Invalidity dossier
US 8825830
Content delivery framework with dynamic service network topology
Current assignee: Sandpiper Cdn LLC
Added 8/25/2026, 6:50:57 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US8825830B2
Title: Content delivery framework with dynamic service network topology
Patent number: US8825830B2
Application number: US13/837,216
Publication (grant): 2014-09-02 (application published as US20140173079A1 on 2014-06-19)
Filing date: 2013-03-15
Prior art date / priority date: 2012-12-13
Anticipated expiration (as listed): 2032-12-14
Inventor(s): Christopher Newton; Lewis Robert Varney; Laurence R. Lipstone; William Crowder; Andrew Swart
Original assignee: Level 3 Communications LLC
Current assignee (as listed): Sandpiper CDN LLC
Purpose and plain-language scope. The patent describes a "content delivery framework" in which the service network topology is dynamic. Per the supplied text, its classification falls under network service management—ensuring service fulfillment according to agreements—specifically value-added network services relating to media content delivery (audio, video, or TV), and under H04L67/2852. The recurring prior-art keywords in the listing are "services," "network," "service," "control," and "collector," indicating the disclosed subject matter centers on services, a network, control functions, and a collector within a content delivery framework whose topology can change.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8825830](/patent/US8825830)/en
What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text is a bibliographic and classification listing with images and the descriptive/claims text omitted. It therefore does not establish the actual claims, the written description, the specific technical mechanisms by which topology is made "dynamic," or the precise problem being solved. It also does not establish the number of claims, claim scope, or the cited prior art references. Dates and legal status are expressly noted in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions. Related family filings (PCT, EP, CA, HK) are listed but not themselves described here. No findings on litigation, ownership validity, or prior art are drawn.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:04:11 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8825830. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.