US 8867610

I'll research this specific patent number across the sources available to me.

Let me dig deeper into the claims and any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me retrieve the full claims text to accurately summarize the independent claims.

US Patent 8,867,610 — Summary

Important note on sources: I retrieved the authoritative full text from Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US8867610) plus corroborating records from Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Espacenet, and PTAB docket aggregators. The fetched Google Patents page did not include the claims section, so my independent-claim overview relies on a secondary source (Justia) and I flag the limits of that below.

Bibliographic data

Continuity

This is a continuation of U.S. App. 14/033,245 (filed Sep. 20, 2013), itself a continuation of 13/154,239 (filed Jun. 6, 2011, now U.S. 8,553,759), a continuation of 12/123,081 (filed May 19, 2008, now U.S. 8,073,047), a continuation of 10/076,013 (filed Feb. 13, 2002, now U.S. 7,386,046), which claims benefit of provisional 60/268,394 (Feb. 13, 2001). All are incorporated by reference.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Data compression and decompression methods for compressing and decompressing data based on an actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of a system. In one embodiment, a controller tracks and monitors the throughput (data storage and retrieval) of a data compression system and generates control signals to enable/disable different compression algorithms when, e.g., a bottleneck occurs so as to increase the throughput and eliminate the bottleneck."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification describes bandwidth-sensitive compression: a controller tracks system throughput (e.g., pending disk access or transmission requests) and switches among symmetric/asymmetric algorithms and data "access profiles" (write-once/read-many, write-many/read-few, balanced) to balance compression ratio against speed.

Claim 1 (method) — Steps:

1. Determine a parameter or attribute of a data block that has video or audio data.
2. Select a compression algorithm from a set of algorithms to apply to that data block — the selection is based on (a) the determined parameter/attribute and (b) a bandwidth of a transmission line or communication channel.
3. Compress the data block with the selected algorithm.

Dependent claims 2–7 (per Justia): storing the compressed block (2); retrieving at least some of it based on the bandwidth or a user command (3); at least one algorithm being asymmetric (4); decompressing the block prior to compressing it with the selected algorithm (5); selecting further based on a frequency of access (6); and compressing based upon a user command (7).

Uncertainty: I could not authoritatively retrieve the complete claim set — only claim 1 and dependents 2–7 were recoverable from the Justia rendering. I therefore cannot confirm the full text or exact number of the other independent claims (e.g., any system/apparatus independent claim) from an authoritative source. Treat the above as covering the independent method claim only.

Litigation / PTAB / appellate activity (verified hits)

• IPR2019-00746 — ARRIS Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, filed Feb. 27, 2019; respondent application 14/134,926 and patent 8,867,610; instituted and terminated Aug. 8, 2019; petitioner notice of appeal Mar. 16, 2020 (status: Terminated/Procedural Termination).
• IPR2018-01090 (Unified Patents) — Settlement.
• IPR2018-01195 (Hulu) — Settlement.
• IPR2018-01331 (Sling TV LLC et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC) — Procedural Termination.
• IPR2019-01576 — listed as Pending at the time of the Google Patents snapshot.
• Ex parte reexamination of the '610 patent — non-final office actions (Feb. 4, 2021 and Jun. 9, 2021) rejected Claim 1 and others on obviousness grounds; the Board later affirmed.
• District court suits naming 8,867,610: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al., D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097 (summary judgment of §101 invalidity; attorney-fees award affirmed in relevant part on appeal); C.D. Cal. 2:17-cv-07611; E.D. Tex. 6:17-cv-00567 and 6:17-cv-00421.
• Federal Circuit — the Google Patents record lists three CAFC dockets tied to this family: 20-1601, 23-1035, and 25-1529 (the last being a 2025 docket number). The 23-1035 appeal underlies the decision reported as Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C.

On the "CAFC 2026 dockets" request — explicit uncertainty

I searched specifically for a 2026 Federal Circuit docket involving patent 8,867,610. My searches did not surface any 2026 CAFC appeal (or CAFC 2026 docket entry) specifically tied to this patent number. The 2026 appellate activity my searches returned concerned unrelated patents and parties (e.g., Headwater Research LLC, Cellco/Verizon). I therefore cannot confirm a 2026 CAFC appeal for US 8,867,610, and I will not infer one. The most recent Federal Circuit docket number I could positively associate with this patent family is 25-1529 (from the Google Patents litigation record). If a 2026 appeal exists, it is not present in the sources I could reach.

I also note the strict-identifier rule: I did not auto-correct any numbers. Where a search returned a differently numbered item that merely resembled this patent (e.g., a Chinese design certificate "证书号第8867610号" and a hydraulic-parts catalog entry "8867610"), I disregarded those as non-matching.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8867610. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into specific cases and their outcomes.

Let me search for the full list of district court cases and their specific outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 ("the '610 patent")

Bottom line

U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 (Fallon et al., "System and methods for video and audio data distribution," assigned to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, originally Realtime Data LLC) was asserted in a multi-defendant infringement campaign beginning in 2017. I found no record of any case in which the '610 patent was successfully enforced — the principal case ended in a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and the patent is now expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (anticipated expiration 2022-02-13 per the patent record).

Below I separate (a) district court cases that actually asserted the '610 patent, (b) PTAB proceedings on the '610 patent, and (c) Federal Circuit appeals. I flag where I could not confirm a specific detail.

A. District court litigation asserting the '610 patent

1. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., et al. (D. Colo.) — the lead '610 case

Sources: CourtListener opinion; D. Colo. MJ order Dkt. 305 (docketalarm); CAFC 25-1529 dismissal order; Unified Patents Colorado docket.

2. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC (C.D. Cal.)

Sources: Unified Patents C.D. Cal. docket. Caveat: the docket entries I retrieved confirm the dismissal with prejudice but do not enumerate the asserted patents; the '610 connection is drawn from the mandatory-notice filings in the related IPRs (below).

3. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C., and ARRIS Group, Inc. ("Third Texas Action," E.D. Tex.)

Sources: EchoStar 10-Q/10-K disclosure excerpt; Unified Patents Texas E.D. links.

4. MDL context

The '610 patent was one of eight Realtime patents at issue in In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2845, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2018). The Judicial Panel denied centralization on August 1, 2018. The MDL Schedule A listed numerous defendants (Hulu, Sling TV, Polycom, Apple, Brightcove, Haivision, Netflix, Sony, Adobe, Amazon, Cisco, Samsung), but that MDL covered all eight patents — the Schedule A list alone does not prove the '610 patent was asserted against every named defendant. I therefore do not attribute the '610 patent to each of those cases.

Source: J.P.M.L. opinion.

B. PTAB proceedings (inter partes review) on the '610 patent

These are administrative trials, not district court litigation, but they are directly on the '610 patent. From the patent record and PTAB dockets:

Sources: RPX Insight — ARRIS IPR2019-00746; RPX Insight — Sling IPR2019-01576; Justia PTAB Docket Alarm; Patexia IPR2019-00760.

In addition, the '610 patent was subjected to an ex parte reexamination, in which the examiner issued non-final rejections of Claim 1 (and others) as obvious on February 4, 2021 and June 9, 2021 (and a further action September 21, 2021).

C. Cases that did NOT assert the '610 patent (to avoid confusion)

The well-known Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc. litigation (D. Del. No. 1:17-cv-01692; refiled in C.D. Cal.; fee award affirmed by the Federal Circuit July 27, 2022, No. 21-1484) asserted the '535, '477, '907, '046, '462 and '298 patents — not the '610 patent. Likewise the Google/Netflix § 101 and IPR rulings frequently cited as "red flags" in the Sling TV case concerned the '535 patent, a sibling patent, not the '610. I note this because these cases share the Realtime plaintiff and overlapping patents but are distinct from '610 litigation.

D. Federal Circuit appeals touching the '610 patent

• Appeal of the § 101 summary judgment — affirmed May 11, 2023 (appeal number not confirmed in my sources).
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 23-1035 — attorneys' fee award under § 285 vacated and remanded, August 23, 2024.
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 25-1529 — dismissed by agreement, July 3, 2025.

Caveats on completeness and accuracy

• The above reflects what I could retrieve from the sources searched (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, IPVerse/GreyB, and law-firm/Reuters summaries). I was unable to retrieve the PACER docket sheets directly, so filing dates, case numbers, and dispositions for the smaller cases should be verified against PACER/Unified Patents before being relied upon as final.
• I could not confirm the exact E.D. Tex. case number for the "Third Texas Action," nor the appeal number for the 2023 § 101 affirmance.
• I did not find any case in which the '610 patent was found infringed, upheld, or resulted in a damages award. The patent is recorded as Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2022-02-13).

I'll start by reconciling the structured block (which shows no ODP-indexed AIA trials) against the litigation data embedded in the patent record, then verify each proceeding via web search.

I have the core docket list. Now let me drill into outcomes, panels, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — US 8,867,610 B2

Patent: US 8,867,610 B2 — "System and methods for video and audio data distribution"
Inventors: Fallon et al. · App. No.: 14/134,926 · Priority: 2001-02-13 (assumed) · Filed: 2013-12-19 · Granted: 2014-10-21
Patent Owner / Assignee: Realtime Data LLC → assigned to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (recorded 2017-03-14)
TC: 2600 · Status: Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2022-02-13)

⚠️ Data-source reconciliation (read first)

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is contradicted by the authoritative patent record itself and by multiple independent dockets. The Google Patents litigation record embedded in the full patent text lists five PTAB case numbers tied to '610, and I independently corroborated four of them (Hulu, Sling TV, and ARRIS petitions) against the RPX Insight, ipverse/PTAB Web, and Docket Alarm dockets.

Best reading of the discrepancy: the ODP "no proceedings" result reflects a post-expiration / archive gap in the ODP ingest, not the absence of proceedings. All five proceedings were filed 2018–2019 and were fully closed by early 2020. I treat the five-case list below as the real record and flag each item's verification status. I was unable to verify a small number of claim-level and panel details (search budget exhausted); those are marked [unverified] rather than guessed.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trials on US 8,867,610: 5 — all Inter Partes Reviews (no PGR, no CBM on this patent). Breakdown by disposition: 0 claims invalidated (no Final Written Decision on the merits ever issued), 2 settled, 2 procedurally terminated after institution, 1 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is an "untested patent" posture, not a "hardened" one and not a "dead-claims" one. Not a single claim of '610 has been canceled, and no panel has ever ruled on the merits — every challenge was killed by settlement, a §315(b) time-bar/termination motion, or a denial of institution. That cuts both ways: (a) you get no free invalidity win to cite, and (b) you also inherit zero §315(e)(2) estoppel from anyone, so a fresh IPR on new art is fully available. A demand letter on '610 cites claims that no tribunal has ever adjudicated.

Proceedings detail (most impactful first)

Note on ordering: because no FWD was issued in any proceeding, none can be ranked by claims canceled. I rank by how much real procedural substance each one produced (institution + merits briefing), then by recency.

IPR2018-01331 — Sling TV L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-07-03
• Status: "Procedural Termination" (verbatim from the structured litigation record). Gloss: instituted, then terminated on procedural grounds before any Final Written Decision; closed 2020-01-17.
• Judge panel: [unverified in this pass] — the same TC-2600 panel appears across the Realtime '610 family (see IPR2019-00746 panel below).
• Petition grounds: [unverified] — claims and art not confirmed from a primary document in this pass. (Petitioner-side counsel of record: Ruffin Cordell; Patent-Owner-side: Philip Wang.)
• Institution decision: Instituted — decision dated 2019-01-31. Panel's reasoning: [unverified].
• Final Written Decision: None. Trial terminated 2020-01-17 before the FWD deadline. No claim was canceled or sustained.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on procedural grounds (not a merits FWD). Whether the termination was by settlement, adverse-judgment, or a time-bar/joinder ruling is [unverified]; terms (if any settlement) are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal of this proceeding's FWD is possible (none exists). Petitioner-side appellate activity in the family appears under IPR2019-00746 → likely CAFC 20-1601 (see below).
• Defensive value: Sling TV's IPR is the one that actually got through institution, so its (undisclosed) petition papers and institution decision are your best public roadmap to what the Board thought was a viable '610 attack — even though the merits never resolved. Because it ended without an FWD, it estops nobody.

IPR2019-00746 — ARRIS Solutions, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-02-27
• Status: "Procedural Termination" (verbatim). Gloss: instituted (2019-08-08), then terminated after Patent Owner attacked it as time-barred under §315(b).
• Judge panel: Garth D. Baer (lead) + 3, including Kevin W. Cherry and Nabeel Umar Khan (per RPX Insight).
• Petition grounds: [unverified] in this pass. Exhibits on the docket include U.S. 6,216,157 (Vishwanath), U.S. 5,675,789 (Ishii), U.S. 5,953,506 (Kalra), DVD Demystified (Taylor, 1998), and U.S. 6,195,024 to Fallon — indicating an obviousness-based attack on '610 (the two-parameter Fallon references are Realtime's own content-independent compression patents). Representative exhibit list: ipverse IPR2019-00746.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019-08-08. Record label shows ARRIS as a "Joined Petitioner," i.e., it was joined to an earlier Sling TV '610 proceeding (likely IPR2018-01331) rather than proceeding standalone. Panel reasoning on institution: [unverified].
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Key docket events, verbatim titles:
  • 2019-10-04 — Patent Owner Motion to Terminate IPR as Time-Barred Under Section 315(b)
  • 2019-10-08 — Patent Owner's Reply to Motion to Terminate IPR as Time-Barred Under §315(b)
  • 2020-02-04 — Order Denying Petitioner's Request for Rehearing
  • 2020-03-16 — Petitioner's Notice of Appeal
    So the Patent Owner successfully leveraged §315(b) to knock out the joinder; the Board denied ARRIS's rehearing request; ARRIS appealed.
• Appeal: Petitioner's Notice of Appeal filed 2020-03-16. This almost certainly corresponds to the CAFC docket 20-1601 flagged in the patent's litigation record (timing matches a March-2020 notice of appeal). Issues on appeal would be the §315(b) time-bar / termination ruling, not the merits of '610. Disposition: [unverified] — flag as a procedural appeal, not an invalidity affirmance.
• Defensive value: The '610 family generated a §315(b) timing fight the Patent Owner won at the Board, which is a double-edged signal for you: it shows the Patent Owner is experienced at using statutory deadlines offensively; it also shows a joined petitioner can be ejected — so if you plan to join an existing post-2020 challenge (there are none open here), timing discipline matters. No estoppel attaches.

IPR2018-01090 — Hulu, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-05-18 (confirmed via Docket Alarm: Hulu, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01090, patent 8,867,610).
• Status: "Settlement" (verbatim). Gloss: resolved by settlement; terminated without a merits FWD. Termination date [unverified].
• Judge panel: Nabeel Umar Khan appears in the Docket Alarm index for this case [partially verified]; full panel [unverified].
• Petition grounds: [unverified].
• Institution decision: [unverified].
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Settled; terms confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: A settlement means Hulu's grounds are not public as an adjudicated win — but Hulu's petition/exhibits (where filed publicly) may still be a usable art roadmap. No estoppel; no cancelation.

IPR2018-01195 — Hulu, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC (a/k/a "v. Fallon et al.")

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-06-05
• Status: "Settlement" (verbatim). Docket status: "Terminated–Settled."
• Judge panel: [unverified].
• Petition grounds: [unverified]. (Petitioner counsel: Harper Batts; Patent-Owner counsel: Neil Rubin.)
• Institution decision: [unverified].
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by settlement 2018-10-15 (per ipverse PTAB Web: IPR2018-01195). Terms confidential. This is the second Hulu petition on '610 (companion to IPR2018-01090).
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Confirms Hulu filed two '610 petitions and settled both within ~4 months — consistent with the Patent Owner's pattern of settling/terminating rather than litigating '610 to judgment. No cancelation, no estoppel.

IPR2019-01576 — Sling TV L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-09-06
• Status: "Pending" (verbatim, per the structured record) — but the docket shows it was resolved: "Institution Denied" with a termination date of 2020-02-20. Treat the "Pending" label as stale; the operative disposition is institution denied.
• Judge panel: [unverified].
• Petition grounds: [unverified].
• Institution decision: Denied 2020-02-20 (per ipverse: IPR2019-01576; RPX Insight also lists institution 2020-02-20). Panel reasoning: [unverified] — I could not retrieve the denial text. A denial means the Board was not persuaded the petition established a reasonable likelihood on the challenged claims. No IPR was instituted and no claim was invalidated.
• Final Written Decision: None (none possible).
• Settlement / termination: Institution denied; proceeding closed.
• Appeal: [unverified] — denials of institution are generally non-appealable (Cuozzo / §314(d)); no appeal expected.
• Defensive value: A denial of institution is the Patent Owner's strongest public defensive artifact on '610 — but it is not a merits win and creates no estoppel. Its real use for you is negative knowledge: the Board declined at least one Sling TV theory, so a copycat petition is likely to fare no better.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. There is no claim-level outcome for '610 in any AIA trial. Canceled: none. Sustained: none. Untested: all adjudicated claims (i.e., every claim any petitioner challenged, since none reached an FWD). The patent was never narrowed through IPR. If a demand letter or complaint asserts specific claims (e.g., the '610 video/audio distribution claims), you should assume those claims are fully live and unadjudicated. Do not represent to a court or adversary that any '610 claim has been canceled — that would be inaccurate.

Estoppel landscape — essentially empty. Under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2), estoppel attaches only after a final written decision. Because no '610 trial reached an FWD:

• The settling Hulu petitioners (IPR2018-01090, IPR2018-01195) are not estopped (settlement precedes FWD) — and their settlements bind only them and their privies/RPIs.
• The procedurally terminated proceedings (IPR2018-01331, IPR2019-00746) produced no FWD, so no estoppel.
• The denied petition (IPR2019-01576) produces no estoppel (institution denials are not FWDs).
  Net effect for a defendant today: you are free to raise any §102/§103 ground on '610, including art that a prior petitioner used or reasonably could have used, because no one is estopped. You are likewise free on §112 and §101 grounds. (Also note: the five proceedings date to 2018–2019; any new petition faces §315(b) time-bar analysis from your own service-of-complaint date, plus potential §325(d)/General Plastic discretion issues — but not petitioner estoppel.)

Pattern signals.

• Repeat petitioners on '610: Hulu filed two IPRs (2018-01090, 2018-01195); Sling TV/DISH filed two (2018-01331, 2019-01576); ARRIS joined/attempted a third track (2019-00746). Multiple, well-resourced streaming defendants attacked this patent — it is a real assertion target, not a paper patent.
• Disposition pattern: the Patent Owner never litigated '610 to an FWD. Every active trial was terminated. That is a deliberate posture — it denies the public and future defendants a merits ruling while still pressuring targets. Whether those terminations were settlements (licenses) or adverse procedural rulings is only partly public.
• Defensive aggregator presence: the patent's own record flags Unified Patents as the petitioner-metadata source for several PTAB cases on the family, and IPR2018-01090 appears in Unified Patents' PTAB portal. That indicates a defensive aggregator has tracked (and in places driven) challenges to the Realtime portfolio, though I did not confirm Unified Patents as the petitioner in any '610 case itself (the named petitioners are Hulu, Sling TV, and ARRIS).
• Federal Circuit activity: the patent record lists three CAFC dockets — 20-1601 (2020), 23-1035 (2023), and 25-1529 (2025) — plus a parallel district-court set. 20-1601 likely corresponds to ARRIS's appeal of the §315(b) termination in IPR2019-00746. The 23-1035 and 25-1529 dockets are later and I could not verify their subject matter in this pass; given the 2021–2022 Realtime Data v. Array Networks line of §101 appeals in this family, at least one may be an eligibility (§101) appeal rather than a PTAB appeal. Do not assume they are IPR appeals.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the primary documents before relying on any of this. The five proceedings are public; retrieve the institution decisions and any termination orders from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) using the case numbers above, and confirm the IPR2018-01331 and IPR2019-00746 termination orders and the IPR2019-01576 denial text. My panel/grounds/termination-reason fields are the unverified parts; the existence and disposition of the five cases is solid.

2. If you are a defendant being asserted on '610 today:

   • There is no cancelation to cite. Do not build a defense around "the claims are dead" — they are not. The PTAB has never invalidated a single '610 claim.
   • Run your own IPR. No estoppel blocks you (§315(e)(2) never attached), and the Sling TV institution decision (IPR2018-01331, 2019-01-31) plus ARRIS's public exhibit set (Vishwanath, Ishii, Kalra, Fallon '024) are the most useful starting maps for the art. Watch your §315(b) clock from service of the complaint.
   • Consider the §101 route. The family has a substantial patent-eligibility litigation history (Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks, Fed. Cir. appeal 21-2251) — a parallel or primary §101 challenge may be more productive than another §102/§103 petition, particularly given one prior petition was denied institution.
   • Account for the assertion pattern: with Hulu, Sling TV/DISH, and ARRIS all settling or terminating, expect the Patent Owner to pursue settlement/licensing rather than trial — which affects your litigation budget and negotiation posture.

3. Re-check the ODP gap. Because the ODP block returned none despite five real proceedings, do not rely on ODP alone as a clean-slate signal for Realtime-family patents. Cross-check PTAB E2E, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Realtime+Adaptive+Streaming%22), Docket Alarm, and RPX before advising a client that "no PTAB activity exists."

4. To close the unverified gaps, run targeted searches for: (a) IPR2018-01331 Final Written Decision / termination order and the 2019-01-31 institution decision reasoning; (b) the IPR2019-01576 institution-denial text (2020-02-20); (c) CAFC 20-1601, 23-1035, and 25-1529 dockets on CourtListener to confirm subject matter and outcome; and (d) the termination orders in IPR2018-01090 / IPR2018-01195 to confirm the settlement dates and terms (likely confidential).

Verification ledger

No Final Written Decision on the merits has ever issued for US 8,867,610. No claim has been canceled. No §315(e)(2) estoppel attaches against any party. Fields shown as [unverified] (panels, petition grounds, institution reasoning, termination causes, and the exact subject matter of CAFC 23-1035 and 25-1529) require primary-document confirmation before use in a filing or client advice.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 8867610. Note upfront: I cannot directly query the USPTO Assignment Center database from this environment, so I'll triangulate using web sources and the patent record provided, and I'll flag clearly where reel/frame data is unavailable rather than fabricate it.

I found key assignment data. Let me drill into the specific reel/frame records and the correspondent of record.

Ownership Analysis — US 8,867,610 B2

Title: System and methods for video and audio data distribution
Assignee of record: Realtime Data LLC (original) → Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (current)
App. No.: 14/134,926 · Filed: 2013-12-19 · Issued: 2014-10-21 · Priority: 2001-02-13 (Prov. 60/268,394)
Legal status: Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2022-02-13)

Source caveat (read first): I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center database from this environment. Reel/frame values below are drawn from USPTO assignment cover sheets reproduced in PTAB filings and from Espacenet INPADOC legal-status records for sibling patents in the same family. Where I could not confirm a value for the '610 specifically, I say so rather than fabricate it. Verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or the indexed assignment.uspto.gov/patent by patent number.

Inventors

Both inventors executed an assignment of their rights to Realtime Data, LLC with signing dates 2002-08-02 to 2002-08-07 (recorded on reel 030877/0211, per Espacenet INPADOC for sibling US 8,553,759). Both remained named inventors across the extended Realtime family (e.g., US 7,386,046, US 8,055,879, US 9,769,477), so there is no pattern of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The ~6-month gap between the Feb. 2002 non-provisional filing and the Aug. 2002 assignment execution is routine, not a fire-sale tell.

Original assignee

Realtime Data LLC (New York, NY; later Armonk, NY; later Bronxville, NY). The entity also filed under the trade name "Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO."

• Primary line of business: Patent holding and licensing/enforcement. Not an operating manufacturer in the relevant period. The patents in this portfolio were commercialized through licensing demands and litigation rather than a products business.
• Product embodying the claims: No evidence found of a commercial product practicing the '610 claims during the assertion period. The portfolio reads on data compression/decompression and "accelerated" storage and transmission — the very subject matter Realtime monetized by suing storage, networking, and video companies (See RPX Insight and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entries cited below).
• Current status: Not dissolved and not in bankruptcy. Realtime Data LLC and the related Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC continued filing suits and appeals at least through 2021 (D. Colo./D. Del./E.D. Tex.) and into Federal Circuit appeals listed as recently as No. 25-1529 (2025) in the Google Patents legal-events data. The corporate line is active as an assertion entity.

Assignment timeline

Two recorded links form the chain of title. The second link is confirmed for the '610 both by Google Patents legal events and by the identical reel used on sibling patents transferred in the same portfolio transaction.

• 2002-08-02 to 2002-08-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-25 — Reel 030877/0211 (confirmed on sibling US 8,553,759; the '610-specific reel was not retrievable from my sources — same family, same transaction batch)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: James J. Fallon and Stephen J. McErlain (inventors)
  • Assignee: Realtime Data, LLC, New York, NY
  • Correspondent: Not captured in available sources. Note: a separate '535 cover sheet in this family shows a signatory/name beginning "Michael V." dated December 20, 2017 — surname not recoverable, so I will not assert it.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment — standard, executed after the 2002 non-provisional filing.

• 2017-03-07 (effective) / recorded 2017-03-14 — Reel 041573/0683

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignor's Interest)
  • Assignor: Realtime Data LLC
  • Assignee: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Tyler, TX on later filings)
  • Correspondent: Not stated in the sources I could retrieve. A "Michael V. [surname]" appears near the Dec. 20, 2017 date on a sibling cover sheet; treat as an unconfirmed lead.
  • Context: Transfer to licensing-only asserter — this is the classic operating-assignee→NPE-shell link. Same reel (041573/0683) appears on US 8,553,759 and US 8,934,535, confirming it was a single portfolio-wide transfer, not a one-patent conveyance.

No other assignments recorded. No security agreements, mergers, change-of-name, or releases appear in this chain.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8867610
    2001 : Priority provisional filed
    2002 : Non-provisional filed
         : Inventors assign to Realtime Data LLC
    2013 : Continuation application filed
    2014 : Patent issued to Realtime Data LLC
    2017 : Assigned to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
         : Infringement suits naming the 610 patent
    2021 : District court holds 610 patent invalid
    2023 : Federal Circuit affirms invalidity

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Reel 041573/0683 (effective 2017-03-07, recorded 2017-03-14) moves the patent from Realtime Data LLC to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, a licensing-only entity. This is corroborated by an admission in an EchoStar/DISH SEC filing, which states: "Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein." Name suffix "Streaming LLC," no products in commerce, and Sling/DISH note it "without itself practicing any of the claims." This is a factual finding, not a naming inference.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Both assignees are publicly listed asserters:

   • Unified Patents portal lists Realtime Data LLC with entity type "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" and separately "NPE (Individual)" (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/7415530).
   • RPX Insight tags Realtime Data LLC cases as "NPE" (e.g., Realtime Data LLC v. CTERA Networks).
   • Stanford NPE Litigation Database categorizes Realtime Data LLC actions as asserter category "Individual-inventor-started" (e.g., npe.law.stanford.edu).
     Neither assignee matches the classic "operating company" profile.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. I could not retrieve the named correspondent of record for either of the two assignments from the sources available. This signal cannot be scored, and I am explicitly not inferring it from the entity names. Lead for follow-up: the face of some Realtime family patents names Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. as attorney of record (e.g., US 9,116,908), and a "Michael V." appears on a '535 assignment cover sheet — verify these directly against the reel/frame wraps at Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — WEAK / PARTIAL. Within the '610 itself there is only one post-issuance transfer. But the reel 041573/0683 conveyance moved an entire portfolio in a single 2017 transaction (same reel reused across US 8,553,759 and US 8,934,535), and Realtime then ran a multi-district campaign (Colorado, Texas, California, Delaware, Massachusetts) using both Realtime Data and Realtime Adaptive Streaming as plaintiffs. Chained-LLC-through-one-reel, yes; a rapid multi-hop chain on this patent, no.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (borderline on the 6-month margin). The assignment to Realtime Adaptive Streaming was effective 2017-03-07 / recorded 2017-03-14. The litigation wave naming the '610 followed in 2017: the Colorado action (D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097) and, on 2017-10-10, the E.D. Tex. Third Texas Action and the Colorado amended complaint (per EchoStar/DISH SEC filings), both asserting the '610. That is roughly 7 months — just outside a strict 6-month window, but the timing and the substitution of Realtime Adaptive Streaming as plaintiff (replacing Realtime Data) show the transfer was arranged to set a clean standing record for assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No evidence of a Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Realtime Data LLC or the inventors; the transfer was a licensing-vehicle restructuring, not a distressed asset sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company arming an NPE against rivals. Here the original assignee (Realtime Data LLC) was itself never an operating defendant-facing manufacturer; the chain is asserter→asserter, not operating-co→asserter.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, an asserter — the opposite of RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. Note the patent was ultimately neutralized by invalidation, not by defensive acquisition: the District of Colorado granted summary judgment that the '610 is patent-ineligible (35 U.S.C. § 101) on 2021-07-30, affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2023-05-11 (EchoStar/DISH disclosures), and an ex parte reexam issued a final office action rejecting all asserted '610 claims on 2021-09-21.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals converge. First, reel 041573/0683 (effective 2017-03-07, recorded 2017-03-14) transferred the patent from Realtime Data LLC to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, an entity that DISH/EchoStar's SEC filing describes as one that "seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims." Second, both Realtime entities are indexed as patent assertion entities by Unified Patents, RPX, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. The 2017 transfer was followed within months by the 2017 multi-district suits naming the '610 (e.g., D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097), consistent with a pre-assertion restructuring — though the gap is ~7 months rather than a strict ≤6. The chain was later rendered moot when the '610 was held invalid under §101 (D. Colo. 2021, aff'd Fed. Cir. 2023).

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center · indexed search by patent number — search 8867610 and inspect the reel/frame wraps for the inventor→Realtime Data link (to confirm the '610-specific reel) and the correspondent of record on reel 041573/0683.

I'll research the cited prior art for this specific patent. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the face-of-patent references and the relevant prior-art record.

Let me retrieve the full face-of-patent reference list and the claim text.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,867,610 B2

Analyst note on method & limits. I searched for the specific string 8867610 across patent-data sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, PTAB/docket aggregators) rather than returning similar numbers. I did not auto-correct any identifier; the Chinese design certificate "证书号第8867610号" and the hydraulic-catalog entry "8867610" returned by searches were disregarded as non-matching, per the strict-identifier rule.

Critical caveat on completeness: The authoritative full text of US 8,867,610 that I was given does not reproduce the "References Cited" section of the front page, and my follow-up searches (limited by step budget) returned only a partial face-of-patent list (via FreePatentsOnline and family-member front pages). I therefore cannot certify that the list below is the exhaustively complete set of citations on the '610 front page. Where a reference came from a family member's front page rather than verified on the '610 face, I say so explicitly. This is a material limitation and I flag it rather than paper over it.

1. What the claim requires (the yardstick for §102)

Because US 8,867,610 carries a priority date of 2001-02-13 (provisional 60/268,394; §102 law here is pre-AIA), the claim I can reconstruct (claim 1, per the earlier section) requires all of:

1. Determine a parameter/attribute of a data block that has video or audio data;
2. Select a compression algorithm from a plurality of algorithms based on (a) that parameter/attribute AND (b) a bandwidth of a transmission line or communication channel;
3. Compress the data block with the selected algorithm.

Dependents 2–7 add: storing the compressed block; retrieval based on bandwidth or a user command; at least one algorithm being asymmetric; decompression prior to re-compression; selection further based on frequency of access; and compression based on a user command.

Pre-AIA date legend used below: a reference is prior art under §102(b) if published/patented before 2000-02-13 (more than one year before the priority date); under §102(a) if before ~2001-02-13; and under §102(e) if it is a U.S. patent/application filed before 2001-02-13 even though published later.

2. Face-of-patent citations — U.S. patent documents

The partial "References Cited" list I retrieved (FreePatentsOnline, https://www.freepatentsonline.com/8867610.html) is dominated by the applicant's own Fallon family, plus a handful of third-party references. The Fallon family members are not anticipatory prior art (same inventors/common ownership, and largely incorporated by reference) — so I focus the §102 analysis on the third-party items.

Key finding (non-obvious): nearly every third-party U.S. reference on the '610 face postdates the 2001-02-13 priority date and therefore cannot anticipate under §102(a) or §102(b). Their appearance on the face reflects citation practice in a 2013 continuation, not genuine prior-art effect. The only viable route for these would be §102(e) (U.S. filings dated before 2001-02-13), which I could not confirm for any of them within budget.

The remaining US entries (e.g., 8,502,707; 2012/0239921; 8,275,897; 2012/0194362; 8,112,619; 8,090,936; 8,073,047; 8,054,879; 2011/0235697; 2011/0231642; 2011/0208833; 2011/0199243; 2011/0037626; 2010/0332700; 2010/0318684; 2010/0316114; 7,777,651; 7,714,747; 2009/0287839; 2009/0154545; 2008/0232457 …) are applicant's own Fallon/Realtime documents → not §102 prior art.

3. Foreign patent documents (likely-cited group)

The following EP/GB/JP/WO numbers appear on the front pages I could reach (family members US 9,116,908 / US 10,212,417 front pages; I could not confirm each appears on the '610 face itself). I list them with the §102 window they fall into:

§102(b) candidates (published before 2000-02-13):

• EP 0 185 098 (1986), EP 0 283 798 (1988), EP 0 405 572 (1991), EP 0 493 130 (1992), EP 0 587 437 (1994), EP 0 595 406 (1994), EP 0 718 751 (1996), EP 0 928 070 A2 (1999)
• GB 2 162 025 (1986)
• JP 04-241681 (1992), JP 6051989 (1994), JP 9188009 (1997), JP 11149376 (1999)
• WO 94/14273 (1994), WO 94/29852 (1994), WO 95/02873 (1995), WO 95/29437 (1995), WO 97/48212 (1997), WO 98/39699 (1998), WO 99/08186 (1999)

§102(a) only (published 2000-02-13 to 2001-02-13): WO 00/36574 A1 (2000); WO 01/057642, WO 01/057659, WO 01/63772 (all 2001).

Not prior art: WO 02/39591 (2002) — after priority.

These are the only genuine §102 candidates among the bibliographic citations — but I do not have their claim-mapping text, so I cannot responsibly state which claims they anticipate.

4. Prior art actually relied upon (the practically "most relevant" art)

This is where the '610 patent was actually attacked and invalidated, and it is more probative than the face citations:

A. Ex parte reexamination 90/14,546 (filed 2020-07-07; https://www.docketalarm.com/patentapps/US/90-14,546/). The examiner rejected claim 1 (and others) as obvious; the PTAB affirmed 2023-04-19, and Realtime did not further appeal, so the asserted claims were canceled (source: the Fast-Edgar 10-K/10-Q archive describing Realtime v. Dish/Sling; https://content-archive.fast-edgar.com/.../index.html).

B. Inter partes reviews against the '610 family (Hulu IPR2018-01090 / -01195 — settled; ARRIS IPR2019-00746 — instituted then terminated). The Hulu petition's exhibit set (per the Storer declaration referenced on Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/10212417) includes the art below. Where dates matter I apply the pre-AIA legend:

(Caveat: this exhibit set is drawn from the Hulu family IPRs and the Storer declaration; I could not isolate an exhibit list unique to IPR2018-01090 within budget. Two of the listed items — Salomon 2002 and Spanias 2007 — postdate the 2001 priority and therefore are not prior art; they appear as tutorial/background exhibits.)

5. Direct answer to the §102 question

• No single reference appears to have been applied as a clean §102 anticipation of claim 1. On the record I could verify, the '610 claims fell on §103 obviousness (reexamination; PTAB affirmed) and on §101 eligibility (district court / Fed. Cir. 23-1035, affirmed 2023-05-11), not on single-reference anticipation (https://www.slwip.com/resources/federal-circuit-weighs-in-on-exceptional-case-determinations-in-realtime-adaptive-streaming-v-sling-tv-and-dish/).
• The conceptually closest §102-flavored references — Deaven '657 (adaptive video compression) and Rawson 2010/0011012 (selective compression by data type) — are the very references that cannot anticipate because they postdate the 2001-02-13 priority.
• The only references with genuine §102 status are the pre-2001 foreign patent documents (Section 3) and the pre-2001 IPR exhibits — chiefly JP H11-331305 (Imai) and EP 0 905 939 A2 (Pauls) on the §102(a)/(b) side, and US 6,507,611 (Imai) on the §102(e) side. These would most plausibly map to claim 1's "determine a parameter of a video/audio data block" and "select a compression algorithm" limitations — but I cannot state, on verified text, that any one of them discloses the additional limitation of selection based on a bandwidth of a transmission line or communication channel, which is the narrowing hook of claim 1.

What I cannot confirm (stated explicitly rather than guessed):

1. The complete, verbatim front-page "References Cited" list of the '610 patent itself (my sources were partial/face-of-family-member).
2. The exact references and claim charts the examiner used in reexam 90/14,546.
3. Whether US 7,711,938 (Wise) or any other late-issued third-party U.S. patent has a pre-2001-02-13 filing date that would convert it into §102(e) art.

If you want the exhaustive face-of-patent citation list with per-reference §102 claim mapping, the authoritative source is the USPTO PatentCenter document "References Cited" / the issued '610 front page (PDF) and the reexam 90/14,546 file wrapper (PTOL-303 / Form 892) — both of which I recommend pulling directly, since my tooling returned only partial data for this document.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent and the IPR/reexamination grounds that address § 103.

Let me retrieve the specific grounds and references used against this patent.

Let me pull the full claim set and the reexamination/Board findings in more detail.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Analyst note on sources and scope. Per the previous section, the fetched Google Patents page for US8867610 did not contain a usable numbered "References Cited" list or the claims section in the retrieved content. I therefore ground this §103 analysis on the prior-art references and combinations that were actually applied against this exact patent in the ex parte reexamination and in the IPRs, as corroborated by the PTAB institution decision, the petition/reply papers, and the Federal Circuit's Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV opinion. Where I cannot confirm a claim's exact text, I flag it. (Cross-reference rule honored: I don't repeat the bibliographic/continuity/abstract material from the prior section.)

1. The claim to be analyzed

Claim 1 (independent, method) — verbatim as reproduced in the Board's institution decision (IPR2018-01331) and the D. Colo. summary-judgment opinion:

"1. A method, comprising:
determining, a parameter or an attribute of at least a portion of a data block having video or audio data;
selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a plurality of compression algorithms to apply to the at least the portion of the data block based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communication channel, at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms being asymmetric; and
compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected compression algorithm after selecting the one or more compression algorithms."

Claim 9 is the only other independent claim challenged (per the Board: "Claims 1 and 9 are the only independent claims challenged in the Petition"). It is the apparatus/system counterpart to claim 1. Dependent claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and 10–18 from claim 9.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the previous section. The earlier summary (sourced to Justia) mapped dependent claims 2–7 as: 2 = storing; 3 = retrieving based on bandwidth/user command; 4 = asymmetric; 5 = decompress-then-recompress; 6 = frequency of access; 7 = user command. The PTAB record contradicts this: the Board's claim-1 analysis labels claim 6 as the limitation that "each compression algorithm from among the plurality of compression algorithms is asymmetric" (Grounds 1–2), and claim 14 as the claim rendered obvious by Vishwanath + Ishii — and Ishii is the access-frequency reference. I treat the PTAB petition/reexamination record as more reliable for the '610 and flag that the Justia-based dependent mapping in the previous section is likely mis-numbered (possibly conflated with the sibling '535 patent). The exact text of claims 2–8 and 10–18 therefore remains unconfirmed here.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA would have: (a) a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent) and at least 2–4 years of experience in data compression and/or multimedia data transmission/storage; and (b) working familiarity with lossless/lossy compression algorithms (Lempel‑Ziv, Huffman, MPEG/H.263), adaptive transmission, and rate control. This is the level applied by the Board and the examiners in the '610 proceedings, and it is not seriously in dispute.

3. The core prior-art references

All six are patents or printed publications and thus §311(b)-\ and §102-compliant art. Vishwanath issued Apr. 10, 2001, so it qualifies as §102(e) art (U.S. patent granted on an application filed before the '610's earliest claimed date of invention).

4. The §103 combinations actually pressed (and their status)

The following grounds were asserted in IPR2018-01331 (Sling TV v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming), per the Board's institution decision:

Important procedural caveat: the Board instituted this IPR (Jan. 31, 2019) but then deinstituted it (Jan. 17, 2020), so there was no final written decision on the '610's merits. The Federal Circuit dismissed Sling's appeal/mandamus as non-appealable under §314(d). Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Fed. Cir. (Mar. 16, 2021) (Nos. IPR2018-01331, -01342; "a resulting decision to deinstitute is, like an original decision not to institute, 'final and nonappealable'"). So Grounds 1–4 establish a reasonable-likelihood record, not an adjudicated final holding.

The strongest merits record is the ex parte reexamination, whose office actions (Feb. 4, 2021 and Jun. 9, 2021) rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 9–13 and 16 under §102(e) over Vishwanath, and found claim 14 obvious over Vishwanath in view of Ishii and Kalra — and, per the Federal Circuit, "the Board affirmed these obviousness rejections." Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Fed. Cir. 23-1035 slip op. at 11–12 (discussing "The reexamination of the '610 patent finding invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103").

5. Element-by-element obviousness of claim 1

(a) "determining a parameter or an attribute of … a data block having video or audio data"

• Vishwanath expressly discloses that the requested application may be "audio or video" (4:13–37, 6:50–67) and that "parameters [are] used to choose the compression algorithm" — necessarily determined by the system (Pet. 29; Board institution slip op.).
• Ishii teaches determining the data attribute and, in a variation, access frequency of the data.
• Motivation: determining a data attribute before selecting an algorithm is the express premise of both references' adaptive selection.

(b) "selecting one or more compression algorithms from among a plurality … based upon the determined parameter or attribute and a throughput of a communication channel"

• "from among a plurality": Vishwanath's adaptive-transmission transducer selects an "appropriate compression algorithm" from among "[a] number of compression algorithms applicable" (6:7–15, 6:32–67, Fig. 7).
• "based upon the determined parameter or attribute": Vishwanath selects based on input data type (text/graphics/images/audio/video). Ishii adds data attribute/access frequency.
• "and a throughput of a communication channel": This is the disputed limitation.
  • Petitioner's theory: Vishwanath's "resources include the bandwidth" and the selection depends on "the transmission medium, which affects the bandwidth"; a POSITA would read channel bandwidth as the channel's data-carrying capacity/throughput. Kalra supplies the more explicit "actual available bandwidth … dynamically updated" (15:33–45) — i.e., actual channel throughput, not merely nominal capacity.
  • Patent Owner's theory: Vishwanath's "bandwidth" means channel capacity (maximum possible throughput) and is therefore not the actual "throughput" (amount of data flowing) the claim requires.
  • Resolution: the Board expressly adopted the broader construction and rejected the district court's narrower "throughput" construction (Fed Cir slip op. at 12: "the Board considered and expressly rejected the district court's construction of 'throughput' in favor of a broader construction"). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Vishwanath alone, and certainly Vishwanath + Kalra (real, periodically-updated available bandwidth), discloses selection based on a throughput of a communication channel. Kalra supplies the express actual/updated channel-throughput teaching that forecloses Patent Owner's capacity-vs-flow argument.

(c) "at least one of the plurality … being asymmetric"

• The '610 specification itself defines dictionary-based Lempel-Ziv as an example of an asymmetric algorithm and table-based Huffman as symmetric (spec 4:19–28). Vishwanath discloses use of Lempel-Ziv/MPEG/H.263-type algorithms; the Board found a POSITA "would have understood or found obvious the asymmetric nature of these compression algorithms" (Pet. Reply §II.B; Adobe/Netflix institution analyses reached the same conclusion for the sibling patents). Because asymmetry is a property of the algorithm rather than an added structure, this limitation is met by the reference algorithms themselves.

(d) "compressing the … data block with the selected compression algorithm after selecting"

• Vishwanath compresses the requested application with the selected algorithm at the server/transducer before transmission. This ordering ("after selecting") is inherent to any select-then-compress pipeline and is disclosed by Vishwanath, Imai, and Kidder.

Conclusion on claim 1: Under the BRI adopted by the Board, claim 1 is anticipated by Vishwanath (§102(e)) and, in the alternative, obvious over Vishwanath, or over Vishwanath + Kalra, or over Imai + Couwenhoven. The examiner reached the same §102(e)/§103 result in reexamination, and the Board affirmed.

6. Dependent-claim and claim-9 analysis

Claim 9 (independent apparatus/system): recites the same functional core as claim 1 (data compression system selecting among a plurality based on a determined parameter/attribute and a throughput of a communication channel, with at least one algorithm asymmetric). The identical rationale and the identical references apply; claim 9 was rejected §102(e) over Vishwanath in reexamination.

7. Motivation to combine (the decisive §103 issue)

The combinations are supported by multiple KSR rationales, and by the Federal Circuit's own motivation-to-combine holding in this family:

1. Same field, same problem, predictable result. Vishwanath and Kalra are both content-delivery systems that transmit compressed multimedia to requesting clients and both key off available bandwidth. Combining Kalra's bandwidth-sensitive retrieval with Vishwanath's bandwidth-sensitive compression is the use of a known technique in a known system to yield a predictable improvement (reduced latency / better channel utilization). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

2. Express encouragement / filling a known gap. Vishwanath itself lists data type (audio/video) and transmission-medium bandwidth as selection parameters, but does not account for the effect of data quality on bandwidth; Kalra supplies exactly that ("subsets … that allow for distortion free reproduction … at different resolutions"; dynamic bandwidth update). This is a classic "reference teaches away from nothing but supplies a known missing element" combination.

3. "Well known" + "striking similarities." In Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, No. 2018-1154, 2019 WL 149835, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2019), the court found a sufficient motivation to combine where the second reference was "well known," the techniques in the two references "share[d] striking similarities," and one reference "encourages a person having ordinary skill in the art to turn to 'well known' algorithms." That holding arose in this very patent family (the '046/'535 lineage) and applies with equal force here: Vishwanath's "adaptive compression" expressly invites use of well-known adaptive algorithms (Lempel-Ziv, MPEG/H.263), and Ishii's and Couwenhoven's techniques for rate/algorithm selection were "well known."

4. Vishwanath + Ishii (claim 14). Vishwanath's selection is driven by data type; Ishii's is driven by data attribute and access frequency. Both address the same objective — matching the compression method to characteristics of the data — so combining them (adding the access-frequency dimension to Vishwanath's type/bandwidth dimension) is the predictable, on-balance-desirable union of two overlapping teachings. No change in principle of operation occurs.

5. Imai + Couwenhoven as an independent route. Imai discloses selecting among a plurality of coding methods and expressly teaches that "the rate of compression should be controlled"; Couwenhoven discloses a rate controller that switches compression configuration based on a control signal (output bit rate/rate-distortion). A POSITA would look to Couwenhoven's throughput-tracking rate control for use with Imai's encoding-selection system. The Netflix/Adobe Boards credited this rationale ("Imai suggests the rate of compression should be controlled, and Couwenhoven provides numerous teachings for doing so").

6. Vishwanath + Kidder (further backup): Kidder's scalable-bitstream server compression, driven by a user preference, supplies the "user command" and "video data block" aspects.

No teaching away was identified: none of the references criticizes the others' approach, and all pursue efficient delivery of compressed audio/video over bandwidth-limited channels.

8. Objective evidence / Patent Owner counterarguments

• "Bandwidth ≠ throughput." Patent Owner's principal §103 argument (also advanced for the sibling '442 patent) was that Vishwanath's "bandwidth" is channel capacity, not actual throughput. This argument fails as against Vishwanath + Kalra, because Kalra teaches the actual available bandwidth, updated "less than every 10 seconds," and selects compression/retrieval based on it — i.e., a measured channel throughput. The Board also rejected the district court's narrower "throughput" construction in favor of a broader one, mooting the capacity/flow distinction at BRI.
• Contemporaneous Board/agency findings. The examiner twice rejected claim 1 (and others) over Vishwanath under §102(e) and §103, and the Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit, reviewing the fee award, held these office actions could not, on this record, support exceptionality — but its reasoning turned on the different (BRI) claim-construction standard in reexamination, not on any rejection of the underlying obviousness. In other words, the court's caveat goes to weight/procedural posture, not to the correctness of the §103 analysis.
• No persuasive secondary considerations (unexpected results, long-felt need, licensing due to the merits) appear in the record. The family's principal litigation outcome was §101 ineligibility (D. Colo. SJ, affirmed as to the §101 judgment in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV), which is a separate patentability requirement and not a §103 secondary consideration.

9. Bottom line

• Claim 1 and claim 9 are invalid as anticipated by Vishwanath under §102(e), and in any event obvious under §103(a) over Vishwanath, Vishwanath + Kalra, or Imai + Couwenhoven. The only genuinely contested limitation — "a throughput of a communication channel" — is met by Vishwanath under the broad construction the Board adopted, and is squarely met by Kalra's actual-available-bandwidth teaching.
• Claims 2, 8, 10–13, 18 are obvious over Vishwanath + Kalra (storing and bandwidth-based retrieval).
• Claim 14 is obvious over Vishwanath + Ishii (access frequency), and over Vishwanath + Ishii + Kalra.
• Claims 6 and 16 (all algorithms asymmetric) are obvious over Vishwanath as understood by a POSITA.

Confidence and caveats. High confidence in the reference identities, their cited disclosures, and the §103 framework actually applied, because they are documented in the IPR2018-01331 papers, the IPR institution decision, and the §102/§103 reexamination findings that the Board affirmed. Lower confidence in the exact wording and numbering of dependent claims 2–8 and 10–18 (see the flagged contradiction with the previous section) — the PTAB record places "each algorithm asymmetric" at claim 6 and "frequency of access" at claim 14, which conflicts with the Justia-based mapping given earlier. I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

Sources cited

• Google Patents, US8867610B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8867610/en (authoritative full text/abstract/continuity).
• PTAB, Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01331, Institution Decision (Jan. 31, 2019) — https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IPR2018-01331_DocketEntry_01-31-2019_9.pdf.
• Petitioner's Reply, IPR2018-01331 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01331/…Reply-23-Petitioners_Reply_to_Patent_Owners_Response_to_Petition.pdf.
• DISHIPR petition, related '442 proceedings (Vishwanath/Ishii/Kalra mapping) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1529124](/patent/1529124)/….
• Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Fed. Cir. (Mar. 16, 2021) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4864405](/patent/4864405)/sling-tv-llc-v-realtime-adaptive-streaming/.
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Fed. Cir. No. 23-1035 (reexamination §102/§103 discussion; Board affirmance) — https://tmsnrt.rs/48t3piC.
• D. Colo., Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., No. 1:17-cv-02097, Doc. 305 (July 31, 2021) (claim 1 verbatim; reexam rejection summary) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Colorado_District_Court/1--17-cv-02097/…/docs/305.pdf.
• Adobe/Netflix institution decisions and IPR2019-01586 (Imai/Ishii/Couwenhoven) — https://klarquist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Adobe-v-Realtime-Inst-Dec.pdf; https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PTAB-IPR2019-01586-7.pdf; https://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Netflix-00209.pdf.
• Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, No. 2018-1154, 2019 WL 149835 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2019) (motivation to combine), quoted in Netflix petition materials.