US 8717203

US patent 8717203, titled "Data compression systems and methods," was invented by James J. Fallon and is currently assigned to Realtime Data LLC. The application for this patent (US14/035,561) was filed on September 24, 2013, and the patent was issued on May 6, 2014.

Abstract:
The patent describes systems and methods for fast and efficient data compression by combining content-independent and content-dependent data compression techniques. Specifically, it involves analyzing an input data stream's data blocks to identify their data type. If a data type is identified, content-dependent compression is performed. If the data type is not identified, content-independent compression is performed.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method for compressing data): This claim describes a method where a data block from an input stream is first analyzed to identify its data type. If the data type is identified, content-dependent data compression is applied to the block. If the data type cannot be identified, content-independent data compression is applied instead.

• Claim 7 (Method for compressing data with thresholds): Similar to Claim 1, this method analyzes a data block to identify its data type. If identified, content-dependent compression is performed, and the resulting compression ratio is compared against a first threshold. If the data type is not identified, or if the content-dependent compression ratio does not meet the first threshold, then content-independent data compression is performed on the data block.

• Claim 14 (Data compression system): This claim outlines a system including an input counter module to measure the size of a data block. It also features a content-dependent data recognition module that identifies the data type of the block. Based on this identification, either a content-dependent encoder module (if the type is identified) or a content-independent encoder module (if the type is not identified) is used to compress the data.

• Claim 20 (Data compression system with thresholds): This system claim combines elements of Claim 14 and the threshold logic of Claim 7. It includes an input counter, a content-dependent data recognition module, and a content-dependent encoder module. Additionally, it has a compression ratio module that calculates the compression ratio from the content-dependent encoder and compares it to a first threshold. A content-independent encoder module is used if the data type is not identified or if the content-dependent compression ratio fails to meet the specified threshold.

Legal Status and Litigation:
The patent US8717203B2 is currently listed as "Expired - Lifetime".

The patent family has been involved in significant litigation across various US District Courts, including the District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas, Central District of California, Northern District of California, and District of Colorado. Appeals related to the patent have also been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with case numbers such as 19-2204, 21-2291, 19-2198, and 21-2251. A case (23-498) was also filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. However, no specific CAFC dockets for the year 2026 are explicitly identified in the provided information.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US patent 8717203:

1. Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (and others)

• Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
• Defendant(s): Reduxio Systems, Inc., Fortinet, Panzura, Aryaka, and others
• Jurisdiction: District of Delaware, and later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
• Filing Date: The initial actions against Fortinet and Reduxio were filed in November 2017; against Panzura in August 2018; and against Aryaka in December 2018.
• Outcome/Current Status: The District Court initially declared claims of US patent 8717203 (among others) ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated and remanded the case for a more detailed § 101 analysis. On remand, the District Court again found the claims, including those of US patent 8717203, invalid as directed to an abstract idea. Realtime Data LLC appealed this decision again. In August 2023, the CAFC majority affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that the claims were abstract because they "take the availability of compression techniques as a given and address the threshold matter of choosing to use one or more such available techniques.” Realtime Data LLC then filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 8, 2024.

2. RealTime Data LLC v. Acronis

• Plaintiff(s): RealTime Data, LLC
• Defendant(s): Acronis
• Jurisdiction: District of Massachusetts
• Filing Date: July 12, 2017
• Outcome/Current Status: This case involved US patent 8717204B2, not explicitly 8717203. However, given the close numbering and the fact that RealTime Data LLC asserts overlapping patent families related to data compression, it is worth noting. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice on January 24, 2024, with each side bearing its own costs.

3. Realtime Data, LLC v. Carbonite, Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data, LLC
• Defendant(s): Carbonite, Inc. and EVault, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, then transferred to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 17-cv-12499).
• Filing Date: 2017
• Outcome/Current Status: Realtime Data, LLC sued Carbonite, Inc. and EVault, Inc., accusing them of infringing four patents related to data compression. While US patent 8717203 is not explicitly listed in the provided text for this specific case, it is stated that the litigation involved "four patents related to data compression" and that "the patents had been deemed invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the District of Delaware." Given the other litigation, it is highly probable that US patent 8717203 was among those asserted. In October 2022, the court granted Carbonite's motion for entry of judgment, dismissing claims related to one patent as moot (deemed unpatentable by the PTAB) and granting judgment on the remaining three patents based on collateral estoppel due to the Delaware decision deeming them invalid under § 101. Realtime filed a notice of appeal in this case as well.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8717203 as of the most recent USPTO Open Data Portal ingest. A web search for PTAB activity on this patent also did not reveal any proceedings. This indicates the patent has not been challenged via an AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 8717203 has not been subjected to any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). All claims of the patent remain untested by these AIA trial mechanisms.

This absence of PTAB challenges means there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner or their privies regarding prior art grounds that could have been raised. Consequently, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent would have a full range of prior art arguments available for potential IPRs or other validity challenges, assuming the statutory requirements for filing a petition are met (e.g., timeliness).

The lack of PTAB activity is notable, as patents asserted in litigation often become targets for IPRs. This could imply that the patent has not been extensively litigated, or that prior art available to potential petitioners was not deemed strong enough to warrant a PTAB challenge, or simply that no one has yet chosen to file.

Recommended next steps

• Since no PTAB activity exists, a potential defendant has a clear path to file an IPR (assuming statutory timing requirements are met) without facing an established estoppel defense from prior PTAB proceedings.
• Conduct thorough prior art searching to identify strong invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, particularly focusing on the claims being asserted.
• Consider the litigation history of the patent to understand if similar validity arguments have been raised in district court and how they were received.
• If considering filing an IPR, carefully select the claims to challenge and the specific prior art combinations, bearing in mind that a successful institution and final written decision would create estoppel against the petitioner.

Inventors

• James J. Fallon (Realtime Data LLC)

Original assignee

Realtime Data LLC. The patent abstract and description clearly indicate that Realtime Data LLC developed "systems and methods for providing fast and efficient data compression". While the patent describes "systems and methods," there is no explicit mention within the patent text itself of specific products shipped by Realtime Data LLC that embody these claims. Realtime Data LLC's primary line of business appears to be data compression technology. According to Google Patents, Realtime Data LLC is the current assignee. Its current status as an operating company or a licensing entity would require further external investigation beyond the patent document itself. However, based on the numerous litigation cases associated with this patent family (as seen on Google Patents), it strongly suggests an active role, likely in patent assertion.

Assignment timeline

• 2013-09-24 (executed) / recorded 2013-09-24 — Reel 030612/0833
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FALLON, JAMES J.
  • Assignee: REALTIME DATA, LLC
  • Correspondent: R. BARRY MYERS, ESQ., Law Office of R. Barry Myers, P.C., 1775 I Street NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20006. This correspondent appears multiple times in this chain.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8717203
    2013 : Assigned to Realtime Data LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignment is from the inventor to Realtime Data LLC, which appears to be the original developing entity. There's no clear evidence from the assignment record itself of a subsequent transfer to a shell entity with a name suffix like "IP" or "Holdings."
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While Realtime Data LLC has been involved in extensive litigation (as indicated by Google Patents), it is not explicitly listed among the common NPEs provided in the prompt's examples like Acacia Research Corp or Marathon Patent Group. Its status as a "known asserter" would require cross-referencing with more comprehensive NPE databases.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. R. BARRY MYERS, ESQ., Law Office of R. Barry Myers, P.C. appears as the correspondent for the 2013-09-24 assignment (Reel 030612/0833). Further analysis across other patents tracked by this site would be needed to confirm recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, from the inventor to Realtime Data LLC.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The priority date is 1998-12-11, and the filing date of this specific patent is 2013-09-24. The first assignment is recorded on 2013-09-24. Without a definitive list of the first infringement suit filing dates for this patent, it's unclear if this assignment precedes litigation by less than 6 months. However, the legal events section of Google Patents shows many litigation cases starting in 2017, which is several years after the recorded assignment.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of Realtime Data LLC undergoing bankruptcy proceedings is present in the assignment records or on Google Patents.
7. Privateering — unclear. No SEC filings or external reports are immediately available to indicate privateering activity.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end with any known defensive aggregators like RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. This verdict is based on the significant litigation activity associated with this patent family as indicated by Google Patents, strongly suggesting a primary focus on assertion rather than product sales. The presence of a repeat correspondent (R. Barry Myers) in the single recorded assignment, who often represents entities involved in patent monetization, further supports this.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number 8717203).

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US patent 8717203, based on the provided patent text and the Google Patents page for US8717203B2.

US Patent 8717203 Information

• Title: Data compression systems and methods
• Publication Number: US8717203B2
• Filing Date: 2013-09-24
• Publication Date: 2014-05-06
• Priority Date: 1998-12-11

The analysis focuses on patent citations explicitly referenced by US8717203 and those identified as prior art with a publication/filing date preceding the priority date of US8717203 (December 11, 1998).

Identified Prior Art

Based on the "BACKGROUND" section and "Patent citations" from the Google Patents page for US8717203B2, the most relevant prior art that predates the priority date of US8717203 is U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu.

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 (Chu)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087 to Chu, entitled “High Speed Lossless Data Compression System” (US5467087A)

• Publication/Filing Date: Published 1995-11-14 (filing date 1994-03-24)

• Brief Description: This patent describes a data compression and decompression technique that involves a data pre-compression phase and a data compression phase. During compression, a data pre-compressor identifies the data type of an input stream and generates a data type identification signal. A data compressor then 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.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

  • Claim 1b: The step of "analyzing the data block to identify a data type of the data block" is potentially anticipated. Chu's system includes a "data pre-compressor" that "identifies the data type of the input stream".
  • Claim 1ci: The step of "selecting one or more content dependent encoders associated with the identified data type" is potentially anticipated. Chu's "data compressor" "selects a data compression method from a preselected set of methods to compress the input data stream" based on the identified data type.
  • Claim 1cii: The general step of "compressing the data block with the selected content dependent encoders" is potentially anticipated as it describes the fundamental action of Chu's data compressor.
  • Claim 1ciii: The step of "determining a compression ratio obtained for each of the content dependent encoded data blocks" is implied by Chu's objective of "producing the best available compression ratio".
  • Claim 1cv (in part): The concept of "selecting for output the content dependent encoded data block having the highest compression ratio" is implied by Chu's goal of achieving the "best available compression ratio".
  • Claim 4 (in part): The step of "analyzing the data block to recognize one of a data type" is potentially anticipated, aligning with Chu's data type identification.
  • Claim 5 (in part): The concept of "maintaining an association between content dependent encoder types and data types" is implied by Chu's selection of methods from a "preselected set" based on data type.
  • Claim 9 (in part): Similar to Claim 4, the analysis to recognize data type is potentially anticipated.
  • Claim 10 (in part): Similar to Claim 5, maintaining associations is potentially anticipated.
  • Claim 14b: The "content dependent data recognition module configured to analyze the data block to identify a data type" is potentially anticipated by Chu's data pre-compressor.
  • Claim 14c: The "content dependent encoder module ... configured to compress the data block with one or more selected content dependent encoders" is potentially anticipated by Chu's data compressor.
  • Claim 19 (in part): The functionality of the content dependent data recognition module to recognize a data type is potentially anticipated.
  • Claim 20 (in part): The functionality of the content dependent data recognition module to maintain associations is potentially anticipated.

  Claims or aspects not anticipated by Chu's description (as characterized by US8717203):
  Chu's patent, as described in US8717203, primarily focuses on content-dependent compression when the data type is successfully identified. It does not describe:

  • Claim 1d: Performing content independent data compression "if the data type of the data block is not identified." This is a key distinguishing feature of US8717203.
  • Claim 1civ and 1diii: Explicitly comparing compression ratios with a "compression threshold." While aiming for the "best," Chu doesn't specify a threshold.
  • Claim 2 & 3: Outputting the input data block with a null compression descriptor if thresholds are not met, particularly for content-independent paths.
  • Claims 6 & 7: The fallback mechanism of performing content independent data compression if content-dependent compression does not meet a threshold.
  • Claims 11, 12, 13: Estimating a "desirability" of using encoder types based on data block characteristics, both for content-dependent and content-independent scenarios.
  • Claim 14d: The "content independent encoder module" and its operation when data type is not identified.
  • Claim 14e (in part): The comparison of compression ratios with a content independent compression threshold.

Related Patent (Not Prior Art for Anticipation)

While listed as a priority claim and not prior art for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to sharing the same priority date, U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 is the earliest direct parent in the patent family and provides foundational context.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 (Fallon)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024 to Fallon, entitled “Data Compression Systems and Methods” (US6195024B1)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed 1998-12-11; Published 2001-02-27
• Brief Description: This patent is the direct ancestor from which US8717203 claims priority. It covers systems and methods for data compression and decompression.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: None. US8717203 claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/210,491, filed Dec. 11, 1998, which matured into U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,024. Therefore, US6195024B1 shares the same priority date as US8717203 and does not serve as anticipatory prior art against US8717203.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

The present invention, US patent 8717203, relates to data compression systems and methods utilizing a combination of content-independent and content-dependent data compression. The core inventive concepts, as described in the "Summary of the Invention," include:

1. A method for compressing data by analyzing a data block to identify its data type; performing content-dependent compression if the data type is identified; and performing content-independent compression if the data type is not identified.
2. Specifics of content-independent compression, involving encoding with multiple encoders, determining compression ratios, comparing them to a threshold, and selecting the best-compressed block or the original block if no threshold is met.
3. Specifics of content-dependent compression, involving selecting one or more encoders associated with the identified data type, encoding, determining compression ratios, comparing them to a threshold, and selecting the best-compressed block or the original block if no threshold is met.
4. A method that performs content-independent compression if the data type is not identified or if the content-dependent compression does not meet a specified threshold.

Prior Art References:

The primary prior art reference explicitly discussed and contrasted within US8717203 itself is:

• Chu (U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087), entitled “High Speed Lossless Data Compression System.” Chu discloses a data compression system where a data pre-compressor identifies the data type of an input stream and generates a data type identification signal. A data compressor then 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 system is described as a "content dependent high-speed lossless data compression and decompression system/method according to the prior art".

Limitations of Chu (as described in US8717203):

US8717203 explicitly identifies several limitations of the Chu method that it aims to overcome:

• The "need to unambiguously identify various data types," noting that data types may be "interspersed or partially compressed, making data type recognition difficult and/or impractical".
• The difficulty or impracticality, even "given a known data type, or mix of data types... to predict which data encoding technique yields the highest compression ratio".
• General problems with lossless compression, such as "content sensitive behavior," "significant variations in the compression ratio obtained when using a single lossless data compression technique," and "negative compression" where highly compressed data may expand.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in data compression at the time of the invention (priority date 1998-12-11) would be familiar with:

• Various lossless and lossy compression algorithms (e.g., run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, data null suppression, MPEG4, voice codecs, MPEG3, AC3, AAC).
• Concepts such as compression ratio, data expansion, and the impact of data content on compression effectiveness (data dependency).
• Basic system design principles for selecting and applying algorithms, including empirical comparison and the use of thresholds.
• The engineering practice of implementing fallback mechanisms when a primary method fails or produces undesirable results.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

The core inventive contribution of US8717203 lies in its robust handling of situations where a purely content-dependent approach (like Chu's) is insufficient. The proposed combinations of prior art would render the claims obvious for the following reasons:

Combination 1: Chu (U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,087) + General knowledge of multi-algorithm, content-independent compression with empirical selection.

• Chu's Disclosure: Chu teaches analyzing data to identify its type and then selecting a compression method for that type to achieve the "best available compression ratio". This forms the basis for the content-dependent part of US8717203's claims.
• Motivation for Combination: US8717203 itself highlights that Chu's method struggles when data type recognition is "difficult and/or impractical". A PHOSITA, aiming to create a more robust and reliable compression system, would be highly motivated to implement a fallback mechanism for such scenarios. When a data type cannot be identified, the most straightforward approach to attempt compression is to use a "content-independent" strategy. This involves applying a plurality of known encoders (e.g., run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv, which are described in US8717203 as "well known within the art") to the data block, empirically determining the compression ratio for each, and then selecting the one that yields the best compression (or outputting the original data if none meet a minimal threshold). This multi-encoder, best-result-wins approach is a common, non-inventive engineering solution for achieving optimal compression when data characteristics are unknown or unpredictable.
• Reasonable Expectation of Success: Combining Chu's content-dependent approach with this general knowledge to address the stated limitation (unidentified data types) would have a high expectation of success, as it involves integrating well-known techniques.

Combination 2: Chu (U.S. Pat. 5,467,087) + General knowledge of fallback mechanisms based on performance thresholds.

• Chu's Disclosure: Chu aims for the "best available compression ratio" for a given data type.
• Motivation for Combination: Even if Chu's system correctly identifies a data type and selects an associated compression method, there is "significant variation in the compression ratio" and the risk of "negative compression" (data expansion). A PHOSITA would be motivated to ensure that the compression process is always beneficial. Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate a performance check: after applying the content-dependent compression, determine its actual compression ratio and compare it against a predefined threshold. If the compression ratio is unsatisfactory (e.g., below a minimum threshold, indicating expansion or negligible gain), a PHOSITA would logically implement a fallback. The most obvious fallback would be to either output the original, uncompressed data (appending a "null compression descriptor") or to proceed with a content-independent multi-encoder approach (as described in Combination 1), which is designed to find the best empirical compression regardless of data type. This combination directly addresses the reliability and effectiveness shortcomings of a purely predictive content-dependent system.
• Reasonable Expectation of Success: The use of performance thresholds and conditional logic to manage data processing based on those thresholds is a fundamental concept in software and hardware engineering, making this a straightforward integration with high expectation of success.

Conclusion:

The methods and systems claimed in US8717203, particularly those related to the conditional application of content-independent compression when content identification fails or content-dependent compression performs poorly, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. The patent itself identifies the precise limitations of Chu's prior art that its invention purports to solve. The solutions—employing known multi-algorithm compression strategies, empirical performance evaluation, and threshold-based decision making—were conventional engineering approaches readily available to a PHOSITA to address such known problems, particularly when aiming to achieve robust and optimal compression across diverse data streams.