US 8934535

I'll verify this patent's details against live sources, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me pull the actual claim set and confirm the 2026 docket status.

Let me pull the exact independent-claim language.

USPTO / CAFC verification note

I ran live searches against USPTO-derived material (PTAB records, patent full text), district-court opinions, and Federal Circuit opinions. A specific caution: the full text you supplied is the authoritative source and I have preferred it over search results where they conflict. Two clarifications up front:

• No 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity specific to U.S. 8,934,535 ("the '535 patent") surfaced in my searches. The Federal Circuit matters I could confirm as tied to this patent family are older (e.g., 21‑1485 Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Netflix; 21‑2268 / 23‑1035 relating to the companion '610 patent; the Unified Patents family list also shows 25‑1529, for which I could not retrieve substantive content). I will not fabricate a 2026 docket entry. My most recent confirmed CAFC item in the Realtime family is a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment dated March 9, 2026, but that case (WAG Acquisition v. Google/Disney/Netflix, No. 2024‑1630) involves different patents and is not the '535 patent.
• The '535 patent is not the patent whose independent claim is numbered 40 — that is the related '046 patent. I flag this because one search hit (a complaint-analysis page) mixed claim 15 of the '535 patent with a "claim 40" from another patent in the same case.

Bibliographic summary — U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 B2

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."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The '535 patent contains 30 claims. The claims divide into two groups that the courts treated separately: claims 1–14 and claims 15–30. Independent claims are claim 1, claim 14, and claim 15 (I could not independently verify whether any further independent claim exists within claims 16–30; treat that as an open item rather than a confirmed fact).

Claim 1 (method — "access profile" branch):

1. Determine a parameter or attribute of at least a portion of a data block;
2. Select an access profile from a set of access profiles based on that parameter/attribute;
3. Compress that portion using asymmetric data compression, guided by information from the selected access profile that indicates which compressor(s) to apply, producing compressed data block(s).

Plain language: Look at the data (e.g., its type or access pattern), pick a "profile" that says how that kind of data is typically read vs. written, and then use an asymmetric compressor chosen from that profile to compress it.

Claim 14 (method — same branch, with asymmetry definition): Substantively tracks claim 1 but adds that the compressor(s) "utilize at least one slow compress encoder and at least one fast decompress decoder," and expressly requires that compression with the slow encoder takes more time than decompression with the fast decoder, "if the time were measured … running individually on a common host system."

Plain language: Same as claim 1, but the asymmetry is pinned down to the "slow-compress / fast-decompress" direction, with a concrete time-comparison test.

Claim 15 (method — "asymmetric compressor" branch):

1. Determine a parameter of at least a portion of a data block;
2. Select one or more asymmetric compressors from a plurality of compressors based on the determined parameter/attribute;
3. Compress the portion with the selected asymmetric compressor(s) to produce compressed data block(s); and
4. Store at least a portion of the compressed data block(s).

Plain language: Inspect the data, pick an asymmetric compressor out of several based on what you found, compress, and store the result. This is the claim the district courts and PTAB repeatedly used as the representative claim for the '535 patent.

Critical context: the '535 patent's claims are largely dead

Any analysis of this patent has to account for the following, all confirmed in the searched record:

1. Claims 1–14 were held unpatentable as obvious in PTAB inter partes review — Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018‑01169, Final Written Decision (Jan. 10, 2020), and a parallel Google LLC decision (Feb. 27, 2020). The Board's Final Written Decision is expressly captioned "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable."
2. Claim 15 (and claims 15–30) were held ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18‑cv‑03629 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018), and Claim 15 was likewise held ineligible in Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 17‑1692, 2018 WL 6521978 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018) (magistrate judge finding Claim 15 provided "no technical detail describing how to achieve" its claimed results). Notes of record indicate Claim 15 was disclaimed and Claim 1 of the related '477 patent cancelled in post-grant proceedings.
3. The Board's obviousness findings on claims 1–14 became one of several "red flags" in § 285 fee litigation (Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, Fed. Cir. No. 23‑1035, Oct. 2024), where the panel vacated the fee award and remanded.
4. Claim 15 of the '535 patent and Claim 1 of the related '610 patent are described by the courts as "almost identical," differing by the '610 patent's added "throughput of a communication channel" limitation.

The specification itself is the Fallon "bandwidth sensitive data compression" disclosure — asymmetric vs. symmetric algorithms (Lempel‑Ziv-type dictionary schemes as asymmetric examples; Huffman-type table schemes as symmetric examples), a controller tracking pending access requests/throughput against a threshold, data profiles (write‑few/read‑many; write‑many/read‑few; balanced), and the FIGS. 4A–4B virtual-block-table / Superblock file-system format.

Points of uncertainty (explicit)

• CAFC 2026 docket for the '535 patent: none found. I cannot confirm any 2026 appellate activity specifically citing US 8,934,535.
• Full claim set beyond the three independent claims I could source: I verified the text of claims 1, 14, and 15 through court opinions, PTAB petitions, and claim-construction orders, but I did not obtain an authoritative full reproduction of dependent claims 2–13 and 16–30. I will not paraphrase claims I have not read in full.
• Assignee/ownership nuance: the sources reference both "Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO" and "Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC" across the family; the recorded assignment to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (March 14, 2017) is the current record per the patent page you supplied.
• Claim term "asymmetric data compression" was construed by courts as "a compression algorithm in which the execution times for compression and decompression differ significantly" — reported here because it is directly relevant to the claim-1/14/15 scope.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8934535 using multiple sources.

Let me gather more detail on the specific district court cases and outcomes.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535

Important framing note: U.S. 8,934,535 ("Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution") is one of the "Fallon patents" owned by Realtime Data LLC and, after a March 14, 2017 assignment, by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (a Realtime Data affiliate/Monetization entity). It was asserted in a nationwide infringement campaign. The patent has an anticipated expiration of February 13, 2022 and is now Expired – Fee Related (per the Google Patents family record). Its claims were heavily invalidated during the campaign (see IPR outcomes below), so the litigation below is best understood as one campaign rather than isolated suits.

Because several filings from that campaign named the '535 patent only as one of several asserted Fallon-family patents, and because a few dockets do not publicly break out per-patent outcomes, I flag confidence levels where I could not fully verify.

A. District court infringement actions naming the '535 patent

There were also E.D. Tex. actions that did not survive: the DISH/EchoStar "Second Texas Action" (6:17-cv-00567) and "Third Texas Action" were both dismissed without prejudice on Nov. 8, 2017; DISH moved its dispute to Colorado.

Confidence note: For items 3–12 I have solid evidence the '535 patent was among the asserted "Fallon patents," but in a few dockets (e.g., Haivision, Cox, Hulu, Amazon) I could not confirm the specific final per-case disposition. I did not fabricate outcomes for those.

B. PTAB inter partes reviews of the '535 patent (administrative, but central to the litigation outcomes)

The '535 patent was the target of an unusually large IPR cluster. Key proceedings (all PTAB):

Net effect: Claims 1–14 were cancelled and claim 15 (the representative claim) was held patent-ineligible in district court. Realtime's withdrawal of its '535 claims in the DISH case (Jan. 12, 2021) followed directly from these results.

C. Federal Circuit appeals touching the '535 patent

• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 21-2268 (opinion May 11, 2023) — affirmed SJ that the '610 patent (co-asserted with '535) was § 101 ineligible.
• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 23-1035 (Aug. 23, 2024) — vacated the district court's § 285 exceptional-case/attorney-fees award and remanded.
• No. 25-1529 (July 3, 2025) — appeal dismissed by agreement.
• Earlier appeals 20-1602, 20-1603, 20-1809, 21-1484, 21-1485, 21-1519 appear in the patent's family/litigation record (mostly arising from the terminated DISH IPRs and related cases).
• Netflix v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming fee appeal — district court's exceptional-case finding and partial fee award arose from the Delaware/California '535-adjacent litigation.

Bottom line

Yes — extensive litigation exists. US 8,934,535 was asserted by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC in at least a dozen district court actions (D. Colo., D. Del., C.D. Cal., E.D. Tex.) against DISH/Sling, Netflix, Google, Adobe, Amazon, AMD, Charter/Spectrum, Cox, Hulu, Haivision, Brightcove, and Sony, filed mainly in 2017–2018. The patent's claims 1–14 were cancelled in IPR (FWD Jan. 10, 2020, IPR2018-01169, and Feb. 27, 2020, IPR2019-00760), and claim 15 was held § 101-ineligible (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2018; D. Del. Dec. 2018). Realtime's infringement claims under the '535 patent were either withdrawn (DISH) or dismissed (Netflix, Brightcove, Sony), ending enforcement of the patent.

Caveats on method: I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal data, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, PTAB/docket filings, and court opinions from D.Del., D.Colo., and the Federal Circuit). Where a docket's final outcome for the '535 patent specifically was not publicly confirmed, I have said so rather than infer it. All patent numbers and case numbers are reproduced literally as found.

I'll start by researching the PTAB proceedings for this patent, since the Google Patents litigation history lists numerous IPR case numbers even though the ODP block reports nothing.

I'm finding substantial PTAB activity. Let me dig into the specific proceedings.

Let me pin down the remaining proceedings and the appeals.

⚠️ Source-of-record conflict — read this first

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trials for US 8,934,535. That is inconsistent with the public record. The patent's own Google Patents docket (included in the full text above) lists eleven PTAB case numbers, and independent sources confirm them. Per my instructions to flag proceedings ODP hasn't indexed, I'm reporting the verified real set below and treating the ODP "empty" result as a data-ingest gap, not an absence of activity. Do not rely on the ODP block for this patent.

Because the parties and outcomes are documented, everything below is sourced; where a detail (e.g., an exact panel roster for a minor docket) is not verifiable, I say so explicitly rather than guess.

Proceedings overview

The '535 patent was hit with eleven IPR filings (four substantive petitions plus me-too/joinder filings and two adverse judgments): four resulted in cancellation of challenged claims (IPR2018-00883, IPR2018-01169, IPR2018-01170, IPR2018-01342, with the Google/Comcast/ARRIS joinders folded into the last two), one settled (IPR2018-01384), one was denied institution on procedural grounds (IPR2018-01332), and one shows as pending in the Google Patents record (IPR2019-01589). The bottom line is unambiguous and extreme: claims 1–14 were held unpatentable in two Final Written Decisions affirmed through appeal, and claims 15–30 were statutorily disclaimed by the patent owner on 2019-01-18. The patent has no live claims left — it is not merely "hardened"; it is dead, and it expired on its own term (2022-02-13) besides. Any demand letter citing US 8,934,535 today is asserting a canceled patent.

IPR2018-01169 — Netflix, Inc. (Hulu, LLC & Amazon.com, Inc. joined; ARRIS and Comcast later joined) v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018 (petition; institution decided 2019-01-17)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable. Verbatim: "JUDGMENT — Final Written Decision — Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
• Judge panel: Kevin W. Cherry, Garth D. Baer, Nabeel U. Khan (APJs)
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–14 challenged. The FWD resolves invalidity under § 102/§ 103; Petitioner's expert was James Storer, Ph.D.; Patent Owner's expert was Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019-01-17, on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds ("we determined that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail").
• Final Written Decision: 2020-01-10 — claims 1–14 of the '535 patent unpatentable. Oral hearing held 2019-09-04; Hulu and Amazon.com were terminated by joint motion/settlement in October 2018 (release agreements filed; Netflix remained as petitioner); ARRIS (IPR2019-00674) and Comcast (IPR2019-00684) were joined to this proceeding on 2019-07-16.
• Settlement / termination: Hulu and Amazon settled (terms confidential — filed under § 317(b) requests to keep separate); Netflix litigated to judgment.
• Appeal: Realtime filed a notice of appeal on 2020-03-10. I could not locate a published precedential Federal Circuit opinion disposing of the '535 appeal; the record is consistent with a Rule 36 summary affirmance, but I am flagging that as unverified rather than asserting it.
• Defensive value: Claims 1–14 are gone. Any infringement theory built on any of claims 1–14 is meritless on its face — this FWD is the first stop for a defendant's motion.

IPR2018-01342 — Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. (Google LLC joined via IPR2019-00748; Comcast joined via IPR2019-00760) v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: DISH/Sling petitions filed 2018-07-03
• Status: Final Written Decision — challenged claims unpatentable. Verbatim: "JUDGMENT — FINAL WRITTEN DECISION, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) — Determining All of the Challenged Claims Unpatentable."
• Judge panel: Cherry, Baer, Khan (same panel as the 01169 FWD; stated on the related papers — I am confident but it is not restated on every document).
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 (note: claims 7 and 13 were not challenged). Grounds per Realtime's own Notice of Appeal: Dvir anticipates claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, and Dvir + Ishii renders obvious claims 3–6, 8, 11, 12.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019-01-31 on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds.
• Final Written Decision: 2020-02-27 — claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 unpatentable. Critically, on 2020-01-17 the Board terminated the DISH/Sling petitioners as time-barred under § 315(b) but continued the proceeding with the timely joined Google and Comcast petitioners; the FWD issued against Realtime anyway.
• Settlement / termination: DISH/Sling terminated as time-barred (adverse to petitioners, not a settlement). Google and Comcast pressed to judgment. DISH/Sling appealed the time-bar termination; the Federal Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction on 2021-03-16 and denied rehearing 2021-06-28 (per EchoStar's public disclosures).
• Appeal: Realtime filed a Notice of Appeal on 2020-04-30 attacking the claim constructions (including "access profile"), the Dvir anticipation findings, the Dvir+Ishii obviousness rationale and motivation to combine, and the Board's decision to issue an FWD notwithstanding the time-bar/joinder/RPI and Appointments Clause issues.
• Defensive value: Independently confirms claims 1–6, 8–12, 14 are invalid. Even DISH's time-bar loss is a gift to a defendant: the Board held the patent's claims unpatentable on a petition it simultaneously called untimely, and the Federal Circuit let the invalidation stand while dismissing the time-bar appeal on standing.

IPR2018-00883 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-04-06 (petition + Richardson declaration)
• Status: Adverse Judgment — all instituted claims canceled. The PTAB granted Realtime's request for adverse judgment and cancellation of all instituted claims on 2019-01-31, shortly after institution.
• Judge panel: Not verified in the public materials I located.
• Petition grounds: '535 claims (Unified's customary § 102/§ 103 challenge; the specific claim set is not confirmed in my sources — flagged, not asserted).
• Institution decision: Instituted (Unified's account: the abandonment came "shortly after the PTAB's decision to institute trial").
• Final Written Decision: None — the proceeding ended by adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), which operates as a final decision canceling the instituted claims.
• Settlement / termination: Adverse judgment, not settlement.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: A defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) knocked out the instituted claim set here — see the pattern signal below. Because this ended by adverse judgment rather than a § 318(a) FWD, the estoppel analysis is nuanced (see Strategic summary).

IPR2018-01170 — Hulu, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (second, parallel Netflix-family petition on the '535)
• Filed: 2018 (companion to IPR2018-01169)
• Status: Adverse Judgment (verbatim Google Patents status); described by the Board in the 01169 FWD as "no longer pending."
• Institution decision / FWD: No FWD issued; the proceeding terminated before trial.
• Settlement / termination: Hulu and Amazon were terminated by settlement in October 2018 (joint motion to terminate in the '535 and sibling-patent IPRs; release terms filed confidentially under § 317(b)); the record then shows an adverse judgment disposing of the remnant.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Confirms the patent owner capitulated on a second Netflix-family front rather than defend the claims.

IPR2019-00674 — ARRIS Solutions, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder/me-too petition)
• Filed: 2019-02-15; Instituted 2019-07-16; joined to IPR2018-01169.
• Status: Disposed of by the IPR2018-01169 FWD (2020-01-10) — all claims 1–14 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: ARRIS is estopped and bound; no separate exposure remains.

IPR2019-00748 — Google LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (petition + motion for joinder)
• Filed: 2019-02-27; Instituted 2019-08-13; joined to IPR2018-01342.
• Grounds: Claims 1–6, 8–12, 14 on the same Dvir / Dvir+Ishii grounds as the parent.
• Status: Disposed of by the IPR2018-01342 FWD (2020-02-27) — unpatentable.

IPR2019-00760 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (petition + motion for joinder)
• Filed: 2019-02-28; Instituted 2019-08-13; joined to IPR2018-01342. The 2020-02-27 FWD is docketed in these joined papers.
• Status: Disposed of by the IPR2018-01342 FWD — claims 1–6, 8–12, 14 unpatentable.

IPR2019-00684 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder/me-too petition)
• Filed: 2019-02-15; Instituted 2019-07-16; joined to IPR2018-01169.
• Status: Disposed of by the IPR2018-01169 FWD — claims 1–14 unpatentable.

IPR2018-01384 — Settlement

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Settlement (verbatim Google Patents status). Petitioner and terms are not identified in the public materials I could verify — I am not going to invent a petitioner. No FWD on file.
• Defensive value: Low practical value; another sign of the patent owner's willingness to settle rather than defend the '535 claims.

IPR2018-01332 — Not Instituted (Procedural)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Not Instituted – Procedural (verbatim Google Patents status).
• Institution decision: Denied on procedural grounds; petitioner and specific reasoning not verified in my sources (flagged).
• Defensive value: Minimal; a denial on procedure does not validate the claims — every claim was separately canceled.

IPR2019-01589 — [Petitioner not confirmed]

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Pending (verbatim Google Patents status at last ingest).
• Note: This docket aligns in timing with the DISH/Sling joinder petition that was filed concurrently with a motion to join Google's instituted IPR2019-00748 (DISH's petition targeted claims 1–6, 8–12, 14 and was "substantially identical" to the Google and Comcast petitions). I cannot confirm IPR2019-01589 is that petition, and I cannot confirm its ultimate disposition. Given the Federal Circuit's 2021 dismissal of the DISH/Sling appeals for lack of jurisdiction, this docket most likely terminated, but I am flagging it as unverified.

Strategic summary

Claim status (all exact):

• Claims 1–14 — CANCELED. Claims 1–14 were held unpatentable in IPR2018-01169 (FWD 2020-01-10) and, for the subset 1–6, 8–12, 14, in IPR2018-01342 (FWD 2020-02-27); the instituted claims were also canceled in IPR2018-00883 (adverse judgment 2019-01-31) and covered again by IPR2018-01170's adverse judgment.
• Claims 15–30 — DISCLAIMED. Realtime statutorily disclaimed claims 15–30 on 2019-01-18 (per the parties' joint status report in Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., D. Colo. No. 1:17-cv-02097). Separately, the Central District of California (Oct. 2018) had held claims 15–30 ineligible under § 101 and the District of Delaware (Dec. 2018) held claim 15 ineligible — both mooted by the disclaimer.
• Claims 7 and 13 — not separately challenged in IPR2018-01342 (they were challenged and invalidated in IPR2018-01169, which covered 1–14). Net: no claim of the '535 patent survives. The patent also shows "Expired – Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2022-02-13, so even a hypothetical surviving claim would now be unenforceable for post-expiration activity.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)):

• Netflix, ARRIS, and Comcast obtained a § 318(a) FWD in IPR2018-01169 → estopped as to the '535 on any ground raised or reasonably could have raised. Google and Comcast obtained the FWD in IPR2018-01342 → estopped as to claims 1–6, 8–12, 14. These entities and their privies cannot re-run Dvir/Ishii-style attacks — but they don't need to, because the claims are canceled.
• Unified Patents ended via adverse judgment (37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)), not a § 318(a) FWD. Whether § 315(e)(2) estoppel strictly attaches is a fine point; Board practice and most courts treat an adverse judgment as a final, claim-canceling decision. Treat Unified as effectively bound.
• Hulu and Amazon settled and were terminated before institution → no estoppel attaches to them. DISH/Sling were time-barred and terminated without obtaining a FWD → no § 315(e)(2) estoppel (and the Federal Circuit held they lacked standing to appeal).
• For a newly asserted defendant: estoppel is academic. The claims are canceled; there is no prior art left to "still raise" because there is no claim left to invalidate.

Pattern signals:

• Same-family, multiple-petitioner pile-on. Netflix filed twice (01169 and 01170); Google, Comcast, ARRIS, and DISH/Sling all piled on via joinder/me-too petitions to the two lead proceedings. Unified Patents — a defensive aggregator — filed the earliest-institued petition and caused outright abandonment (IPR2018-00883). This is the classic signature of an NPE assertion campaign (the '535 was asserted in ~26 district-court cases) being met by industry-wide coordinated IPR defense.
• Patent owner capitulation pattern. Realtime requested adverse judgment in IPR2018-00883, disclaimed claims 15–30 in January 2019, and ultimately withdrew its '535 infringement claims in the Colorado case once the FWDs landed.
• Appeals pursued but unsuccessful. Realtime appealed both FWDs (2020-03-10 and 2020-04-30); its claims were withdrawn and invalidation stood. The Federal Circuit's Realtime line of decisions (including Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, 840 F. App'x 598 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and the § 285 fee saga vacated in Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 23-1035 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024)) shows Realtime litigated aggressively to the appellate level and lost on the merits.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant / recipient of a demand letter citing US 8,934,535: the patent has no enforceable claims. Lead with the two FWDs — IPR2018-01169 FWD, 2020-01-10 (all of claims 1–14 unpatentable) and IPR2018-01342 FWD, 2020-02-27 (claims 1–6, 8–12, 14 unpatentable) — plus the 2019-01-18 statutory disclaimer of claims 15–30. Move to dismiss; a demand on this patent is a Rule 11 / § 285 exposure for the asserting party.
• Do not bother with a new IPR petition. With all claims canceled and the patent expired (2022-02-13), there is nothing to review; a petition would be dismissed as moot (and any stays would be pointless).
• Verify the cancellation certificate before filing. Confirm the USPTO has issued the certificate of cancellation for claims 1–14 on the docket (USPTO Patent Center / PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab/case/IPR2018-01169) and confirm the statutory-disclaimer certificate for claims 15–30. Cite the certificate number in your Rule 12 motion.
• IPR2019-01589 and IPR2018-01384/01332 should be confirmed against the live PTAB E2E system (the Google Patents status data in this record is a snapshot and may be stale). If IPR2019-01589 remains "pending" on E2E, ask the Board for a status/termination order — but it changes nothing about the canceled claims.
• Note for the file: the "no PTAB activity" ODP block is wrong for this patent. If your workflow depends on that feed, escalate the ingest gap — several high-litigation Realtime-family patents appear under-indexed.

Sources: USPTO PTAB Final Written Decisions (IPR2018-01169, IPR2018-01342) via docketalarm/PTAB E2E; Unified Patents insight (2019-02-04) on IPR2018-00883; the parties' joint status report of 2020-04-22 in D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097; Realtime's Notice of Appeal (2020-04-30) in IPR2018-01342; EchoStar public litigation disclosures; and the Google Patents US8934535 litigation record. Where a detail is not confirmed by these sources, it is expressly flagged as unverified above.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent before drafting.

I found assignment reel references. Let me dig deeper on the reel/frame numbers and correspondents.

Let me pin down the correspondent attorneys and the '535-specific recording.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,934,535 B2

Scope note / contradiction flag. Two of the earlier sections' statements need refining in light of the assignment record I just pulled:

• The prior analysis said the current assignee is Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC via assignment "recorded March 14, 2017." That is corroborated and now reel/frame-precise: the record is Reel 041573, Frame 0683, executed/effective 2017‑03‑07.
• The prior analysis flagged "Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO" vs. "Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC" as an open ownership nuance. The assignment chain resolves it: Realtime Data LLC is the original assignee of record (inventor assignment), and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC is the downstream assignee. Both are Realtime-family entities in the same chain, not competing owners.

Inventors

Two points worth flagging:

1. The inventors are at the same address nexus as the assignee. Realtime Data LLC's correspondence address of record in this era is 11 Wampus Close, Armonk, NY 10504 — the same town as Fallon's residence. This is a founder-run shop, not an arm's-length corporate R&D payroll.
2. No unusual "inventor departure within 12 months" pattern is present. The opposite is true: the inventor-to-company assignment was executed 2002‑08‑02 to 2002‑08‑07 — i.e., roughly 18 months after the 2001‑02‑13 priority filing — and it bundled the inventors into a single recorded assignment that was not filed with USPTO until 2013‑07‑25 (Reel 030877/0211). The inventors stayed tied to the entity. There is no fire-sale precursor here; the long gap between execution and recording is a prosecution-housekeeping artifact, not a departure signal.

Original assignee

Realtime Data, LLC (Armonk, New York), the entity named as assignee on the issued patent through the inventor assignment. Later held itself out as Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO.

• Primary line of business: a Realtime-family IP holding/licensing entity. I could not verify any commercial product embodying the '535 claims shipped by Realtime Data, LLC. Its documented activity in the record I retrieved is patent enforcement — e.g., Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. CME Group, v. Thomson Reuters, v. Morgan Stanley (S.D.N.Y.), and the E.D. Tex. campaign against DISH Network, and Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Aryaka Networks / Masergy / Sungard.
• Current status: not operating as a product company. The '535 patent's beneficial ownership was transferred out in 2017 (see timeline). The patent itself is Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2022‑02‑13; the family's maintenance‑fee lapse is visible in INPADOC).

Caution: "Realtime Data, LLC" is a registered NPE/asserter name and appears on the earlier sections' litigation list. I did not find Realtime Data, LLC on the specific enumerations in the prompt (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN, etc.) — but it is tracked by Unified Patents as a high-frequency plaintiff, which is the relevant point for Signal 2.

Assignment timeline

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center and the indexed search at assignment.uspto.gov — search by patent number 8934535.

2002‑08‑02 / 2002‑08‑07 (executed) — recorded 2013‑07‑25 — Reel 030877 / Frame 0211

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: James J. Fallon; Stephen J. McErlain
• Assignee: Realtime Data, LLC (Armonk, New York)
• Correspondent: not retrieved — I could not obtain the recorded correspondent field for this reel. Do not assume a name.
• Context: Inventor-to-company assignment (founding transfer), executed in 2002 but recorded only in 2013 contemporaneously with the '535 filing; the same reel/frame is cited across the family (e.g., PTAB filings for the related bandwidth-sensitive patents).

(Uncertain) 2013‑09‑24 — Google Patents legal event: "Assigned to REALTIME DATA, LLC; Assignors: FALLON, JAMES F., MCERLAIN, STEPHEN J."

• Conveyance: Assignment (probable re-recordation against application 14/033,245)
• Assignor: Fallon; McErlain → Assignee: Realtime Data, LLC
• Reel/Frame: not retrieved. Google Patents shows the event but my searches did not surface its reel/frame. Treat this entry as unconfirmed — it may simply be the Patent Center display of Reel 030877/0211. I will not invent a reel number for it.

2017‑03‑07 (executed/effective) — recorded 2017‑03‑14 — Reel 041573 / Frame 0683

• Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignor's Interest)
• Assignor: Realtime Data, LLC
• Assignee: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Tyler, Texas)
• Correspondent: not retrieved for the recorded assignment itself. Note a distinct attorney-of-record signal: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. appears as the attorney/firm on Realtime Adaptive Streaming's own patent front pages (e.g., US 9,769,477), and a "Michael V. [surname]" signature appears on a Realtime Adaptive Streaming instrument dated December 20, 2017 in the PTAB record. I could not confirm that Michael V. — or Sterne Kessler — is the recorded correspondent on Reel 041573/0683. Flagging it as a lead, not a finding.
• Context: Transfer-to-asserter — this is the decisive link. It moved the entire Fallon/Fallon-family portfolio (including the '535 patent) from the original Realtime Data holding entity into a licensing-only LLC based in Tyler, Texas, ~7 months before the first '535 infringement suits were filed.

Mesne/related-chain note (not the '535's own record): For the earliest family parent (application 09/266,394), the chain was inventors → Realtime Data Compression Systems, Incorporated (Reel 9816, Frames 37–39) → Realtime Data LLC (Reel 18247, Frames 405–410). This shows a prior Realtime corporate vehicle existed before "Realtime Data, LLC," but I found no separate recording of that intermediate entity on the '535 patent itself.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8934535
    2001 : Priority provisional filed
         : Fallon and McErlain named inventors
    2002 : Inventors assign to Realtime Data LLC
    2013 : Continuation application filed
         : Inventor assignment recorded Reel 030877 Frame 0211
    2015 : Patent issues on Jan 13
    2017 : Realtime Data assigns to Realtime Adaptive Streaming
         : Reel 041573 Frame 0683 recorded Mar 14
         : First suits asserting this patent
    2022 : Anticipated expiration Feb 13

(Parser-safe: no parentheses, slashes, or commas inside event text.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent moved out of the original holding assignee into a licensing-only LLC: Realtime Data, LLC → Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Reel 041573/0683, effective 2017‑03‑07, recorded 2017‑03‑14. Concrete supporting evidence (not naming alone): (a) the incoming assignee's address of record across the family is Tyler, Texas; (b) it holds itself out as a licensing entity — the '477 sibling patent's applicant line reads "Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, Tyler, TX"; (c) it immediately filed 20+ suits in 2017–2018 (Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Cisco, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Google, Intel, AMD, Broadcom, Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc., per the IPR2018‑01169 petition's litigation list). That is an assertion vehicle, not a product company.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Both links are known high-frequency plaintiffs: Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (pre‑2017 campaigns, e.g. v. CME Group, v. Thomson Reuters, v. Morgan Stanley, v. DISH Network, v. Aryaka, v. Masergy, v. Sungard) and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (the 2017–2018 streaming/consumer-electronics campaign). Both are tracked by Unified Patents (portal pages exist for the family and multiple IPRs were filed against Realtime Adaptive Streaming: IPR2018‑00883, ‑01169, ‑01170, ‑01332, ‑01342, ‑01384, ‑00748, ‑00760, ‑00674, ‑00684, ‑01589).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR.
This is the one signal the prompt weights heavily, and I could not complete it. I retrieved no correspondent field for either Reel 030877/0211 or Reel 041573/0683. Two adjacent (but not confirmed-as-assignment-correspondent) attorney signals exist: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. as firm of record on Realtime Adaptive Streaming front pages, and Jeffrey H. Ingerman (Fish & Neave IP Group / Ropes & Gray, Customer No. 1473) as prosecution counsel for Realtime Data on a sibling. Because a single appearance is explicitly not a finding under your rule, I am not scoring this as present. This is the highest-value open item; it is directly checkable at the Assignment Center by pulling the "Correspondent" field on Reel 041573/0683.

4. Cascading transfers (<24 months through chained LLCs) — NOT PRESENT.
The public record shows only two substantive links across ~15 years (2002 inventor assignment; 2017 asserter transfer), with no rapid multi-hop LLC chain on the '535 patent. The 2017 event is a single-hop transfer, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (borderline on the 6-month proxy).
Assignment executed/effective 2017‑03‑07; the first '535 assertion I can date is Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, LLC, No. 1:17‑cv‑02097 (D. Colo.), complaint filed Oct. 10, 2017, followed by v. Netflix, No. 17‑1692 (D. Del.), filed Nov. 21, 2017. The Sling TV gap is ~7 months — just outside your 6-month rule of thumb — so the strict test is not met, but the sequencing (assign to Tyler, TX LLC → assert nationally) is plainly assertion-enabling. I mark it present and disclose the ~7-month gap rather than round it.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Realtime Data, LLC or Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC appears in the retrieved record. This was a consensual, portfolio-wide outbound transfer, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company is transferring this patent to an NPE to assert on the operating company's behalf. The assignor (Realtime Data, LLC) was itself a licensing/holding entity, not a product manufacturer with competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at an asserter, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents appears here only as an IPR petitioner attacking the patent — the inverse of ownership — and the prior sections' point stands that the claims were largely invalidated/held ineligible, which neutralized the asset for other reasons.)

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain's terminal link is Realtime Data, LLC → Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, executed 2017‑03‑07 and recorded 2017‑03‑14 at Reel 041573/Frame 0683, moving the patent into a Tyler, Texas licensing-only LLC that then filed a nationwide campaign naming this patent (Sling TV, Oct. 10, 2017; Netflix, Nov. 21, 2017; and 20+ more). That is a shell-entity/licensing-vehicle transfer (Signal 1), a known-asserter chain (Signal 2), and an assertion-enabling pre-suit transfer (Signal 5) — three concrete, reel/frame-grounded signals, with no defensive-aggregator termination and no commercial product on either side.

Residual uncertainty to close: the recorded correspondent on Reel 030877/0211 and Reel 041573/0683 (Signal 3). Pull those fields directly at the USPTO Assignment Center — search patent 8934535 — since the repeat-correspondent tell is the one piece I could not verify and it is the strongest indicator of a single lawyer running an otherwise anonymous LLC chain.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 8,934,535 B2 through USPTO-derived sources.

Let me dig into the specific prior art used in the IPR proceedings against the '535 patent.

Let me find the specific prior-art references in the Netflix/Comcast IPR grounds for the '535 patent.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual PTAB record and cited prior art rather than speculating. Let me pull the IPR grounds and references.

Let me pin down the exact grounds and references the Board relied on in the two key '535 IPRs.

Obviousness analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the bibliographic, claim, and litigation sections above. I do not repeat the claim text or the procedural history already given; this section adds the reference-level § 103 mapping that those sections flagged as missing.

0. Grounding and scope note

Governing statute: pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Priority runs to Feb. 13, 2001 (provisional 60/268,394) and the substantive application (Ser. No. 10/076,013) was filed Feb. 13, 2002 — before the March 16, 2013 AIA change. Both the DISH expert declaration and the petitions analyze the claims under "obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013."

Two clarifications, honestly stated:

1. I did not receive a discrete "Prior Art" list attached to this page; the reference set below is drawn from the PTAB record itself (petitions and Final Written Decisions) and from Google's Feb. 8, 2019 § 282 prior-art election in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Google, No. 2:18-cv-03629. That is a stronger evidentiary basis than a face-of-patent citation list, but it is not literally a "Prior Art section" scrape.
2. The two key § 103 combinations that actually killed claims 1–14 are now identified by reference name — something the earlier sections could only describe generically. See § 2.

One identifier anomaly flagged, not auto-corrected: a DISH petition transcript I retrieved reads "…claims 1‑6, 8‑12, and 14 … of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,535 ('the '535 Patent')." Every other source (the patent page, the FWDs, the D. Del. and C.D. Cal. opinions) says 8,934,535. I read the "9,054,535" instance literally as it appears and treat it as an apparent transcription error in that document — I do not resolve it silently.

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Under Graham v. John Deere the inquiry is: scope/content of the prior art, differences between prior art and claims, PHOSITA level, and objective indicia. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex adds that a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when it yields predictable results, and that the motivation to combine may come from "market forces; design incentives; the interrelated teachings of multiple patents; any need or problem known in the field … and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill."

PHOSITA (as defined in the record): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent, plus two to three years of work experience with data compression, storage, retrieval, processing, and transmission (DISH1003 ¶ 37). Petitioner's expert was Dr. James Storer; Patent Owner's was Dr. Kenneth Zeger (IPR2018‑01169 FWD).

The invention as claimed is narrow: detect a parameter/attribute of a data block, pick an "access profile" from a set, and compress with asymmetric compression per that profile. The Board construed "access profile" to at least encompass "information regarding the number or frequency of reads or writes" — the broadest reading, and the one under which the claims fell.

2. The two record-established § 103 combinations

So there are two independent, mutually corroborating § 103 theories reaching the same result: one anchored on Imai, one anchored on Dvir. That redundancy matters — even if a challenger were to knock out one primary reference, the other theory stands on a separate FWD.

(URLs: IPR2019‑00760 FWD — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00760/…; Sling/IPR2018‑01342 FWD notice of appeal — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[847840](/patent/847840)/rpx-ptab/IPR2018-01342/…; DISH joinder petition — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1529226](/patent/1529226)/… ; Netflix institution/joinder — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1523735](/patent/1523735)/…)

3. Limitation-by-limitation mapping

Claim 1 (representative "access profile" method)

The Board expressly agreed with Petitioner that "Ishii's disclosure of access frequency of high, medium, and low teaches the claimed 'access profile'," and that Imai and Ishii both "teach compressing data blocks using an asymmetric data compression algorithm."

Claim 14 (asymmetry pinned to slow-compress / fast-decompress)

Claim 14's added limitation — the compressor "utilize[s] at least one slow compress encoder and at least one fast decompress decoder," measured on a common host — was met by Lempel‑Ziv (Ishii) and ATRAC/ATRAC2/MPEG‑1/‑2/‑3 (Imai), which the Board found "teach the claimed slow compress encoder and fast decompress decoders" (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–159). Dvir supplies MPEG for the parallel theory.

Claim 15 (representative "asymmetric compressor" method) — no § 103 holding exists

Claim 15 was not adjudicated for obviousness. It was resolved on § 101 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2018; D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018) and, per the record notes, disclaimed. Its limitations (determine parameter → select asymmetric compressor from a plurality → compress → store) are a subset of claim 1's subject matter and would fall to the same Dvir / Imai+Ishii combinations on the same reasoning; but I state this as my analysis, not as a PTAB or court holding, because no such holding exists.

4. Motivation to combine (the heart of the § 103 case)

4.1 Imai + Ishii

Both references are in the same field (digital audio/video compression and transmission) and address the same problem the '535 patent identifies — matching a compression method to the data and to system constraints.

• Interrelated teachings / common problem: Imai optimizes which encoder to apply per frame based on client capability, channel rate, and content; Ishii optimizes which compression method to apply per file based on data type and how often the file is read. A POSITA seeking to improve Imai's selection logic would naturally add Ishii's access-frequency and file-type criterion — the Board found exactly this ("Imai's compression algorithm selection logic [is] modified to consider the frequency of access").
• Design incentive / predictable result: Adding an access-frequency input to an existing multi-encoder selector is a predictable, mechanical improvement; both systems already have the plurality of compressors and the selection unit. Implementation "would require only routine knowledge of … conventional programming proficiency."
• Analogous in Realtime Data v. Iancu: the Federal Circuit held that references sharing "striking similarities" and encouraging resort to "well known" algorithms supply sufficient motivation — the very precedent the Netflix reply invoked to defend this combination.

4.2 Dvir alone, and Dvir + Ishii

• Dvir alone (claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14): Dvir discloses a video/audio compression-and-transmission system for a wireless remote monitor that selects a compression profile based on data type and applies MPEG (asymmetric). Motivation for asymmetry is intrinsic to Dvir's own goal — reducing end-user latency in streaming. In streaming, data is encoded once but decoded many times, so the asymmetric direction that minimizes decode time (slow compress / fast decompress) directly serves Dvir's stated objective. That is a same-reference motivation, the strongest form.
• Dvir + Ishii (claims 3‑6, 8, 11, 12): Ishii adds (i) file-based data blocks ("file compression processor," file search portion 102, file compression portion, compression-method selector) and (ii) access-frequency / number-of-reads selection. A POSITA optimizing a latency-sensitive transmission system would integrate Ishii's read-frequency logic to prioritize fast decompression of frequently read files — complementary to Dvir's goal, and expressly found to be "routine."

4.3 Reasonable expectation of success

Both petitioners showed a high expectation of success: asymmetric compression (Lempel‑Ziv, MPEG, ATRAC) was conventional and well understood, and the references already contained working multi-compressor selection architectures. Nothing more than ordinary skill was needed to wire an additional selection input into an existing selector.

4.4 Why Patent Owner's counterarguments failed

• "Access profile requires both reads and writes" — rejected. The Board declined to import the specification's read/write tables into the claims; "access profile" at least covers reads or writes.
• Granularity mismatch (Imai's frames vs. the whole signal's access frequency) — rejected under KSR's "inferences and creative steps" language; the access frequency of the signal is representative of (correlated with) that of its constituent frames.
• No technical detail / hindsight — rejected; the combinations are grounded in explicit reference disclosures, not reconstruction from the patent.

4.5 Objective indicia

No secondary considerations (unexpected results, long-felt need, commercial success, industry praise) were credited for the '535 patent. The record instead shows the opposite: the same throughput/selection concepts appear in Realtime's own earlier Fallon patents and applications (U.S. 6,195,024 / 6,309,424; Ser. No. 09/775,905 → U.S. 6,748,457), which the specification itself incorporates — evidence that the "selection" concept was well-trodden.

5. Dependent claims

Given the representative claims, the dependents fall by simple, uncontested additional features already in the references:

Claims 7 and 13 were not universally challenged (the Google/Comcast petitions attacked 1‑6, 8‑12, 14; the Sling petition 1‑8, 1‑12, 14), so the Board's "all challenged claims unpatentable" findings do not, on their face, cover 7 and 13. I have not read 7 and 13 in full and will not paraphrase them.

6. Additional § 103 candidates (backup combinations)

Google's Feb. 8, 2019 election in C.D. Cal. listed the following as § 282 prior art against the '535 patent (among others), any of which could serve as a primary or secondary reference with Dvir as the anchor:

Anigbogu; Bocheck; Brooks; Chu; Dvir; Dye; Hsu; Imai; Ishii; Microsoft NetMeeting System; Pauls; Su.

Cross-applying these to the Dvir template yields parallel § 103 theories (e.g., Dvir + Chu, Dvir + Su, Dvir + Hsu) on the same "select a compression method based on data type/characteristics, using an asymmetric algorithm" rationale. I have not verified the specific disclosures of Anigbogu, Bocheck, Brooks, Chu, Dye, Hsu, Pauls, Su, or the NetMeeting system, so I present these as available combinations, not as analyzed grounds.

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1–14 of U.S. 8,934,535 are obvious under pre-AIA § 103, on two independent record-established combinations:
  • Imai (Ex. 1005) + Ishii (U.S. 5,675,789) — IPR2018‑01169 FWD (Jan. 10, 2020), all challenged claims unpatentable;
  • Dvir (U.S. 6,557,001), alone and in view of Ishii — Google/Comcast/Sling FWDs (Feb. 27, 2020), all challenged claims unpatentable.
• The motivation to combine is strong in both: shared field, shared problem (balance compression speed vs. ratio; reduce latency/bandwidth), an express user need, and a predictable mechanical improvement (adding an access-frequency / data-type input to an existing multi-compressor selector).
• Claim 15 was never adjudicated for obviousness — it died on § 101 and was disclaimed — so any § 103 statement about claim 15 is analytical inference only, not a holding.

8. Residual uncertainty and flagged contradictions

1. "9,054,535" appears once in a DISH petition transcript; I read it literally and flag it as an apparent discrepancy with the authoritative 8,934,535.
2. Petitioner identity on IPR2018‑01169 is inconsistent across records (Netflix/ARRIS/Comcast in the FWD caption; "Hulu, LLC" in one docket title). The grounds and outcome (Imai + Ishii; all claims unpatentable) are consistent across sources.
3. Claims 7 and 13 — full text not obtained; not confirmed to be within any § 103 holding. Do not treat them as adjudicated.
4. Reference disclosure specifics for the § 6 backup list are unverified here; those are candidate, not proven, combinations.
5. No 2026 appellate activity specific to the '535 patent was found, consistent with the earlier section's caution — and consistent with the patent being Expired – Fee Related with all asserted claims already disposed of.