US 8643513

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 8643513:

Title: Data compression systems and methods

Assignee: Realtime Data LLC

Inventor: James J. Fallon

Filing Date: June 6, 2011

Issue Date: February 4, 2014

Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for achieving fast and efficient data compression by combining content-independent and content-dependent data compression techniques. The approach involves analyzing an input data block to identify its data type. If the data type is identified, content-dependent compression is applied. If the data type cannot be identified, content-independent data compression is performed.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method for compressing data): This claim outlines a method for compressing data that involves:

  1. Analyzing: Examining a block of incoming data from a stream that contains various data types to determine its specific data type.
  2. Content-Dependent Compression: If the data type is successfully identified, applying compression methods specifically tailored to that identified data type.
  3. Content-Independent Compression: If the data type cannot be identified, applying general compression methods that do not rely on the data's specific content.

• Claim 9 (System for compressing data): This claim describes a physical system designed to perform the data compression method of Claim 1. It includes:

  1. A data recognition module configured to analyze and identify the data type of an input data block.
  2. A content dependent encoder module containing multiple encoders (compression algorithms) that are associated with and optimized for specific identified data types.
  3. A content independent encoder module containing multiple encoders suitable for compressing data when a specific data type is not identified. The system routes the data block to either the content-dependent or content-independent encoder module based on the data type recognition result.

• Claim 17 (Method for compressing data): This claim presents an enhanced method for data compression, which incorporates a compression ratio evaluation:

  1. Analyzing: Examining a data block to identify its data type.
  2. Content-Dependent Compression: If the data type is identified, performing compression using content-dependent algorithms.
  3. Ratio Determination & Comparison: After content-dependent compression, calculating the achieved compression ratio and comparing it against a predetermined "first compression threshold."
  4. Conditional Content-Independent Compression: If the data type was not initially identified, or if the content-dependent compression failed to meet the specified "first compression threshold," then the data block is subjected to content-independent data compression.

• Claim 25 (System for compressing data): This claim details a system that carries out the method described in Claim 17. It comprises:

  1. A content dependent data recognition module for identifying data types.
  2. A content dependent encoder module with encoders corresponding to recognized data types.
  3. A content independent encoder module with encoders for data that is either unrecognized or poorly compressed by content-dependent methods.
  4. A compression ratio module to determine and compare compression ratios against a threshold, enabling the system to decide whether to proceed with content-independent compression if the content-dependent attempt is insufficient or if no data type was recognized.

• Claim 33 (Method for decompressing data): This claim outlines a method for decompressing data that was previously compressed using the patent's techniques:

  1. Receiving Data: Taking in a compressed data block.
  2. Descriptor Extraction: Extracting a "data compression type descriptor" embedded within the data block. This descriptor indicates the specific compression technique(s) used (e.g., no compression, a single method, or a sequence of methods).
  3. Conditional Decoding: If the descriptor indicates no compression ("null"), the original, undecoded data block is simply output. Otherwise, the method selects the appropriate decoder or sequence of decoders corresponding to the descriptor to decompress and reconstruct the original data.

USPTO Database and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A search of the USPTO database confirms that US Patent 8643513B2, titled "Data compression systems and methods," was issued on February 4, 2014, from an application filed on June 6, 2011. The patent's current assignee is Realtime Data LLC, and the inventor is James J. Fallon. The legal status of the patent is "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration date of November 2, 2019.

A search for US patent 8643513 in the CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any direct case filings or opinions related to this specific patent number in the year 2026. The patent's litigation history, as provided, indicates prior CAFC cases (21-2251, 21-2291) filed in 2021.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 8643513, based on the provided patent text and associated litigation data:

Patent: US8643513B2 - Data compression systems and methods
Current Assignee: Realtime Data LLC

Known litigation includes:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00089
  • Status: Critical (from Google Patents listing)
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00961
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case Number: IPR2017-01664
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement
  • Source: Unified Patents PTAB Data
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case Number: IPR2017-00366
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
  • Source: Unified Patents PTAB Data
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case Number: IPR2016-00978
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
  • Source: Unified Patents PTAB Data
• Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case Number: IPR2016-00374
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement
  • Source: Unified Patents PTAB Data
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00385
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00383
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00071
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00046
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01037
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01035
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00463
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-02017
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: First worldwide family litigation filed (general reference, no specific case details provided on Google Patents beyond the link)
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:16-cv-01836
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-02109
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:18-cv-06029
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:17-cv-02373
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case Number: 21-2251
  • Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case Number: 21-2291
  • Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00925
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00087
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00464
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00086
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00465
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00466
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00467
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00468
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00469
  • Source: District Court
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:15-cv-00470
  • Source: District Court

The Google Patents listing for US8643513B2 provides the jurisdiction and case number, along with a source (Unified Patents Litigation Data or Darts-ip), and sometimes the outcome for PTAB cases. However, it does not explicitly list plaintiffs, defendants, or filing dates directly within the snapshot provided, except where noted for PTAB petitioners (which are not named in the provided text snippets for this patent). To get these additional details (plaintiffs, defendants, filing dates), one would typically need to navigate to the linked external sources (e.g., Unified Patents portal, Darts-ip, or PACER) and extract the information from the individual case dockets. Without accessing those external sites, I cannot provide those specific details for all listed cases.

Proceedings overview

There are 4 AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8643513, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). Two IPRs resulted in Final Written Decisions invalidating claims, and two others terminated via settlement. Specifically, IPR2017-00366 found claims 1-6 unpatentable, and IPR2016-00978 found claims 1-6 unpatentable. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as the core claims 1-6, which are likely asserted, have been canceled.

IPR2017-00366 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-01-20
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims 1-6 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Jennifer B. Apell, Brian W. Easthope, Matthew R. Clements
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 (Fallon) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,146,229 (Chu) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 (Chu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-07-28 for claims 1-6. The Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fallon in view of Chu '229 and Chu '087.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2018-07-27. Claims 1-6 were found unpatentable. The Board stated, "For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 of the '513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. Proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Realtime Data, LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2018-2287). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2019-10-09, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 have been definitively canceled and affirmed on appeal. Any infringement theory based on these claims is moot and likely sanction-bait.

IPR2016-00978 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-02
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims 1-6 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Brian W. Easthope, Jennifer B. Apell, Matthew R. Clements
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 (Fallon) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,146,229 (Chu) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 (Chu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2016-11-04 for claims 1-6. The Board found that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fallon in view of Chu '229 and Chu '087.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2017-11-03. Claims 1-6 were found unpatentable. The Board concluded, "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. Proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Realtime Data, LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2018-1249). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2019-01-24, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1-6.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 have been definitively canceled and affirmed on appeal in this proceeding as well, further solidifying their invalidity.

IPR2017-01664 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-27
• Status: Settled.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement, as the case did not proceed to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2018-02-05 due to settlement. The Board entered an order terminating the proceeding based on a joint stipulation of the parties.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2018-02-05 via settlement. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal as the proceeding was terminated prior to a final written decision.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in a final decision on the merits. While the petition challenged claims 1-6, the settlement means there's no official invalidation or confirmation of patentability for these specific claims from this proceeding. However, the subsequent IPRs (IPR2017-00366 and IPR2016-00978) did result in claims 1-6 being canceled.

IPR2016-00374 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-14
• Status: Settled.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement, as the case did not proceed to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2016-07-13 due to settlement. The Board entered an order terminating the proceeding based on a joint stipulation of the parties.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2016-07-13 via settlement. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal as the proceeding was terminated prior to a final written decision.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01664, this IPR did not result in a final decision on the merits due to settlement. However, the claims challenged (1-6) were subsequently invalidated in other IPRs.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-6 of US8643513 are now CANCELED. This is a critical development, as these are typically the broadest claims that would form the basis of an infringement theory. The cancellation was confirmed by two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2017-00366 and IPR2016-00978) and further upheld by the Federal Circuit on appeal in both instances. This indicates a high degree of hardening against these particular claims.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a defendant regarding claims 1-6. Since Unified Patents successfully invalidated these claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, no party in privity with Unified Patents can assert these claims or challenge them again on the same grounds or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised in those IPRs. More importantly, the claims themselves are no longer part of the patent. Claims 7-42 of US8643513 remain untested by PTAB proceedings, leaving open the possibility of future IPRs if an assertion were to focus on them.

A clear pattern signal is the consistent involvement of Unified Patents Inc. in challenging this patent, indicating a potential aggregator defense strategy. Realtime Data LLC aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit for the IPRs that resulted in adverse FWDs, but the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability findings in both cases.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US8643513, you should immediately review the asserted claims. If claims 1-6 are being asserted, the patent owner has no case. You should explicitly link to the Final Written Decisions and Federal Circuit affirmances to demonstrate the invalidity of these claims.

• For IPR2017-00366, refer to the Final Written Decision at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2017-00366/001423405367. The disposition states: "For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 of the '513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• For IPR2016-00978, refer to the Final Written Decision at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2016-00978/001379374465. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."

The remaining claims (7-42) have not been subject to PTAB review. If the demand letter or litigation asserts these claims, an IPR could be considered, but the risk profile for such an IPR would be higher due to the patent owner's demonstrated willingness to defend the patent and appeal unfavorable outcomes. However, the core claims are gone, significantly weakening the patent overall.

There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US8643513. The absence of recent PTAB activity on the remaining claims (7-42) could indicate that those claims are less attractive for assertion or less vulnerable to IPR challenges, or simply that no one has yet chosen to challenge them.## Proceedings overview
There are 4 AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8643513, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). Two IPRs resulted in Final Written Decisions invalidating claims 1-6, and two others terminated via settlement. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as the core claims 1-6 have been canceled and affirmed on appeal.

IPR2017-00366 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-01-20
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims 1-6 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Jennifer B. Apell, Brian W. Easthope, Matthew R. Clements
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 (Fallon) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,146,229 (Chu) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 (Chu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-07-28 for claims 1-6. The Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fallon in view of Chu '229 and Chu '087.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2018-07-27. Claims 1-6 were found unpatentable. The Board stated, "For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 of the '513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. Proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Realtime Data, LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2018-2287). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2019-10-09, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 have been definitively canceled and affirmed on appeal. Any infringement theory based on these claims is moot.

IPR2016-00978 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-05-02
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims 1-6 found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Brian W. Easthope, Jennifer B. Apell, Matthew R. Clements
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 (Fallon) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,146,229 (Chu) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 (Chu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2016-11-04 for claims 1-6. The Board found that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fallon in view of Chu '229 and Chu '087.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2017-11-03. Claims 1-6 were found unpatentable. The Board concluded, "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. Proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Realtime Data, LLC appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2018-1249). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2019-01-24, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1-6.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-6 have been definitively canceled and affirmed on appeal in this separate proceeding.

IPR2017-01664 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-27
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement, as the case did not proceed to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2018-02-05 due to settlement. The Board entered an order terminating the proceeding based on a joint stipulation of the parties.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2018-02-05 via settlement. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal as the proceeding was terminated prior to a final written decision.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in a final decision on the merits due to settlement. While the petition challenged claims 1-6, the subsequent IPRs (IPR2017-00366 and IPR2016-00978) did result in claims 1-6 being canceled.

IPR2016-00374 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-01-14
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement, as the case did not proceed to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-6 of US8643513.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2016-07-13 due to settlement. The Board entered an order terminating the proceeding based on a joint stipulation of the parties.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2016-07-13 via settlement. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal as the proceeding was terminated prior to a final written decision.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01664, this IPR did not result in a final decision on the merits due to settlement. However, the claims challenged (1-6) were subsequently invalidated in other IPRs.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-6 of US8643513 are now CANCELED. This is a critical development, as these are typically the broadest claims that would form the basis of an infringement theory. The cancellation was confirmed by two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2017-00366 and IPR2016-00978) and further upheld by the Federal Circuit on appeal in both instances. This indicates a high degree of hardening against these particular claims.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a defendant regarding claims 1-6. Since Unified Patents successfully invalidated these claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, no party in privity with Unified Patents can assert these claims or challenge them again on the same grounds or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised in those IPRs. More importantly, the claims themselves are no longer part of the patent. Claims 7-42 of US8643513 remain untested by PTAB proceedings, leaving open the possibility of future IPRs if an assertion were to focus on them.

A clear pattern signal is the consistent involvement of Unified Patents Inc. in challenging this patent, indicating a potential aggregator defense strategy. Realtime Data LLC aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit for the IPRs that resulted in adverse FWDs, but the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability findings in both cases.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US8643513, you should immediately review the asserted claims. If claims 1-6 are being asserted, the patent owner has no case. You should explicitly link to the Final Written Decisions and Federal Circuit affirmances to demonstrate the invalidity of these claims.

• For IPR2017-00366, refer to the Final Written Decision at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2017-00366/001423405367. The disposition states: "For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6 of the '513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."
• For IPR2016-00978, refer to the Final Written Decision at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2016-00978/001379374465. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’513 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103."

The remaining claims (7-42) have not been subject to PTAB review. If the demand letter or litigation asserts these claims, an IPR could be considered, but the risk profile for such an IPR would be higher due to the patent owner's demonstrated willingness to defend the patent and appeal unfavorable outcomes. However, the core claims are gone, significantly weakening the patent overall.

There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US8643513. The absence of recent PTAB activity on the remaining claims (7-42) could indicate that those claims are less attractive for assertion or less vulnerable to IPR challenges, or simply that no one has yet chosen to challenge them.

Inventors

James J. Fallon (Employer: Realtime Data LLC at the time of filing).

Original assignee

The original assignee on US8643513 is Realtime Data LLC. Realtime Data LLC's primary line of business appears to be intellectual property licensing and monetization, rather than product manufacturing. The company has been involved in significant patent litigation. Its current status is active, based on its ongoing involvement in litigation.

Assignment timeline

There are no post-issuance assignments recorded for US8643513 at the USPTO Assignment Center. This indicates that Realtime Data LLC, the original assignee, still maintains ownership of the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8643513
    1998 : Priority date
    2011 : Application filed by Realtime Data LLC
    2014 : Patent granted to Realtime Data LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer - not present. There are no recorded transfers from an operating company to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain - unclear. While Realtime Data LLC has engaged in extensive patent litigation, it is not explicitly listed among the provided examples of "known asserters" like Intellectual Ventures or Acacia Research. However, its litigation activities suggest a strong focus on patent assertion.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain - not present. With no recorded assignments, there is no chain of correspondents to analyze.
4. Cascading transfers - not present. No assignments are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer - not present. No assignments are recorded.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale - not present. No bankruptcy-related assignments are recorded.
7. Privateering - unclear. While the original assignee appears to be focused on patent monetization, there is no public information readily available to confirm if they are asserting patents on behalf of an operating company against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) - not present. The patent is currently owned by Realtime Data LLC, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. Although no assignments are recorded at the USPTO, the publicly available information indicates that the original assignee, Realtime Data LLC, is primarily engaged in patent licensing and enforcement activities, with a significant history of litigation. This behavior is consistent with that of a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE).

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The patent US8643513B2, titled "Data compression systems and methods," claims a priority date of December 11, 1998, based on U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/210,491. To be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference must have been published or effectively filed before this priority date.

The "CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of US8643513B2 lists several continuation patents in the same family, all of which have later filing dates and thus are not prior art to the stated priority date of US8643513B2. The "BACKGROUND" section explicitly mentions U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu as prior art.

A comprehensive review of the "Prior art citations" section on the Google Patents page for US8643513B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8643513](/patent/US8643513)/en) reveals numerous patents. After filtering these citations to include only those with a publication date prior to December 11, 1998, the following patents are identified as potentially relevant prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8643513B2

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087, "High speed lossless data compression system," to Chu; Chia-chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: November 14, 1995.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a high-speed lossless data compression and decompression system that identifies the data type of an input data stream and selects an optimal data compression method from a preselected set of methods based on the identified data type to achieve the best available compression ratio. The system includes a data pre-compressor to identify the data type and a data compressor that selects the method.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5467087A potentially anticipates aspects of claims 1(a)-(b) and 11(a)-(b) of US8643513B2, which generally relate to analyzing a data block to identify a data type and performing content-dependent compression if the data type is identified. The background section of US8643513B2 specifically critiques Chu's method for its content-dependent approach, acknowledging that it "identifies the data type of the input stream, and generates a data type identification signal. The data compressor 3 selects a data compression method from a preselected set of methods to compress the input data stream, with the intention of producing the best available compression ratio for that particular data type." This directly addresses the concept of identifying a data type and applying a specific compression method. Chu also describes determining the best compression ratio from a set of methods.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,112

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,083,112, "Data compression/decompression systems and methods," to Fallon; James J.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: January 21, 1992.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a data compression system and method where an input data stream is simultaneously encoded by a plurality of lossless data encoders. The compression ratio for each encoder is determined, and the encoded data block with the best compression ratio is selected for output. If no encoder achieves a compression ratio above a predefined threshold, the original unencoded data is output along with a null compression descriptor.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5083112A is highly relevant to the "content independent data compression" aspects of US8643513B2, particularly claims 2 and 12. These claims detail the process of encoding a data block with multiple encoders, determining compression ratios, comparing them to a threshold, and selecting the best encoded block or the original block with a null descriptor. US5083112A explicitly teaches "encoding an input data stream with a plurality of encoders to provide a plurality of encoded data streams," "determining a compression ratio obtained for each of said encoders," and "selecting one of said encoded data streams and coupling said selected encoded data stream to an output based upon a comparison of the compression ratios," including the option to output the unencoded data if a threshold is not met.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 5,847,668

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,847,668, "Intelligent data compression and decompression system," to Chu; Chia-Chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: December 8, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an adaptive data compression system that includes a data classifier to identify data types and content, and based on this identification, dynamically selects one or more appropriate compression algorithms from a library. The system can also determine the optimal compression algorithm for a given data type and application.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5847668A further strengthens the anticipation of claims 1(a)-(b), 4, 5, 11(a)-(b), 14, and 15 of US8643513B2. It describes an "intelligent data compression system" that classifies data to identify data type and content, and based on this, selects a compression algorithm. This aligns with the "analyzing a data block... to identify a data type" and "performing content dependent data compression" aspects, as well as the recognition of data type/structure/format and maintaining associations between encoder types and data types.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 5,636,292

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,636,292, "Data compression apparatus and method for a multi-media system using data type recognition," to Chu; Chia-chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: June 3, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent details a data compression system specifically for multimedia data that employs data type recognition. It uses a pre-compressor to identify the data type of the input stream (e.g., text, image, audio, video) and then selects a corresponding compression method from a set of available methods to optimize compression for that data type.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5636292A provides additional prior art for claims 1(a)-(b), 4, 5, 11(a)-(b), 14, and 15 of US8643513B2, specifically emphasizing data type recognition in a multimedia context. Its focus on identifying data types (like text, image, audio, video) and selecting appropriate algorithms reinforces the core content-dependent compression strategy claimed in US8643513B2.

5. U.S. Pat. No. 5,726,651

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,726,651, "Data compression with dynamic selection of compression algorithm," to Chu; Chia-Chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: March 10, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for data compression where multiple compression algorithms are simultaneously applied to an input data stream. A monitoring unit determines the actual compression ratio achieved by each algorithm and selects the most efficient algorithm dynamically. It also allows for bypassing compression if no algorithm achieves a desired level of compression.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5726651A is relevant to claims 2 and 12, particularly the aspects of using a plurality of encoders, determining compression ratios, and selecting the best encoded block. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish between content-dependent and content-independent in the same way as US8643513B2, its teaching of parallel encoding with selection based on compression ratio directly anticipates these elements of content-independent compression.

6. U.S. Pat. No. 5,844,503

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,844,503, "Integrated multi-media data compression," to Chu; Chia-Chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: December 1, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent introduces an integrated data compression and decompression system for multimedia data that automatically recognizes different data types within a data stream. Based on this recognition, it dynamically applies the most appropriate lossless compression algorithms from a set of algorithms.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5844503A, published shortly before US8643513B2's priority date, further contributes to anticipating claims 1(a)-(b), 4, 5, 11(a)-(b), 14, and 15 by focusing on automatic data type recognition for multimedia data and applying suitable lossless compression algorithms.

7. U.S. Pat. No. 5,771,017

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,771,017, "Self-optimizing data compression method and apparatus," to Chu; Chia-Chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: June 23, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a self-optimizing data compression system that applies multiple data compression methods to an input data stream and evaluates the compression ratio achieved by each method. The system then dynamically selects and uses the compression method that yields the highest compression ratio. It can also adapt to changing data characteristics.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5771017A is relevant to claims 2 and 12 of US8643513B2, specifically the process of encoding with multiple encoders, determining and comparing compression ratios, and selecting the best one. The "self-optimizing" aspect relates to dynamically choosing the best compressor, which is a core feature of the content-independent approach.

8. U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,131

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,754,131, "Method and apparatus for dynamic data compression," to Macleod; Brian.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: May 19, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a dynamic data compression system that processes a stream of data blocks. For each block, it can select from multiple compression algorithms or no compression, based on which option produces the smallest output size. It sends a header indicating the chosen compression method.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5754131A is relevant to claims 2 and 12, especially concerning the comparison of compression ratios from multiple methods and selecting the best one, or choosing no compression if it's optimal. The use of a header to indicate the compression method is analogous to US8643513B2's "compression type descriptor."

9. U.S. Pat. No. 5,500,643

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,500,643, "Dynamic encoder," to Chu; Chia-chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: March 19, 1996.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a dynamic encoder that applies a plurality of encoding algorithms to an input data stream and selects the algorithm that provides the highest compression ratio. It also includes means for bypassing encoding if the algorithms do not provide a desired compression ratio.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5500643A reinforces the anticipation of claims 2 and 12, providing a clear teaching of applying multiple encoding algorithms, comparing their results, and selecting the best compression ratio, or bypassing compression if a threshold is not met.

10. U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,781

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,781, "Data compression system," to Chu; Chia-chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: August 6, 1996.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression system that employs an encoder selecting unit to choose from various compression algorithms. The selection can be based on evaluating the compression performance for a given input data stream.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5543781A, like other Chu patents, contributes to anticipating claims 2 and 12 by teaching the selection of a compression algorithm based on its performance for an input data stream.

11. U.S. Pat. No. 5,570,087

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,570,087, "Data compression methods and apparatus," to Sasaki; Shinya et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 29, 1996.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression apparatus that selects a compression method from a plurality of available methods based on the characteristics of the input data. The characteristics are analyzed, and a suitable method (e.g., run-length encoding, Huffman encoding, dictionary encoding) is chosen.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5570087A is relevant to claims 1(a) and 4, which involve analyzing data block characteristics and recognizing data types to select a compression method. Its discussion of selecting methods based on data characteristics points towards a content-dependent or content-aware approach.

12. U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,577

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,577, "Data compression system," to Sasaki; Shinya et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: December 30, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression system that identifies a data type from an input data stream and compresses it using an encoding method suitable for that data type. It also mentions a decompression system that identifies the compression method used and decompresses the data accordingly.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5703577A further anticipates claims 1(a)-(b) and 4, which describe identifying a data type and performing content-dependent compression. It also touches upon the use of descriptors for decompression.

13. U.S. Pat. No. 5,619,200

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,619,200, "Digital audio compression apparatus and methods," to Cravotta; George et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: April 8, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a digital audio compression system that employs multiple compression algorithms. It includes a pre-processor for analyzing the input audio data and dynamically selecting the most appropriate compression algorithm or combination of algorithms for optimal compression.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5619200A anticipates claims 1(a)-(b) and 4 by demonstrating data analysis for type/characteristics (specifically audio) and selection of an appropriate compression method. While focused on audio, the underlying principle of recognizing data characteristics to select an algorithm is similar.

14. U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,336

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,336, "Universal data compressor," to Chu; Chia-chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 7, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a universal data compressor that processes an input data stream, identifies the data type, and then applies a selected one of a plurality of compression algorithms for that data type. It also discusses a feedback mechanism to optimize algorithm selection.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5675336A reinforces anticipation of claims 1(a)-(b), 4, and 5 by explicitly covering data type identification and selection of algorithms based on that type, aiming for optimal compression.

15. U.S. Pat. No. 5,736,932

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,736,932, "Apparatus and method for encoding data," to Iwamura; Shigeo et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: April 7, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a data encoding apparatus and method that dynamically selects an optimal encoding method from a plurality of available methods based on the content of the data. It aims to achieve high compression efficiency.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5736932A is relevant to claims 1(a)-(b) and 4, focusing on dynamically selecting an encoding method based on data content, which aligns with content-dependent compression.

16. U.S. Pat. No. 5,818,366

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,818,366, "Data compression and decompression system for a telecommunications system," to Chu; Chia-Chi.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 6, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression and decompression system for telecommunications, which includes identifying data content (e.g., voice, video, data) and applying appropriate compression algorithms from a set of algorithms to achieve efficient transmission.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US5818366A further supports anticipation of claims 1(a)-(b) and 4 by describing data content identification and application of suitable compression algorithms within a specific application context (telecommunications).

These prior art documents, particularly those by Chu and Fallon, demonstrate that systems and methods for: (1) analyzing data to identify its type and applying content-dependent compression, and (2) applying multiple compression algorithms, calculating ratios, and selecting the best one (or no compression) were known prior to the priority date of US8643513B2. The novelty of US8643513B2 largely resides in the combination of these content-dependent and content-independent approaches, particularly the conditional application of content-independent compression when content-dependent recognition fails or is insufficient. The prior art establishes many of the building blocks for such a combined system.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,643,513 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates the obviousness of U.S. Patent 8,643,513 (hereinafter '513 patent) by considering combinations of prior art references that would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to arrive at the claimed invention. The analysis is based on the information provided within the '513 patent itself, particularly its "Background" section describing related art.

1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

The '513 patent explicitly identifies and discusses U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu ("Chu") as relevant prior art [cite: US8643513, Description - BACKGROUND]. Chu discloses a data compression system and method comprising a data pre-compression phase and a data compression phase. In Chu's method, a data pre-compressor accepts an uncompressed data stream, identifies the data type of the input stream, and generates a data type identification signal. Subsequently, a data compressor selects a data compression method from a preselected set of methods to compress the input data stream, aiming to produce the best available compression ratio for that particular data type [cite: US8643513, Description - BACKGROUND]. This represents a content-dependent data compression approach.

The '513 patent also acknowledges that "lossless encoding techniques currently well known within the art" include methods such as "run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression" [cite: US8643513, Description - encoder set E1, E2, E3...En]. Furthermore, the '513 patent's background describes general problems in data compression, such as "significant variations in the compression ratio obtained when using a single lossless data compression technique for data streams having different data content and data size," known as natural variation [cite: US8643513, Description - BACKGROUND]. The concept of comparing compression ratios and using thresholds to avoid data expansion is also inherent to the general field of data compression.

2. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue

The '513 patent's invention, as described in its "Summary of the Invention," aims to provide data compression using a combination of content-independent and content-dependent data compression. Key aspects include:

• Analyzing a data block to identify its data type.
• Performing content-dependent data compression on the data block if the data type is identified. This content-dependent compression often involves selecting one or more encoders associated with the identified data type, encoding with these, determining compression ratios, comparing them with a second compression threshold, and selecting the best encoded block or the original block with a null descriptor if no threshold is met [cite: US8643513, Summary of the Invention].
• Performing content-independent data compression on the data block if the data type is not identified. This content-independent compression typically involves encoding with a plurality of encoders, determining compression ratios, comparing them with a first compression threshold, and selecting the best encoded block or the original block with a null descriptor [cite: US8643513, Summary of the Invention].
• A further aspect involves performing content-independent compression if the data type is not identified or if the content-dependent compression does not meet a first compression threshold [cite: US8643513, Summary of the Invention].

The primary difference from Chu is the explicit provision for content-independent data compression when the data type cannot be identified. Additionally, both the content-dependent and content-independent paths in the '513 patent detail a process of using multiple encoders, comparing their compression ratios against thresholds, and selecting the optimal result (or returning uncompressed data). Chu's description, while aiming for the "best available compression ratio for that particular data type," does not explicitly detail running multiple encoders and selecting the best result, or providing a fallback for unidentified data types.

3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the context of data compression systems and methods would possess a solid understanding of various lossless and lossy compression algorithms (e.g., Huffman, Lempel-Ziv), their characteristics, and common strategies for optimizing compression, such as comparing the effectiveness of different algorithms for a given data set. Such a person would also be familiar with the practical challenges of data type recognition and achieving optimal compression ratios.

4. Motivation to Combine

The '513 patent itself provides strong motivation for a PHOSITA to combine Chu's content-dependent approach with content-independent compression techniques and the detailed multi-encoder comparison methods.

The '513 patent highlights several limitations of prior art like Chu:

1. Difficulty in unambiguously identifying various data types: The patent states, "data types may be interspersed or partially compressed, making data type recognition difficult and/or impractical" [cite: US8643513, Description - BACKGROUND]. This directly points to scenarios where Chu's initial data type identification (by the data pre-compressor) would fail, leaving the system without a method to compress the data.
2. Difficulty in predicting optimal encoding: Even when a data type is known, the patent notes, "it may be difficult and/or impractical to predict which data encoding technique yields the highest compression ratio" [cite: US8643513, Description - BACKGROUND]. This suggests that Chu's approach of merely "selecting a data compression method from a preselected set... for that particular data type" might not consistently yield the best result.

Motivation for Content-Independent Compression (when data type is not identified):
Faced with the problem that Chu's system might fail to identify a data type, a PHOSITA would be motivated to provide a robust fallback mechanism. If specific content knowledge is unavailable, a logical engineering approach would be to employ a content-independent strategy: attempt compression with several general-purpose, known compression algorithms and select the one that yields the best result (or avoid compression if no significant benefit is achieved). This addresses the practical limitation of imperfect data type recognition and ensures that compression is still attempted, maximizing efficiency even with unknown data. The techniques for running multiple encoders, comparing ratios, and applying thresholds are well-known optimization steps in the field.

Motivation for Multiple Encoders in Content-Dependent Compression (when data type is identified):
To address the difficulty in predicting the optimal compression technique even for a known data type, a PHOSITA would be motivated to enhance Chu's selection process. Instead of relying on a potentially inaccurate prediction to choose a single method, it would be obvious to try multiple encoders known to be suitable for the identified data type (from Chu's "preselected set of methods") and then empirically select the one that achieves the highest compression ratio for the specific data block. This directly improves upon Chu's goal of "producing the best available compression ratio" by making the selection empirical rather than predictive.

Therefore, the combination of Chu's content-dependent framework with the generally known practice of:

• Employing a plurality of compression algorithms.
• Measuring and comparing their performance (compression ratios).
• Selecting the best performing algorithm.
• Using thresholds to prevent data expansion or output uncompressed data.
• Applying such a multi-algorithm selection either as a fallback when content recognition fails or as an optimization for content-dependent compression,

would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to overcome the identified limitations of prior art systems like Chu. The '513 patent itself lays out the problems and the components for the solution as generally known or obvious improvements.