Invalidity dossier

US 8955128

Systems and methods for selectively regulating network traffic

Current assignee: PACKETVIPER LLC

Added 9/23/2026, 9:33:17 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview: US8955128B1 — "Systems and methods for selectively regulating network traffic"

Bibliographic data (as supplied): Application US13/560,991; priority date 2011-07-27; filed 2012-07-27; granted/published 2015-02-10. Inventors: Francesco Trama and Daniel Gynn. Original assignee listed as "Individual"; assigned to PACKETVIPER, LLC on 2015-02-20. Status listed as Active, with anticipated expiration 2032-07-27. Classifications include H04L63/02 (firewalls), H04L63/1441 and H04L63/1491 (countermeasures against malicious traffic; deception/honeypots).

Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent describes controlling traffic to a network based on user preferences—particularly geographic location—rather than only conventional filters (IP, range, reverse DNS, intent, or content filtering). The excerpt explains that because IP ranges were assigned non-sequentially worldwide, administrators must otherwise enter separate CIDR addresses for each country. The invention instead builds master/access control lists from a country's preassigned network ranges as assigned by Internet numbering authorities, so users can decline traffic from selected countries or national boundaries.

Disclosed elements: An appliance (hardware or virtual), a centralized server, and a user computer with a browser interface. The appliance holds world IPv4/IPv6 assignments in repositories organized as Prebuilt Country IP Lists, Subscribed Lists, Custom Lists, and Control Lists. A script generator compiles user-selected lists into a "master access" file loaded into appliance RAM. A rules engine applies user-defined rules to evaluate packets, enabling blocking/dropping, rerouting, or logging. The appliance may sit as a Layer 2 network bridge in front of networking equipment, and be updated from the server. Figures describe packet evaluation filtering (FIGS. 2A–2C), a sample user interface (FIG. 3), IP identification of logged packets (FIG. 4), and a user-initiated "Net Check" (FIG. 5).

What the excerpt does not establish: The source text is an excerpt; it omits much of the description and all claim language, so actual claim scope cannot be determined here. It provides no details on server/appliance communication protocols, update mechanisms beyond periodic/query-based updating, security implementation specifics, or any litigation, validity, or prior-art analysis. No representations beyond the listed bibliographic fields are made.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8955128](/patent/US8955128)/en

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:34:15 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8955128. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.