US 8830293

US patent 8830293, titled "Video superposition for continuous presence," was issued to Cisco Technology Inc. on September 9, 2014, from an application filed on May 26, 2009. The inventors are J. William Mauchly and Richard Thayer Wales.

Abstract:
The patent describes techniques for combining video frames from two or more real-time video streams into a single combined video stream for continuous presence in applications like video conferencing. Each original video stream contains a subject image and a background image. The core idea involves positioning the subject image from a first video stream in an anterior (foreground) portion of the combined frame and the subject image from a second video stream in a posterior (background) portion. The combined video stream is then displayed, aiming to provide a more natural and life-like viewing experience of multiple participants without significantly reducing individual image sizes.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim outlines a method for achieving continuous presence in video conferencing. It involves receiving at least two real-time video streams, each with a subject and background image. The key steps for combining these streams include:

  1. Scaling the video frames of the first video stream and repositioning their pictures in a first direction to create a sequence of scaled frames.
  2. Removing the background image from these scaled first video frames to produce "first background separated video frames," which are intended for the anterior (foreground) portion of the combined output.
  3. Superimposing these first background separated video frames onto corresponding video frames of the second video stream to generate the combined video frames.
     Finally, this combined video stream is supplied to a video display.

• Claim 10 (Apparatus): This claim describes an apparatus designed to perform similar video superposition functions. The apparatus includes a first memory for storing data from at least two real-time video streams (each with subject and background images) and at least one data processor. The data processor is configured to combine subject images by:

  1. Scaling the video frames of the first video stream and repositioning their pictures in a first direction to produce a sequence of scaled video frames.
  2. Removing the background image from these scaled first video frames to create "first background separated video frames" for the anterior portion of the combined output.
  3. Superimposing these first background separated video frames onto corresponding video frames of the second video stream to generate the combined video frames.

• Claim 13 (Logic/Non-transitory Storage Media): This claim covers logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory storage media. When executed, this logic is operable to perform the method steps similar to Claim 1. Specifically, it enables a system to:

  1. Receive at least first and second real-time video streams, each with a subject and background image.
  2. Combine the subject images of corresponding video frames into a combined frame where the first video stream's subject is anterior and the second's is posterior. This combination involves:
     • Scaling the video frames of the first video stream and repositioning their pictures in a first direction.
     • Removing the background image from these scaled frames to produce first background separated video frames for the anterior portion.
     • Superimposing these first background separated video frames onto corresponding video frames of the second video stream.
  3. Supply the resulting combined video stream to a video display.

Litigation Information:
According to the provided patent text, the patent family has litigation associated with it. Specifically, a US case was filed in the Delaware District Court (Unified Patents Litigation Data). Additionally, a PTAB case IPR2025-01588 was filed (Not Instituted - Merits) (Unified Patents PTAB Data). I cannot definitively confirm current CAFC 2026 dockets directly for this patent number using the available search tools.

Here is the known litigation involving US patent 8830293:

1. District Court Litigation

• Plaintiff(s): Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:2025cv00271
• Filing Date: March 7, 2025
• Outcome/Current Status: This case is currently active. A stipulation to extend the time for Intelligent Protection Management Corp. to respond to the complaint was filed on March 25, 2025, with a new answer deadline of May 15, 2025.

2. PTAB Litigation (Inter Partes Review)

• Case Number: IPR2025-01588
• Petitioner: (Not specified in available snippets, but typically Unified Patents for IPRs it files).
• Patent Owner: Cisco Technology Inc (Current Assignee of US8830293B2).
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 8830293. This proceeding resulted in institution being denied, meaning all challenged claims remain intact. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as the patent has successfully withstood a PTAB challenge at the institution phase.

IPR2025-01588 — INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v. Cisco Technology Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-06
• Status: Institution Denied. The PTAB declined to institute a trial on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel:
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, 17-20 of US8830293B2. The grounds were based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including US 2008/0095470 A1 (Chao) and US 2008/0048975 A1 (Leibow), among others.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-02. The PTAB found that the petitioner, INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP., did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Specifically, the Board found that the petitioner failed to show that the cited prior art rendered the challenged claims obvious.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit regarding the denial of institution as of the current date.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01588 means that claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20 of US8830293 have been affirmed as not presenting a reasonable likelihood of invalidity based on the specific prior art and arguments presented in this IPR. While not a full validity determination, it strengthens the patent owner's position against future obviousness challenges using similar art.

Strategic summary

All twenty claims of US88302293 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the Final Written Decision stage, as the sole Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01588, was denied institution. This means that no claims have been canceled through PTAB proceedings, and the patent owner, Cisco Technology Inc, has successfully defended against the initial challenge to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, 17-20.

The estoppel landscape dictates that INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. (and its privies) are barred under § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court litigation or other USPTO proceedings any ground of invalidity that it raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-01588 against claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14, 17-20. For other potential defendants, the prior art cited in IPR2025-01588 (including Chao and Leibow) is still available for use in an IPR petition against the patent, provided they are not in privity with INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. The denial of institution suggests that any new petition would need to present a more compelling obviousness argument or different prior art to overcome the Board's initial finding.

There are no apparent pattern signals of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as institution was denied, and thus no Final Written Decision to appeal. Similarly, there is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly involved in this specific proceeding.

Recommended next steps

The institution of IPR2025-01588 was denied, meaning no claims were invalidated. The Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01588 can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
Given that there are no active proceedings pending and the only filed IPR was denied institution, the patent remains in a strong position. For any defendant facing assertion, a thorough prior art search would be necessary to identify new and stronger invalidity grounds that were not raised or considered in IPR2025-01588.

Inventors

• J. William Mauchly: At the time of filing, J. William Mauchly was likely employed by Cisco Technology Inc. as the patent was assigned to Cisco Technology Inc. on the filing date.
• Richard Thayer Wales: At the time of filing, Richard Thayer Wales was likely employed by Cisco Technology Inc. as the patent was assigned to Cisco Technology Inc. on the filing date.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Cisco Technology Inc..

Cisco Technology Inc., doing business as Cisco, is an American multinational technology conglomerate corporation that develops, manufactures, and sells hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services and products focused on networking, cybersecurity, and AI. Cisco specializes in specific tech markets such as the Internet of Things (IoT), domain security, videoconferencing, and energy management, with products like Webex, OpenDNS, Jabber, and Jasper. They offer a comprehensive portfolio of networking, cybersecurity, collaboration, IoT, and cloud infrastructure solutions, including hardware such as Catalyst and Nexus switches, routers, and enterprise-grade wireless access points, alongside software and analytical tools.

Cisco does ship products embodying the claims. The patent describes video superposition for continuous presence, useful in video conference systems. Cisco is a significant player in videoconferencing with products like Webex and TelePresence systems.

Cisco's current status is operating and active. As of December 2025, it had a market capitalization of $317 billion. Cisco has recently been focusing on artificial intelligence and has announced job cuts as part of this effort, while also showing strong revenue growth.

Assignment timeline

• 2009-03-22 to 2009-03-24 (executed) / recorded 2009-05-26 — Reel 022731/0565
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WALES, RICHARD THAYER and MAUCHLY, J. WILLIAM
  • Assignee: CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC., CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided patent text for this entry.
  • Context: Transfer of inventors' interest to employer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8830293
    2009 : Inventors assigned to Cisco Technology Inc
    2014 : Patent granted to Cisco Technology Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial and only recorded assignment is from the inventors to Cisco Technology Inc., a known operating company. There is no evidence of transfer to a licensing-only LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Cisco Technology Inc. is a large operating company, not a known NPE. The patent has been litigated against Cisco by known NPEs (e.g., Straight Path IP Group, Inc. and Rockstar Technologies LLC), but Cisco has been the defendant, not the asserter in these instances. Unified Patents shows an IPR filed against this patent in 2025, but the petitioner is not listed as the patent owner, suggesting it's an adversarial challenge, not an assertion by Unified Patents. RPX also focuses on mitigating NPE risk and does not assert patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment is recorded, from the inventors to Cisco Technology Inc. The correspondent information for this specific assignment is not detailed enough in the provided patent text to assess recurrence or association with known NPEs.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, from the inventors to Cisco Technology Inc.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors to Cisco Technology Inc. on the filing date (2009-05-26). The patent was granted in 2014. This assignment precedes any potential litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Cisco Technology Inc. is an active, operating company.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence of Cisco transferring this patent to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — unclear. While Unified Patents has filed an IPR against this patent (IPR2025-01588), it is not the assignee, but rather an entity that challenges patents often asserted by NPEs. RPX aims to reduce patent litigation risk for its clients by acquiring patents defensively, never asserting them. The current assignee is still Cisco Technology Inc.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only one assignment is recorded, from the inventors to the original operating company, Cisco Technology Inc., at the time of filing (reel 022731/0565, recorded 2009-05-26). There is no subsequent assignment information available to indicate any transfers to a shell entity or known asserter, nor any other signals of NPE activity. This simply reflects the common practice of inventors assigning their patent rights to their employer.

Verification can be performed at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Here is an analysis of the prior art cited in US patent 8830293, "Video superposition for continuous presence":

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8830293B2

Based on a review of the cited patents and the detailed description of US8830293B2, the most relevant prior art appears to be US20090033737A1, titled "Method and System for Video Conferencing in a Virtual Environment." This reference directly addresses video conferencing and the creation of virtual scenes, which closely aligns with the core inventive concept of superimposing video streams to achieve continuous presence in a life-like manner, particularly through background manipulation and combining subject images onto a shared display.

Analysis of Patent Citations for US8830293B2

Below is an overview of each patent cited by US8830293B2, including its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

1. US5572248A

• Full Citation: US5572248A, Teleport Corporation, "Teleconferencing method and system for providing face-to-face, non-animated teleconference environment"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 1996-11-05; Priority Date: 1994-09-19
• Brief Description: This patent describes a teleconferencing method and system aimed at providing a realistic "face-to-face" experience in a non-animated environment. It likely focuses on fundamental aspects of video conferencing, such as capturing and transmitting video and audio to simulate a meeting.
• Potential Anticipation: While generally related to video teleconferencing, this patent, due to its older date, is unlikely to explicitly disclose the specific "combining" steps of US8830293B2 Claim 1, such as scaling, repositioning, removing backgrounds, or superimposing subject images in anterior and posterior portions to create an illusion of depth with near life-size images. It would primarily anticipate general aspects of "receiving at least first and second real-time video streams" and "supplying the combined video stream to a video display" in a teleconferencing context.

2. WO2001037559A1

• Full Citation: WO2001037559A1, Telia Ab, "Procedure and arrangement at video conference system"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-05-25; Priority Date: 1999-11-19
• Brief Description: This international publication pertains to a general "procedure and arrangement" within a video conference system. The title suggests a focus on the operational aspects or system architecture of video conferencing.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to US5572248A, this reference is broadly related to video conferencing systems. However, its general title does not suggest the specific technical details of video superposition, background manipulation, and depth-of-field simulation described in US8830293B2. It might anticipate the broad concept of a video conference system, but not the detailed method of combining video frames as claimed in Claim 1, Claim 3, or Claim 5.

3. US20080048975A1

• Full Citation: US20080048975A1, Michael Leibow, "Apparatus and System for Managing Multiple Computers"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2008-02-28; Priority Date: 2005-04-12
• Brief Description: This patent application describes an apparatus and system primarily for managing multiple computers. The technical domain appears distinct from real-time video stream processing for teleconferencing.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is unlikely to anticipate any claims of US8830293B2, as its subject matter focuses on managing multiple computers rather than video processing or teleconferencing techniques. It would not disclose elements like receiving real-time video streams, combining subject images, or generating a continuous presence display.

4. US20080095470A1

• Full Citation: US20080095470A1, Hui Chao, "Digital Image Auto-Resizing"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2008-04-24; Priority Date: 2006-10-23
• Brief Description: This patent application focuses on the technical area of digital image auto-resizing. This involves methods and systems for automatically adjusting the size of digital images.
• Potential Anticipation: This reference is relevant to the "scaling the video frames" step present in US8830293B2 Claim 1 (sub-step of combining), Claim 3 (sub-step of combining), Claim 10 (apparatus), Claim 13 (logic), and Claim 15 (logic). While it may disclose methods for scaling images, it is highly improbable that it also discloses the entire combination of steps required for anticipation, such as repositioning, background removal, superimposing, and the anterior/posterior arrangement of multiple real-time subject images for continuous presence in a teleconference. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate a full claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 but is strong prior art for the specific sub-element of scaling.

5. US20090033737A1

• Full Citation: US20090033737A1, Stuart Goose, "Method and System for Video Conferencing in a Virtual Environment"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2009-02-05; Priority Date: 2007-08-02
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a method and system for video conferencing within a virtual environment. This typically involves separating participants from their actual backgrounds and integrating their images into a shared, generated virtual space, often to simulate a shared meeting room or scene.
• Potential Anticipation: This is the most relevant prior art.
  • Claim 1: This reference has a strong potential to anticipate many elements of Claim 1, including "receiving at least first and second real-time video streams" (common in video conferencing), "each ... comprising video frames containing a picture comprising a subject image and a background image," "combining the subject images... into a combined frame... such that the subject image of the first video stream is positioned in an anterior portion... and the subject image of the second video stream is positioned in a posterior portion" (a virtual environment could readily facilitate such spatial arrangement), "scaling the video frames of the first video stream and repositioning in a first direction" (common in virtual scene composition), and "removing the background image" (essential for placing subjects into a virtual environment). The specific superimposition onto "corresponding ones of the video frames of the second video stream" (i.e., using the second stream's background, possibly extended) might be a distinguishing detail, but the general principle of background removal and superimposition within a combined visual space is highly likely disclosed.
  • Claim 3: This claim introduces "extending the background image in the second sequence of scaled video frames." While virtual environments typically use a generated background, the concept of modifying a background for the posterior portion might be a distinguishing feature if US20090033737A1 primarily relies on entirely replacing backgrounds rather than extending existing ones.
  • Claim 5: This claim, which describes "removing the background image in the video frames of the first and second video streams," "generating supplemental background image video frames," and "superimposing corresponding ones of the first background separated video frames and the second background separated video frames onto corresponding ones of the supplemental background video frames," aligns very strongly with the concept of creating a "virtual environment" for video conferencing. Placing background-separated participants onto a "supplemental background image" is a hallmark of virtual environment systems. Therefore, US20090033737A1 potentially anticipates Claim 5 directly.

US patent 8830293, "Video superposition for continuous presence," faces potential obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly when considering the combination of prior art references that were available around its May 26, 2009, priority date. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of video teleconferencing would have been motivated to combine existing technologies to address the limitations of conventional continuous presence solutions, such as the "Hollywood Squares" layout, which reduces participant image size and lacks a natural sense of depth.

The core invention of US8830293 involves combining real-time video streams by separating subject images from their backgrounds, scaling, and superimposing them to create a combined frame where subjects appear in anterior (foreground) and posterior (background) positions, without substantially reducing their size, thus simulating a shared physical space (e.g., "stadium seating").

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 1

Independent Claim 1 describes a method comprising:

1. Receiving at least first and second real-time video streams, each with a subject image and a background image.
2. Combining subject images into a combined frame where the first video stream's subject is anterior and the second's is posterior.
3. This combining specifically includes:
   • Scaling video frames of the first video stream and repositioning pictures in a first direction.
   • Removing the background image from these scaled frames to produce first background separated video frames for the anterior portion.
   • Superimposing these first background separated frames onto corresponding video frames of the second video stream.
4. Supplying the combined video stream to a video display.

Combination of Prior Art References:
A compelling combination for rendering Claim 1 obvious would include:

• US20090033737A1 (Goose): "Method and System for Video Conferencing in a Virtual Environment."
• US20080095470A1 (Chao): "Digital Image Auto-Resizing."
• General knowledge of video segmentation techniques (e.g., chroma keying, pixel comparison).

Rationale for Obviousness:

1. Receiving real-time video streams with subject and background images: Goose teaches a "Method and System for Video Conferencing in a Virtual Environment." In a video conferencing system, it is inherent that real-time video streams from participants would be received, and these streams would contain images of participants (subject images) and their surroundings (background images). Goose's focus on a "virtual environment" for conferencing would immediately suggest processing these streams to place participants within a shared digital space.

2. Combining subject images for anterior/posterior positioning: Goose's objective to place participants in a "virtual environment" would motivate a PHOSITA to combine subject images to create a unified view. To enhance realism and overcome the flat, grid-like appearance of traditional "Hollywood Squares" continuous presence, a PHOSITA would readily consider arranging participants with a sense of depth, such as placing one participant's image in front of another (anterior/posterior). This is a common design choice in visual composition to create a more natural and "life-like" scene, a goal explicitly stated by US8830293B2.

3. Scaling video frames of the first video stream and repositioning: Chao teaches "Digital Image Auto-Resizing." A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply image resizing techniques, such as those taught by Chao, to scale the video frames of the first stream. Repositioning the scaled pictures in a "first direction" is a fundamental image manipulation technique, especially when aiming for a specific layout within a combined frame, such as anterior placement. This adjustment would be a predictable design choice to achieve the desired visual arrangement.

4. Removing the background image to produce background separated video frames for the anterior portion: Goose's "virtual environment" necessarily requires separating participants from their original backgrounds before they can be placed into a new, shared virtual space. By 2009, techniques for video segmentation and background removal, such as blue screen (chroma keying) or pixel comparison, were well-known in the art and commonly used in video production and effects. US8830293B2 itself describes these techniques as conventional means for background separation. A PHOSITA would readily apply these known methods to the scaled video frames of the first stream to isolate the subject image for foreground display.

5. Superimposing the first background separated video frames onto corresponding ones of the video frames of the second video stream: Once the subject image from the first video stream is separated from its background, superimposing it onto the second video stream is a standard compositing technique. This directly achieves the anterior/posterior arrangement where the first subject is layered "over" the second stream. This is a natural consequence of implementing a virtual environment (Goose) and separating foreground subjects.

6. Supplying the combined video stream to a video display: Any video conferencing system, including those envisioning a "virtual environment" (Goose), would necessarily output the resulting combined video stream to a display for viewing by participants.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine Goose, Chao, and general knowledge of video segmentation to create more advanced and natural-looking continuous presence video conferences. The desire to move beyond the limitations of "Hollywood Squares" (acknowledged by US8830293B2) and provide a more immersive "face-to-face, non-animated teleconference environment" (as implied by US5572248A and directly addressed by Goose) would drive this combination. Implementing a "virtual environment" (Goose) logically requires separating subjects from backgrounds (known techniques) and manipulating their size and position (Chao) to create a desired visual depth and composition. The specific anterior/posterior arrangement, scaling, and superimposition are predictable design choices for achieving a more realistic and engaging combined view within such a virtual conferencing context.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims

Claim 3 (Method variation for combining):
Claim 3, dependent on Claim 1, further specifies: scaling the second video stream and repositioning it in a second (opposite) direction, extending its background, and then superimposing the first background separated frames onto these background-extended second frames.

• Scaling and Repositioning the second video stream: Similar to the first stream, applying scaling (Chao) and repositioning to the second stream is a straightforward image manipulation. If the first stream is positioned anteriorly, repositioning the second stream in an "opposite" direction for posterior placement is a natural design choice for creating depth.
• Extending the background image in the second sequence of scaled video frames: The patent describes "inpainting" as a technique for extending backgrounds, noting it can be achieved by creating static filler images or by copying and flipping portions of the existing background. These are known video enhancing techniques. If the second video stream is scaled down for posterior placement, its original background might not fill the entire required area. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use known background extension methods to seamlessly fill any gaps and maintain a complete background image, especially to avoid unsightly borders or blank spaces and contribute to the "life-like" illusion.

Motivation for Claim 3: A PHOSITA, aiming for a highly polished "virtual environment" (Goose) or natural "stadium seating" effect (US8830293B2), would be motivated to apply scaling and repositioning consistently to both foreground and background elements. Extending the background of the posterior stream with known techniques (like inpainting) would be an obvious step to ensure a visually coherent and complete scene, preventing visual artifacts that could break the illusion of continuous presence.

Claim 5 (Method variation using supplemental background):
Claim 5, dependent on Claim 1, further specifies: removing backgrounds from both first and second video streams, generating supplemental background image video frames, and superimposing both background-separated subjects onto the supplemental background.

• Removing background images in both first and second video streams: This is a direct and obvious application of known background separation techniques (e.g., chroma keying, pixel comparison) to all participant streams when the goal is to place them into an entirely new, shared "virtual environment" as taught by Goose.
• Generating supplemental background image video frames: Goose explicitly teaches video conferencing in a "virtual environment." A key aspect of a virtual environment is the use of a generated or predetermined virtual background. Therefore, generating a "supplemental background image" is directly anticipated by Goose.
• Superimposing background-separated subjects onto the supplemental background: Once the subjects are separated from their original backgrounds, superimposing them onto a generated virtual background is the fundamental operation for creating a composite scene in a "virtual environment" (Goose).

Motivation for Claim 5: A PHOSITA, seeking to create a truly integrated "virtual environment" for video conferencing as envisioned by Goose, would be strongly motivated to employ this approach. Removing all original backgrounds and placing the separated subjects onto a new, unified supplemental background allows for greater control over the visual context and enhances the illusion that all participants are present in the same virtual space, thus improving the "natural and pleasing to view" aspect of continuous presence.