google Patents' legal‑events feed does not surface it. I will not guess. This is the single most valuable missing datum for this chain — see methodology note below.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor‑to‑company assignment, recorded ~19 days after the divisional was filed, confirming title in the operating company that commissioned the work. Not a fire‑sale, not a transfer‑to‑asserter.

Everything else in the chain is unrecorded or unverified. Google Patents shows no other reassignment entries for US 8,630,529 — the remaining "events" are priority claims (13/919,825 → 8,867,894; 14/518,989 → 9,390,755) and the 2023‑03‑30 adjusted expiry. That absence is itself the key finding: title has apparently never left YesVideo/Capture.

Related but separate: Plainsite's YesVideo index shows assignments recorded 2005‑01‑06 and 2005‑05‑17 by "Yesvideo.com, Inc." as assignor on the parent patents (09/595,615 → 6,882,793 and 10/792,598). That is consistent with a corporate name change from YesVideo.com, Inc. → YesVideo, Inc. I could not confirm a recorded Change‑of‑Name instrument, and I did not find one recorded against US 8,630,529 specifically. Treat the name‑change point as unclear, not established.

Methodology note on the missing correspondent

To complete the correspondent column, run the patent‑number query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "8630529"), open the 2010‑01‑25 assignment, and pull the Correspondent and Reel/Frame fields plus the PDF. That is the only way to test signal #3 properly. Based on the evidence I do have, there is no second link in this chain for a correspondent to recur across — so even a single correspondent name here would not, on its own, satisfy the "recurrence" test you've set.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8630529
    2000 : Priority filing
    2005 : Parent application filed
    2010 : Divisional application filed
         : Assignment recorded to YesVideo Inc
    2014 : Patent issued
    2015 : YesVideo sues iMemories in E D Texas
    2016 : Case closed
         : YesVideo sues IMR16 in D Arizona
    2021 : YesVideo rebrands as Capture

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No recorded conveyance of US 8,630,529 to any entity bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix. The only recorded assignee is YESVIDEO, INC., the operating company that built and sold the YesCD/YesDVD product line. Current owner of record appears to remain YesVideo/Capture.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee on this patent matches any of the named NPE directories (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies YesVideo Incorporated under asserter category "8 Product company" — i.e., a practicing entity, explicitly not an NPE (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/yesvideo-incorporated, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[169192](/patent/169192)). Note the important distinction: YesVideo is a plaintiff that asserts patents, but it asserts them as an operating company against direct competitors in its own market.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — INSUFFICIENT DATA.
Correspondent of record not retrieved (see note above). With only one link in the chain, the recurrence test cannot be satisfied regardless.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
One assignment, recorded 2010‑01‑25, and no subsequent transfers. There is no chain of LLCs, no shared correspondent address, no sub‑24‑month cascade.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The only assignment is dated 2010‑01‑06 / recorded 2010‑01‑25. The earliest asserted‑family suit (YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc., 2:15‑cv‑00809, E.D. Tex.) was filed 2015‑05‑21 — more than five years later (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8867894). A pre‑litigation transfer would require a conveyance in late 2014/early 2015; none exists. Also note the 2010 assignment runs to the operating company, the opposite direction from an assertion‑enabling transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding or patent sale surfaced for YesVideo. Corporate history shows continued operation, a 2011 recapitalization with new investment, retail expansion, a 2018 Google Photos pilot, and a 2021 rebrand to Capture (https://www.capture.com/about). No Kodak/Nortel‑style asset sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Privateering requires an operating company to hand patents to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the operating company retains title and sued in its own name. YesVideo's own website describes the early‑2000s use of the portfolio as technology licensing to foreign partners ("expanded globally through licensing their patented technology in Canada and Japan") — that is outbound operating‑company licensing, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse signal not triggered; the patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

US 8,630,529 has exactly one recorded assignment — the 2010‑01‑25 inventor‑to‑YesVideo, Inc. conveyance — and no recorded transfer since, so title sits with the original operating assignee. YesVideo/Capture ships products embodying the claimed subject matter (YesCD/YesDVD disc production with scene indexes and representative stills) and asserted sibling family patents as a "Product company" plaintiff in YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc., 2:15‑cv‑00809 (E.D. Tex., filed 2015‑05‑21; closed 2016‑03‑29) and YesVideo Incorporated v. IMR16 Incorporated, 2:16‑cv‑00865 (D. Ariz.) — both against competitors operating in the same digitization market. None of the eight NPE signals is present on the evidence available, and the "no post‑issuance assignment" fact is the strongest single indicator of ordinary operating‑company ownership.

One honest caveat: I could not confirm that US 8,630,529 itself (as opposed to its sibling US 8,867,894) was among the asserted patents, nor could I retrieve the correspondent of record. If a later SDNY/Del. transfer to a licensing entity exists that Assignment Center surfaces but that Google Patents and Stanford have not indexed, this verdict would need revising.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — query patent number 8630529; cross‑check the legal‑events tab at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630529/en and the asserter profile at https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/yesvideo-incorporated.

I'll research US patent 8630529 and its prior art citations.

Let me retrieve the actual claims of US8630529 and more detail on the key cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent No. 8,630,529 B2

1. Identification of the Patent (literal, no auto-correction)

Sourcing caveat (per your strict rule): my tool set is live web search, not a direct USPTO PatentCenter API query. The bibliographic data above comes from the Google Patents record and third‑party mirrors (Unified Patents portal, Justia, uspto.report) that are consistent with the front matter you supplied. I could not independently pull the granted claim set of US 8,630,529 from USPTO full text, so the claim characterization below is drawn from the pre‑grant publication US 2010/0115410 A1 for application 12/683,370 plus the family's earlier claims, and should be verified against the issued claims.

2. Claim scope relevant to the § 102 analysis

The pre‑grant publication for application 12/683,370 (which became US 8,630,529) sets out claim 1 as follows:

"1. A method for producing a video based product comprising: acquiring video data originating from a user; acquiring a plurality of temporal indices and a plurality of representative stills, where the plurality of temporal indices indicate a division of the video data into distinct segments and each of the plurality of representative stills represent a distinct segment of the video data; and publishing the video data, the plurality of temporal indices and the plurality of representative stills to a distribution web site." (US 2010/0115410 A1)

The family's other issued claims (US 7,668,438 / US 6,882,793 / EP 1,310,086) cover: acquiring/digitizing video, generating scene indexes with a representative still per scene, and combining the video data, scene indexes and a media player (a software application) on a video disc / physical media, where the player plays a scene while displaying representative stills of the other scenes; plus dependent claims on color‑difference and motion‑difference scene detection, cropping, introductory‑group frame selection, color‑distribution matching, the contact sheet, and CD/DVD media.

Because claim 1 of US 8,630,529 appears to be the web‑publishing variant, the references below are mapped against both claim families so the analysis holds regardless of which claim set governs. § 102 anticipation requires every element in a single reference; the mappings below are potential anticipations at the element‑correspondence level, not legal conclusions.

3. Cited prior art — full list (the "References Cited" of the 8,630,529 family)

All 29 patent citations are U.S./foreign. Dates shown are publication dates (the § 102(b)/§ 102(a) art dates), with priority dates from the family record.

Total patent citations: 29 (the count shown on the US 6,882,793 front page and on the Unified Patents record). Note: item 28 (WO 01/28238 A2) post‑dates the 2000‑06‑16 priority date, so it is § 102(e)/§ 102(a)‑eligible art only if its own filing date precedes 2000‑06‑16; the others all pre‑date the priority date and are § 102(b) art.

Non‑patent literature: the family record (US 8,867,894 front page) also cites: "There Are 3 Easy Steps to Making Video at earthnoise.com" [online], archived May 10, 2000, retrieved from the Internet Archive. You provided this in the US 8,867,894 text; because it is dated before the 2000‑06‑16 priority date it is a § 102(b) printed publication and is relevant to the web‑publishing/upload‑and‑edit claims.

4. The most relevant prior art (ranked)

Tier 1 — closest to the core claims

A. US 5,805,733 A — Apple Computer, Inc. (filed 1994‑12‑11/12; published 1998‑09‑08; § 102(b))
Method and system for detecting scenes and summarizing video sequences. Discloses detecting scenes by (i) a global measurement, (ii) a Chi‑squared value on a color histogram of each frame pair, and (iii) a normalized motion‑compensated pixel difference; computing an average color histogram for each scene; and selecting a representative frame for each set of related scenes (a frame temporally medial to first/last scene, or from the longest scene). It also displays representative frames concurrently with user selection retrieving the scene.

• Anticipates: the scene‑break detection claims (color‑difference + motion‑difference with threshold) and the representative‑still selection claims (color‑distribution match over a scene). This is the single most on‑point reference for the "detecting a transition / representative still" dependent claims.

B. US 6,154,771 A — Mediastra, Inc. / Tata America International Corp. (priority 1998‑05‑31; published 2000‑11‑28; § 102(b))
Real‑time receipt, decompression and play of compressed streaming video/hypervideo; with thumbnail display of past scenes and with replay, hyperlinking and/or recording permissively initiated retrospectively. Discloses playing streamed video while simultaneously displaying thumbnails of other scenes, with replay/hyperlink navigation between scenes.

• Anticipates: the "media player operable to play a scene … while displaying the representative stills for other of the scenes available for display" limitation (family claims 1/13/14). This is the most direct anticipatory art on the playing‑scene‑while‑showing‑other‑stills element.

C. US 5,818,439 A — Hitachi, Ltd. (priority 1995‑02‑19/20; published 1998‑10‑06; § 102(b))
Video viewing assisting method and a video playback system therefor. Scene‑based navigation with representative images presented for selection during playback.

• Anticipates: the combination of representative‑still menu + scene playback (family claims), and supports the "scene indexes" element.

Tier 2 — strong on scene/transition detection

D. US 5,642,294 A — NTT (priority 1993‑12‑16/17; published 1997‑06‑24; § 102(b)) — Method and apparatus for video cut detection. Directly relevant to the "detecting a transition between consecutive frames … indicating a scene break" element.

E. US 5,767,922 A — Cornell Research Foundation (priority 1996‑04‑04/05; published 1998‑06‑16; § 102(b)) — Apparatus and process for detecting scene breaks in a sequence of video frames. Relevant to the "determining when the transition indicates a scene break" element.

F. US 5,576,950 A — NTT (priority 1993‑07‑27/28; published 1996‑11‑19) — Video image search method and system — indexing/search of video segments.

G. US 5,974,218 A — Hitachi (priority 1995‑04‑20/21; published 1999‑10‑26) — Making a digest picture — representative‑frame digest generation.

Tier 3 — strong on disc/medium integration and network publishing

H. US 6,262,724 B1 — Apple Inc. (priority 1999‑04‑14; published 2001‑07‑17; § 102(e) art at most, since it post‑dates 2000‑06‑16 only if its filing date is later — its 1999 priority date precedes the 8,630,529 priority date, so it is § 102(e)/§ 102(a)‑eligible) — User interface for presenting media information. Relevant to media‑player UI claims.

I. US 6,026,434 A — Sony (priority 1995‑10‑10/11; published 2000‑02‑15; § 102(b)) — Data transmission processing system — network delivery of indexed media; relevant to the "publishing … to a distribution web site" claim.

J. EP 1 154 432 A2 — Sony (priority 2000‑05‑11; published 2001‑11‑14) — Service providing apparatus/method, receiving terminal and service providing system. Post‑dates the priority date by ~1 month; usable only as § 102(a)/(e) art if its filing predates 2000‑06‑16. Relevant to network service distribution.

K. US 5,157,511 A — Sony (priority 1989‑07‑24; published 1992‑10‑20; § 102(b)) — Image control apparatus providing an index number to a video reproducer … to search for and reproduce a preselected still image — very early art on index‑number‑based still‑image navigation on a video disc/medium.

L. US 6,185,363 B1 — Philips (priority 1997‑06‑01; published 2001‑02‑06) — Visual indexing system — automated visual index generation.

Tier 4 — secondary/supporting

US 6,307,550 B1 (extracting photographic images from video), US 5,909,551 A (interactive disc), EP 1 074 989 A1 (video data conversion), US 6,275,451 B1 / US 6,453,119 B1 (recording media + index structure), US 6,449,608 B1 (video searching), US 6,134,531 A (segment metadata), US 6,154,601 A / US 6,085,020 A (editing), US 5,920,360 A (fade transitions), US 5,485,611 A (video DB index), US 5,546,191 A (recording/reproducing), US 5,713,022 A (image data supply), GB 2 312 078 A (cataloguing), JP H08‑315550 A (data recorder/medium), WO 01/28238 A2 (AV indexing), plus the earthnoise.com NPL.

5. Claim‑by‑claim potential § 102 mapping (summary)

6. Bottom line and caveats

• Strongest single references: US 5,805,733 A (Apple) — scene detection via color histogram + motion difference and representative‑frame selection (the technical heart of the disclosure); and US 6,154,771 A (Mediastra/Tata) — playing a scene while displaying thumbnails of other scenes (the specific "media player" limitation). If the granted claim 1 of US 8,630,529 is the web‑publishing variant, add US 6,026,434 A (Sony) and the earthnoise.com NPL as primary § 102(b) art.
• Legal caveat: this is an element‑level, single‑reference analysis, not a legal conclusion. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing all elements arranged as in the claim; where no single reference does so, the combination of, e.g., US 5,805,733 A + US 6,154,771 A + US 5,157,511 A would be a § 103 obviousness posture rather than § 102.
• Sourcing caveat (reiterated): I retrieved these via live web search against Google Patents and third‑party mirrors, not a direct USPTO PatentCenter query, and I could not confirm the exact issued claim text of US 8,630,529. The granted claims should be verified at the USPTO PatentCenter record for application 12/683,370 before relying on the claim mapping above. Any date that conflicts with the authoritative front matter you supplied should be resolved in favor of the supplied text.

I'll start by pulling the actual prior-art citations on this patent and its family, since the fetched page text I was given stops before the "Citations / Prior Art" tables.

Good — I have the family citation lists. Let me pin down the exact "Patent Citations" table for US 8,630,529 itself and check the noted litigation.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,630,529 (YesVideo, Inc.)

"Video processing system" · Appl. No. 12/683,370 (filed 2010-01-06) · Granted 2014-01-14 · Priority 2000-06-16 · Status: Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2023-03-30) · Family flagged as having litigation.
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630529/en

1. Record limitations I must flag up front

Before the analysis, three honesty caveats — they materially affect how much weight you can put on what follows:

1. The "Prior Art"/citation tables were not in the text I was given. The fetched page content includes only the Prior art keywords field — video data, frame, video, user, scene — and Prior art date 2000-06-16. The IDS/citation tables ("Patent Citations," "Cited By," "References Cited") were truncated out of the fetch. I therefore reconstructed the reference list from the family citation records I could retrieve (see §4 sources). Treat individual reference titles/dates below as retrieved, not verified.
2. I do not have the verbatim claim set of US 8,630,529. The claim mapping below is built from the Abstract and the Summary bullets, which parallel one another. A rigorous §103 opinion requires the actual granted claims, including their exact preambles and transitional phrases. Anything I say about "claim 1" should be read as "the independent claim as reflected in the Abstract."
3. Priority is the whole ballgame. 09/595,615 → US 6,882,793 → 11/053,658 → US 7,668,438 → 12/683,370 → US 8,630,529 → US 8,867,894 → US 9,390,755 is a long continuation/divisional chain. If any claim limitation (especially "media player … on a video disc") lacks written-description support in the 2000-06-16 priority document, the claim gets a 2005-02-07 effective date and an entire second tier of art opens up. That determination drives which references are even available.

2. Governing law

The application was filed 2010-01-06, before the AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions took effect (2013-03-16), so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies, with pre-AIA § 102(e) as the applicable prior-art gate for earlier-filed, later-published U.S. applications.

The controlling framework is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, and level of ordinary skill — applied through KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Under KSR, a combination is obvious where (i) the elements were known and combined according to known methods to yield predictable results; (ii) a known element is substituted for another to obtain a predictable result; (iii) a known technique improves a similar device in the same way; or (iv) there is a design incentive / market pressure and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. A POSITA here would be a skilled consumer-video/computer-vision software engineer with a working knowledge of MPEG encoding, optical-disc authoring (CD-R/DVD-Video), and web media delivery as of mid-2000 (roughly a B.S. plus 2–4 years, or equivalent).

3. The claims under analysis (per Abstract/Summary)

The independent method claim, as reflected in the Abstract, requires:

• (a) acquiring video data from a source;
• (b) digitizing if the video data is not already digitized;
• (c) generating scene indexes for the video data, including a representative still image for each scene;
• (d) combining the video data and scene indexes, along with a media player, on a video disc; and
• (e) the media player being operable to play the video data in accordance with the scene indexes — including playing a scene while displaying representative stills for other scenes available on the disc.

The Summary discloses, as further aspects: analog/digital capture; color-difference and motion-difference transition detection against preset thresholds; cropping boundary pixels before comparison; "tentative mode" verification against a stored last-frame-of-preceding-scene; representative-still selection from a "segment intro" by best histogram match to the scene's average color histogram; a bad-video-segment test (color-channel standard deviation vs. threshold); a printed contact sheet; CD or DVD; temporal indices; a media editor generating edit lists replicated on another computer; distribution to designatees; and streaming/webcast packaging.

The narrow, non-trivial point of novelty in this family is (d)+(e): a player resident on the same disc that plays segments per auto-detected scene indexes while concurrently surfacing selectable representative stills of the other scenes.

4. The prior art of record (as reconstructed)

Grouped by the function each reference serves. Dates shown are the earliest priority dates retrieved; each must be checked against 2000-06-16.

A. Automatic segmentation / cut & scene-change detection

B. Indexing, representative/key frames, digests, visual browsing

C. Optical-disc recording/reproduction, interactive media, editing, player UI

D. Networked / web-hosted media editing, delivery and streaming services

Post-priority-dated (available only if the claims lose the 2000 date): US 2002/0144276 A1 (2001-03-30, Radford, streamed data delivery); US 2003/0163815 A1 (Begeja, personalized multimedia delivery); US 2003/0236912 A1 (Microsoft, embedding a streaming media header); US 2005/0071881 A1 (Deshpande, playlist creation and playback); YesVideo's own US 6,721,361 B1 (2001-02-23) — the latter being YoVideo's own work and therefore disqualified as §103 art under pre-AIA §103(c) (common ownership at the time of invention) even if the date issue is resolved against the patentee.

Retrieved from: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[6882793](/patent/6882793)-B1 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070088844#6 · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070074115#9 · https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Video-processing-system/6882793.html · https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8509592](/patent/US8509592)#10 · https://www.patentguru.com/cn/assignee/Yesvideo

5. Combination analysis — element by element

6. Why a POSITA would have combined these — the motivation

The motivation here is not speculative; it is the design brief of the late-1990s consumer video industry.

1. Known problem, known components, predictable result. The Background itself concedes the three well-known deficiencies of consumer camcorder footage: tape degradation, insecure storage, and "more junk than real footage." The obvious engineering response — digitize, auto-segment, and master an optical disc — combines known elements (MPEG encoders, cut-detection algorithms, CD-R/DVD authoring) according to known methods. Under KSR factor (i), that is the paradigm case.

2. The disc-menu paradigm was standardized and ubiquitous. DVD-Video and Video CD players were designed to present a menu of still images representing chapters/segments navigable by the user. US 5,909,551 (Hitachi) expressly claims an interactive recording/reproducing medium plus reproducing system. Once that playback paradigm existed, loading auto-generated chapter stills onto a disc was a mere substitution of data for a known menu construct (KSR factor ii).

3. Market forces and finite solutions. The commercial incentive to remove editing drudgery is exactly the "market pressure" KSR identifies, and the solution space was small and well-mapped: scene-detect (US 5,642,294; US 5,805,733; US 5,920,360; WO 2001/028238), pick representative frames (US 6,185,363; US 6,307,550), write to disc (US 6,272,451; US 6,141,489). No reference needed to teach the specific permutation for the combination to be obvious where the prior art "discloses a finite number of identified, predictable solutions."

4. The web-hosting layer was independently known. US 6,564,380 (Pixelworld, filed 1999-01-26) discloses sending live video over the Internet; US 6,134,531 (HP) correlates audience interaction with segments of broadcast programs; EP 1 154 432 A2 (priority 2000-05-11 — five weeks before the asserted priority date) is squarely a service-providing architecture with a receiving terminal. Combining a digitize-and-host service with a client-side segment-index browsing UI is a straightforward application of a known technique to a known device (KSR factor iv).

5. The concurrency limitation is anticipated in spirit by player UI art. US 6,262,724 (Apple) is directed to presenting media information — i.e., a player window with selectable media representations. A player that plays one item while showing selectable representations of others is the natural, and predictable, extension of that disclosure.

7. The strongest express combination (for an invalidity contention)

Primary: US 5,485,611 (Intel) + US 5,909,551 (Hitachi) + US 6,185,363 (Philips) + US 5,642,294 (NTT).

• Intel '611 supplies (c)(ii)–(c)(iii): automated video indexing with presentation of an index to a user.
• Philips '363 supplies the quality of the representative still — key-frame/visual-index selection, which maps onto the segment-intro/best-histogram-match dependent claims.
• NTT '294 supplies the scene-break engine, including the border/cropping and false-positive-suppression concepts underlying the tentative-mode dependents.
• Hitachi '551 supplies the article of manufacture: an interactive optical medium whose reproducing system navigates by segment.

Motivation statement: a POSITA seeking to commercialize consumer video digitization would look to interactive optical media (Hitachi) as the delivery vehicle, automatic indexing (Intel, Philips) to eliminate manual chaptering, and cut detection (NTT) as the segmentation engine — each reference being in the same field of endeavor (video processing and optical media) and each addressing a discrete, recognized need. The result is the claimed method with no unexpected behavior.

Secondary combination for the dependent claims: US 5,920,360 (fade/transition verification → tentative mode) + US 5,974,218 (Maxell digest picture → contact sheet) + US 6,204,840 (MGI → edit lists) + US 6,564,380 (Pixelworld → webcast).

8. Considerations cutting against obviousness (patentee's side)

A candid analysis must record where the case is weak:

1. The "on-disc player that displays other scenes' stills during playback" is genuinely narrow. DVD-Video chapter menus are static — the viewer leaves playback to see the menu. A player that concurrently renders selectable thumbnails of the remaining scenes while a scene plays more closely resembles a software media player (RealPlayer/QuickTime) running on a host computer, not a player resident on the same optical disc as the content. None of the reference summaries I retrieved teaches a player stored on the same disc as the video it plays, let alone with concurrent thumbnail surfacing. If the granted claim requires that architecture, a §103 case must find a reference bundling a software player with content on removable media — US 6,026,434 and US 5,713,022 are candidates but I could not verify their disclosures, and I will not assert what I cannot confirm.
2. Specific algorithm details. The tentative-mode with a timeout counter, the timeout-sized second buffer to avoid missing frames, and one-pass representative-frame extraction during break detection are uncommonly specific. If the prior art taught immediate cut declaration only, these dependents have a credible non-obviousness argument.
3. Secondary considerations. The Background articulates a long-felt, unmet need; YesVideo was a commercial market-maker in consumer video digitization; and the prosecution ran ~14 years across three patents (2000 → 2014) before this divisional issued. A patentee would marshal commercial success and long-felt need. Note, however, that under KSR any nexus argument must tie the secondary consideration to the claimed combination, not to the general service.
4. Critical date risk runs the other way for some art. US 2002/0144276, US 2003/0163815, US 2003/0236912, US 2005/0071881 and US 6,721,361 all post-date 2000-06-16. They are unusable unless the asserted claim loses the 2000 priority. US 6,721,361 is additionally shielded by pre-AIA §103(c) as commonly owned YesVideo subject matter.
5. I could not verify the litigation. The Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-IP family link (family 24383971), but the searches returned no case name, court, or invalidity contentions. I therefore make no representation about which claims were asserted or what art the defendant(s) relied on. Anyone building an actual §103 challenge should pull the Darts-IP record and the litigation contentions directly.

9. Bottom line

• Independent claim (per Abstract): likely obvious under §103 over Intel '611 + Hitachi '551 + Philips '363 + NTT '294, with a strong KSR motivation story grounded in the DVD/VCD chapter-menu paradigm and the admitted long-felt consumer need, provided a reference (or the knowledge of a POSITA plus an art-recognized bundling practice) supplies the "player resident on the disc" element. That element is the crux; without it, the case rests on the general interchangeability of media players and content.
• Detection/verification dependents (color-histogram and motion thresholds, cropping, tentative mode): obvious over NTT '294 + US 5,805,733 + US 5,920,360.
• Representative-still dependents (segment intro, scene-average histogram match): obvious over Philips '363 + Cisco '6307550.
• Contact-sheet, edit-list, and streaming dependents: obvious over Maxell '5974218, MGI '6204840, and Pixelworld '6564380 respectively.
• Where I would be cautious: the exact architecture of the on-disc player, and the precise timeout-buffer mechanism. Those are the limitations I would expect a patentee to defend, and they are the ones for which my retrieved reference data is thinnest.
• Threshold question that should be answered first: whether the granted claims of US 8,630,529 are in fact supported by the 2000-06-16 priority application for the "media player ... on a video disc" element. If they are not, a materially stronger §103 combination becomes available using the 2001–2005 references, and the §103(c) safe harbor analysis for YesVideo's own US 6,721,361 must be run.

Everything above is an analytical opinion grounded in the retrieved citation records; it is not a legal conclusion of invalidity, and the retrieved reference dates and titles should be independently verified against each reference's face before being relied upon.