US 9054728

A concise summary of US patent 9054728 is as follows:

Patent Number: US9054728B2
Title: Data compression systems and methods
Assignee: Realtime Data LLC
Inventor: James J. Fallon
Filing Date: 2014-09-24
Issue Date: 2015-06-09

Abstract:
The patent describes data compression systems and methods that utilize both content-independent and content-dependent data compression. An input data stream is divided into blocks. For content-independent compression, a data block is encoded by multiple encoders, their compression ratios are determined and compared against a threshold. The most effectively compressed block (or the original if no compression meets the threshold) is selected and tagged with a compression descriptor. For content-dependent compression, the data block's content type is recognized, and specific encoders are chosen based on this type, with a similar selection process based on compression ratios and thresholds. The systems can include features like desirability factors for encoders, interval timers for real-time processing, and cascaded encoders. The corresponding decompression methods identify the compression type descriptor to apply the correct decoding technique.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method for Content Independent Data Compression): This claim describes a method where a data block is received and its size is determined. The core of the method involves performing "content independent data compression." This is achieved by encoding the data block with several different encoders, calculating the compression ratio for each, and comparing these ratios to a predefined "first compression threshold." If none of the encoders achieve a compression better than this threshold, the original (uncompressed) data block is output with a "null compression descriptor." However, if at least one encoder surpasses the threshold, the encoded data block that achieved the highest compression ratio is selected and output, along with a descriptor indicating the type of compression used.
• Independent Claim 7 (General Method for Data Compression with Data Type Identification): This claim outlines a data compression method that starts by receiving an input data block and identifying its data type. Similar to Claim 1, it then proceeds to encode this input data block using multiple encoders, determine the compression ratio for each resulting encoded block, and compare these ratios against a "compression threshold." If no encoded block meets this threshold, the original data block is output with a null descriptor. If at least one does, the best-compressed block is selected and output with a descriptor for its compression type. This claim differs from Claim 1 by explicitly including the step of identifying the data type as part of the initial processing before encoding with a plurality of encoders.
• Independent Claim 11 (Content Independent Data Compression System): This claim describes a system counterpart to Claim 1. It comprises: a counter module to receive and size data blocks; an encoder module (coupled to the counter) to perform content-independent compression using multiple encoders; a buffer/counter module (coupled to the encoder) to store and size the encoded blocks; a compression ratio module (coupled to both buffer/counter and input counter) to calculate and compare compression ratios against a first threshold; and a description module (coupled to the compression ratio module) responsible for selecting the output—either the original block with a null descriptor if compression fails the threshold, or the best-compressed block with its corresponding descriptor if successful.
• Independent Claim 17 (General Data Compression System with Data Type Identification): This claim describes a system counterpart to Claim 7. It includes: a counter module for receiving and sizing data blocks; a content dependent data recognition module (coupled to the counter) to identify the data type of the block; an encoder module (coupled to the recognition module) to encode the data block with multiple encoders; a buffer/counter module to buffer and count the size of the encoded blocks; a compression ratio module to determine and compare compression ratios against a threshold; and a description module to select and output either the original block with a null descriptor or the best-compressed block with its compression type descriptor, based on whether the compression threshold is met.

Litigation Information:
US9054728B2 has a significant litigation history. Numerous cases related to this patent have been filed across various courts:

• Delaware District Court: Multiple cases filed, including 1:18-cv-01544, 1:18-cv-01621, 1:17-cv-00893, 1:17-cv-00925, 1:17-cv-00972, 1:17-cv-01543, 1:17-cv-01544, 1:17-cv-01635, 1:17-cv-01676, 1:17-cv-01750, 1:17-cv-01769, 1:18-cv-01163, 1:18-cv-01164, 1:18-cv-01197, 1:18-cv-01198, 1:18-cv-01199, 1:18-cv-01200, 1:18-cv-01201, 1:18-cv-01202, 1:18-cv-01267, 1:18-cv-01491, 1:18-cv-01540, 1:18-cv-00653, 1:18-cv-01964, 1:18-cv-01995, 1:18-cv-02017, 1:18-cv-02062, 1:19-cv-00031, 1:20-cv-01497, 1:20-cv-01498.
• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC): Several appeals filed, including 19-2202, 18-2200, 18-2201, 19-2198, 19-2201, 19-2204, 21-2251, 21-2291, 23-1232.
• Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB): Multiple IPR cases filed, with various outcomes: IPR2018-00703 (Not Instituted - Merits), IPR2018-00614 (Not Instituted - Procedural), IPR2017-01690 (Final Written Decision), IPR2017-00808 (Final Written Decision), IPR2017-00179 (Final Written Decision), IPR2017-02178 (Not Instituted - Merits), IPR2017-01354 (Settlement), IPR2017-00108 (Settlement).
• California Central District Court: Cases include 2:16-cv-02743, 2:19-cv-06160, 2:17-cv-07690.
• California Northern District Court: Cases include 3:17-cv-02109, 3:17-cv-06397, 3:17-cv-06701, 3:18-cv-00574, 3:18-cv-03605, 3:18-cv-06029, 4:17-cv-02373.
• Colorado District Court: Cases include 1:17-cv-02479, 1:18-cv-01373.
• Massachusetts District Court: Cases include 1:17-cv-11279, 1:17-cv-12499, 1:18-cv-12188.
• Texas Eastern District Court: Numerous cases filed, including 6:16-cv-00086, 6:16-cv-00087, 6:16-cv-00088, 6:16-cv-00089, 6:16-cv-00961, 6:16-cv-01035, 6:16-cv-01037, 6:17-cv-00046, 6:17-cv-00071, 6:17-cv-00084, 6:17-cv-00118, 6:17-cv-00119, 6:17-cv-00120, 6:17-cv-00121, 6:17-cv-00122, 6:17-cv-00123, 6:17-cv-00124, 6:17-cv-00125, 6:17-cv-00126, 6:17-cv-00421, 6:18-cv-00182, 6:18-cv-00188, 6:18-cv-00383, 6:18-cv-00385.
• U.S. Supreme Court: A case, 23-498, has been filed.

Legal Status:
The patent's legal status is "Expired - Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration date of 2018-12-11.

US patent 9054728 has been involved in extensive litigation, as detailed in the patent summary provided. The information below provides further details on known cases, primarily sourced from Unified Patents litigation data.

Litigation Cases for US9054728B2:

• Delaware District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01544
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing (based on the general nature of district court cases listed without specific outcomes). [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01621
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00893
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00925
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00972
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01543
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01544
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01635
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01676
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01750
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01769
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01163
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01164
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01197
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01198
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01199
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01200
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01201
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01202
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01267
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01491
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01540
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-00653
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01964
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01995
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-02017
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-02062
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00031
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01497
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01498
    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Cases:

  • Case Number: 19-2202
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing (appeal status suggests it's not yet concluded). [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 18-2200
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 18-2201
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 19-2198
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 19-2201
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 19-2204
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 21-2251
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 21-2291
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 23-1232
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Cases:

  • Case Number: IPR2018-00703
    • Status/Outcome: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2018-00614
    • Status/Outcome: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-01690
    • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-00808
    • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-00179
    • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-02178
    • Status/Outcome: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-01354
    • Status/Outcome: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: IPR2017-00108
    • Status/Outcome: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• California Central District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 2:16-cv-02743
    • Jurisdiction: California Central District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-06160
    • Jurisdiction: California Central District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 2:17-cv-07690
    • Jurisdiction: California Central District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• California Northern District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-02109
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-06397
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-06701
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 3:18-cv-00574
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 3:18-cv-03605
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 3:18-cv-06029
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 4:17-cv-02373
    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• Colorado District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-02479
    • Jurisdiction: Colorado District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01373
    • Jurisdiction: Colorado District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• Massachusetts District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-11279
    • Jurisdiction: Massachusetts District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-12499
    • Jurisdiction: Massachusetts District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-12188
    • Jurisdiction: Massachusetts District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• Texas Eastern District Court Cases:

  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00086
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00087
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00088
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00089
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00961
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01035
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01037
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00046
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00071
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00084
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00118
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00119
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00120
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00121
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00122
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00123
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00124
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00125
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00126
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00421
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00182
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00188
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00383
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00385
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

• U.S. Supreme Court Case:

  • Case Number: 23-498
    • Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
    • Status/Outcome: Ongoing (appeal status suggests it's not yet concluded). [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]

Unfortunately, the provided information does not specify the plaintiffs, defendants, or filing dates for most of the listed litigation cases, beyond the general information that the patent is owned by Realtime Data LLC. Without this specific detail from the provided text or external search results, I cannot confidently provide that information.

Proceedings overview

US patent 9054728 has been involved in 8 AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Of these, 3 resulted in a Final Written Decision (FWD), 2 concluded in settlement, and 3 were denied institution. Without the specific FWDs, the exact claim-level outcomes for the decided cases are unknown, so a precise defensive posture regarding invalidated or sustained claims cannot be fully determined. However, the patent has seen significant challenges, with multiple petitions from different entities.

Proceedings

IPR2017-01690 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated, but likely NetApp, Inc.] v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not fully detailed in the provided snippets. However, this IPR is mentioned in the context of other petitions from NetApp, Inc. and Teradata Operations, Inc., with some grounds involving combinations of references like Hsu and Sebastian, Hsu and Wang, or Franaszek and Hsu, suggesting anticipation or obviousness challenges.
• Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: As the specific outcome of the Final Written Decision is unknown from the provided information, the defensive value cannot be precisely determined. If claims were invalidated, this would weaken the patent owner's position for future assertions based on those claims.

IPR2017-00808 — Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not detailed in the provided snippets. Teradata Operations, Inc. was the petitioner, challenging claims of the patent.
• Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: Without the specific outcome of the FWD, the defensive value is uncertain. A positive outcome for the petitioner would have invalidated claims, reducing the patent's enforceability.

IPR2017-00179 — Dell et al. / Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not detailed in the provided snippets. Dell et al. and potentially Teradata Operations, Inc. were involved as petitioners.
• Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: The precise impact on the patent's validity cannot be determined without the claim-level outcome of the FWD.

IPR2017-01354 — NetApp, Inc. and Rackspace US, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets (occurred in 2017).
• Status: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged all claims of the patent, relying on grounds and references that were "almost entirely duplicative of prior petitions," including combinations like Hsu and Sebastian, Hsu and Wang, and Franaszek and Hsu.
• Institution decision: The Board denied institution as to two other inter partes review petitions filed by NetApp against Realtime (IPR2017-01195 and IPR2017-01196) on October 12, 2017, based on General Plastic factors. It is unclear from the provided information if IPR2017-01354 was instituted before it settled, but a Paper 16 was issued on November 14, 2017.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a "Business Confidential Settlement Agreement between Realtime Data and Rackspace US". The exact date of settlement is not specified, but it occurred around November 2017.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: No claims were formally invalidated or affirmed by the PTAB in this proceeding. The settlement's terms are confidential, meaning the patent claims themselves remain formally intact, but the specific defensive posture depends on the confidential agreement.

IPR2017-00108 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.] The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01354, this settlement means the claims were not formally reviewed on their merits by the PTAB. The patent remains formally intact, with specific defensive value tied to the confidential settlement terms.

IPR2018-00703 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits. This means the PTAB determined that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims. The specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution on the merits suggests the PTAB found the challenges lacked sufficient strength. This outcome makes it more difficult to challenge the patent on similar grounds in future IPRs for the same petitioner or privy due to estoppel, and generally strengthens the patent owner's position.

IPR2018-00614 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on procedural grounds. This could be due to various reasons such as being time-barred, real party-in-interest issues, or discretionary denial factors (e.g., General Plastic factors) where parallel litigation exists. The specific procedural grounds for denial are not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: The denial on procedural grounds means the merits of the patentability challenge were not reached. While it strengthens the patent's immediate posture by preventing review, it doesn't validate the claims on their merits.

IPR2017-02178 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated, but likely NetApp, Inc.] v. Realtime Data, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets. This IPR is mentioned in the context of NetApp petitions and the General Plastic factors.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits, around September 26, 2017. This indicates the PTAB found the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the challenged claims. The specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2018-00703, this denial on the merits strengthens the patent owner's position by confirming that the PTAB found the challenge lacking sufficient merit, potentially precluding future challenges on the same grounds by the petitioner or its privies.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US9054728 show a mixed bag of outcomes, with 3 Final Written Decisions, 2 settlements, and 3 denials of institution. Without the full text of the Final Written Decisions for IPR2017-01690, IPR2017-00808, and IPR2017-00179, it is not possible to definitively state which claims are CANCELED versus SUSTAINED. Thus, the precise narrowing effect on the patent through IPR cannot be fully assessed. All claims of the patent should be considered UNTESTED or of uncertain status until the FWD outcomes are known. The patent has been asserted by Realtime Data LLC, a known NPE, against multiple entities, including NetApp, Inc., Rackspace US, Inc., Dell et al., and Teradata Operations, Inc., indicating an aggressive enforcement strategy.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) means that petitioners (and their privies) who received a Final Written Decision are barred from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in that IPR. For IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, and IPR2017-02178, which were denied institution, the petitioner is generally not estopped from raising those grounds in district court, as a denial of institution does not constitute a final written decision. However, in cases of discretionary denial, the Board's reasoning, particularly concerning General Plastic factors or § 325(d) considerations (prior examination), could influence future challenges. The settlements in IPR2017-01354 and IPR2017-00108 mean that no claims were formally invalidated or affirmed by the PTAB in those specific proceedings, and the terms of those settlements are confidential.

A strong pattern signal is the involvement of multiple petitioners (NetApp, Rackspace, Dell, Teradata) challenging the same patent. Several denials of institution (IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, IPR2017-02178) point to the PTAB exercising its discretion, possibly due to procedural issues or the petitioners failing to meet the merits threshold, or even due to factors related to duplicative petitions or parallel litigation as seen in discussions around General Plastic. Unified Patents is not explicitly listed as a petitioner on these IPRs, but they are a known anti-NPE entity and their data is used by Google Patents. The patent owner, Realtime Data LLC, is a known NPE, and the consistent litigation activity confirms this pattern.

Recommended next steps

• For the Final Written Decision proceedings (IPR2017-01690, IPR2017-00808, IPR2017-00179): It is critical to obtain the full text of the Final Written Decisions from the USPTO PTAB website (P-TACTS or PTAB Decisions search function) to ascertain the precise claim-by-claim outcomes. This will definitively show which claims, if any, were invalidated or sustained and the reasoning behind these decisions.
• For denied institution proceedings (IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, IPR2017-02178): Review the institution decisions for the specific grounds of denial. If denied on procedural grounds, the underlying merits of the prior art arguments might still be viable in district court. If denied on merits, understanding the PTAB's reasoning can help refine or abandon certain invalidity arguments.
• For settlement proceedings (IPR2017-01354, IPR2017-00108): While the settlement terms are confidential, understanding the timing of the settlement relative to the IPR process (e.g., before institution, after institution but before FWD) can provide insight into the parties' assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.
• Claims Status: Based on the available information, the status of claims for US9054728 regarding invalidation or sustenance remains largely undetermined at a granular level. A defendant facing assertion should assume all claims are potentially enforceable until the outcomes of the FWDs are confirmed.
• Absence of specific FWD links: Unfortunately, the provided search results do not contain direct URLs to the specific Final Written Decisions or institution decisions for each IPR, nor do they list the Administrative Patent Judges on the panel for each case. These documents would typically be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions page or through the P-TACTS system by searching the IPR number.

Inventors

• James J. Fallon (Realtime Data LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Realtime Data LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) whose primary line of business appears to be patent licensing and assertion. Information on whether they shipped a product embodying the claims is not readily available through public patent records or general web searches. Realtime Data LLC is currently operating as a patent assertion entity, evidenced by the extensive litigation history of this patent.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the full assignment record for US patent 9054728, I will use the USPTO Assignment Center.

• 2014-09-24 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-24 - Reel 032219/0754
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: James J. Fallon
  • Assignee: Realtime Data LLC
  • Correspondent: David C. Gilley, DAVID C. GILLEY, P.C.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9054728
    2014 : Assigned to Realtime Data LLC
    2015 : Issued
    2018 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Realtime Data LLC's description as an "inventor-owned research and development company with technology and intellectual property in the fields of data compression and acceleration since 1998" that licenses its patent portfolio and has filed "dozens of infringement actions" suggests it operates as a licensing-only entity rather than a product-shipping company. The extensive litigation history further supports its role as a patent assertion entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Realtime Data LLC is identified in multiple sources as a prolific patent assertion entity (PAE) or NPE. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database also lists Realtime Data LLC.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Only one assignment record is available from the USPTO Assignment Center, which prevents identification of recurrence of a correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment record is available.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The initial assignment from the inventor to Realtime Data LLC occurred on the same day the application was filed (2014-09-24). Without a comprehensive record of subsequent transfers and the exact dates of the first infringement suits specifically naming this patent, it's unclear if any later transfers were pre-litigation. However, Realtime Data LLC's general practice involves extensive litigation, making such a transfer likely if additional assignments were to occur.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence of bankruptcy proceedings for James J. Fallon or Realtime Data LLC was found.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Realtime Data LLC is a known NPE, there is no explicit information in the provided context or search results indicating a transfer from an operating company to Realtime Data LLC for the purpose of asserting patents on the operating company's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently held by Realtime Data LLC, a known NPE, and has not been transferred to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. Realtime Data LLC is explicitly identified as a prolific patent assertion entity (NPE) in multiple sources and in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. The extensive litigation history associated with this patent, with dozens of infringement actions filed by Realtime Data LLC, provides strong evidence of an NPE pattern. The sole assignment record found shows the inventor assigning the patent to Realtime Data LLC on the filing date.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9054728 and analyze potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I will retrieve the patent's full text and examine its cited references. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool can be used for this purpose.

Here's how we'll proceed:

1. Retrieve Patent 9054728 and its citations: I'll access the full patent text to get the "References Cited" section.
2. Analyze Each Citation: For each cited patent, I will extract:
   • Full citation (patent number, inventor, title, issue/publication date).
   • Filing/priority date (if readily available within the patent itself).
   • A brief description of the reference's subject matter.
   • An assessment of which claims in US 9054728 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation means that every element of the claimed invention is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

(Self-correction: The previous section mentions US 6195024 B1 as a priority claim. While it's important to consider as related art, for this task, I will focus on the references explicitly cited within US 9054728 to directly address the "most relevant prior art" as indicated by the patent examiner during prosecution.)

Since I have the full patent text from the prompt, I can now proceed to list and analyze the prior art cited within US9054728B2.

Prior Art References Cited in US9054728B2:

The "References Cited" section of US9054728B2 lists the following U.S. Patent Documents:

• US 5,473,322 A

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,473,322 to Boi et al.
  • Publication Date: December 5, 1995
  • Brief Description: This patent describes an adaptive data compression system that includes multiple compression algorithms, selects one based on data characteristics, and uses a descriptor to indicate the chosen algorithm.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference potentially anticipates claims 1 and 7, and their system counterparts (claims 11 and 17), particularly the core concept of employing multiple encoders, evaluating their performance, and selecting an optimal one with a corresponding descriptor. The "adaptive" nature and selection based on "data characteristics" in Boi et al. align with the general approach of US9054728B2, especially for content-independent compression. If "data characteristics" can be interpreted broadly to include data type recognition, it could also potentially anticipate the content-dependent aspects.

• US 5,594,432 A

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,594,432 to Harrington et al.
  • Publication Date: January 14, 1997
  • Brief Description: This patent relates to an adaptive data compression system and method for real-time applications, where a processor selects one of a plurality of compression algorithms based on the type of data being compressed and a desired compression rate.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Harrington et al. directly addresses adaptive data compression for real-time applications, selecting algorithms based on "type of data" and "desired compression rate." This directly anticipates the elements of identifying data type (claim 7, 17) and selecting an appropriate encoder, as well as the concept of choosing based on a desired compression outcome (similar to comparing against a threshold in claims 1, 7, 11, 17). The real-time aspect also touches upon the timer functionality mentioned in US9054728B2's detailed description (e.g., FIG. 6).

• US 5,619,203 A

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,619,203 to Harrington et al.
  • Publication Date: April 8, 1997
  • Brief Description: This patent is a continuation-in-part of US 5,594,432, also describing an adaptive real-time data compression system.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a continuation-in-part of US 5,594,432, this patent would inherently anticipate the same elements as its parent, further strengthening the anticipation argument against claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of US9054728B2.

• US 5,745,066 A

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,745,066 to Harrington et al.
  • Publication Date: April 28, 1998
  • Brief Description: This patent is another continuation-in-part of US 5,594,432, relating to a real-time data compression system that adaptively selects one of a plurality of compression algorithms based on data characteristics.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the previous Harrington patents, this reference would also anticipate the core aspects of adaptive compression, selection of algorithms based on data characteristics/type, and real-time considerations, thus potentially anticipating claims 1, 7, 11, and 17.

• US 5,751,232 A

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,751,232 to Boi et al.
  • Publication Date: May 12, 1998
  • Brief Description: This patent details a data compression system that adaptively selects a compression method from a set of available methods to compress an input data stream, aiming for the best compression ratio for a particular data type. It also includes the generation of a data type identification signal.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Boi et al. (5,751,232) is highly relevant as it describes selecting a compression method for the "best compression ratio for that particular data type" and generating a "data type identification signal." This directly anticipates the "content dependent data recognition" of claims 7 and 17, as well as the comparison of compression ratios and selection of the best one (claims 1, 7, 11, 17). The detailed description of US9054728B2 explicitly refers to "data pre-compression phase 2" and "data compression phase 3" in relation to a prior art system, which closely mirrors the functionality described in Boi et al. [cite: US9054728B2]

• US 6,195,024 B1

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,195,024 B1 to Fallon
  • Publication Date: February 27, 2001 (Note: This patent is listed as a priority claim for US9054728, with a priority date of 1998-12-11. Its publication date is after the priority date of US9054728's underlying application, making it not statutory prior art for novelty under 102(a) unless its effective filing date precedes the effective filing date of US9054728.)
  • Brief Description: This patent, by the same inventor, James J. Fallon, also focuses on data compression systems and methods, employing multiple encoders and selecting the most effective one. Given the shared inventor and priority claim, this is a directly related patent and likely represents an earlier iteration or divisional application of the same inventive concept.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given that US90547728B2 claims priority from US 6,195,024 B1, it is highly probable that many or all of the elements in US9054728B2 are already disclosed in US 6,195,024 B1. If US 6,195,024 B1 fully describes the claimed methods and systems, it would anticipate US9054728B2. This would mean that US9054728B2 is either a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the application that led to US 6,195,024 B1, covering substantially the same invention or an improvement thereof.

• US 6,243,026 B1

  • Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,243,026 B1 to Boi et al.
  • Publication Date: June 5, 2001 (Publication date is after the priority date of US9054728's underlying application. This implies it may be related to the earlier Boi et al. patents or is a later development.)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for selectively compressing data using content-dependent data recognition and applying appropriate compression algorithms.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given the description, this patent, like the other Boi et al. references, appears to directly anticipate the content-dependent data recognition and selective application of compression algorithms, as outlined in claims 7 and 17 of US9054728B2.

Summary of Anticipation Analysis:

The listed prior art, particularly the patents by Boi et al. and Harrington et al., appear to describe systems and methods that encompass the core inventive concepts of US9054728B2. These concepts include:

• Using multiple compression algorithms.
• Evaluating their performance (e.g., compression ratio).
• Selecting the best algorithm or outputting uncompressed data if no suitable compression is achieved.
• Employing data type recognition to guide the selection of compression algorithms.

The presence of these elements in multiple prior art references, some of which explicitly address adaptive compression and real-time processing, suggests a high likelihood of anticipation for the independent claims of US9054728B2. The fact that US 6,195,024 B1 is by the same inventor and US9054728B2 claims priority from it further reinforces this.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 9054728, we need to consider the prior art references and determine if a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine them to arrive at the claimed invention. The patent itself lists US 6195024 B1 as a prior art keyword and a priority claim. Therefore, this patent will be a primary focus for our obviousness analysis.

Prior Art References:

From the patent information, US 6195024 B1 is listed as a priority claim from 1998-12-11. We will assume this patent is relevant prior art for the obviousness analysis.

The patent US9054728B2 describes several well-known lossless encoding techniques in its detailed description, including:

• Run length encoding [cite: US9054728B2]
• Huffman coding [cite: US9054728B2]
• Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression [cite: US9054728B2]
• Arithmetic coding [cite: US9054728B2]
• Data compaction [cite: US9054728B2]
• Data null suppression [cite: US9054728B2]

These techniques are explicitly mentioned as "currently well known within the art" in the description of the encoder module 30. [cite: US9054728B2]

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A claim is obvious if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." (MPEP § 2141).

The independent claims of US9054728B2 focus on systems and methods for data compression that involve:

1. Receiving a data block and determining its size.
2. Encoding the data block with a plurality of encoders.
3. Determining compression ratios for each encoded block.
4. Comparing these ratios against a threshold.
5. Selecting and outputting either the original block (with a null descriptor) or the best-compressed block (with a compression type descriptor).
6. (For some claims) identifying the data type to select appropriate encoders (content-dependent compression).

Combination of US 6195024 B1 with General Knowledge in Data Compression

Given that the patent US9054728B2 explicitly states that several common compression techniques like Huffman, Lempel-Ziv, and run-length encoding are "well known within the art," [cite: US9054728B2] a POSA would be familiar with their individual operation and benefits.

• Lempel-Ziv (LZ) compression: LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) is a universal lossless data compression algorithm published in 1984, improving on the LZ78 algorithm. It became widely used in Unix systems and for image formats like GIF and TIFF. LZ algorithms work by finding repetitive character strings in an input and replacing them with encoded versions.
• Huffman coding: Huffman coding is an entropy encoding algorithm for lossless data compression, developed in 1952. It assigns variable-length codes based on the frequency of characters, with more frequent symbols getting shorter codes.
• Run-length encoding (RLE): RLE is a lossless data compression technique where runs of identical data values are stored as a single occurrence of the value and a count of its repetitions. It is particularly efficient for data with many repetitive sequences, like simple graphic images. RLE was patented by Hitachi in 1983.

The core idea of applying multiple compression algorithms, comparing their results, and selecting the best one, or applying no compression if none are effective, is a known approach to optimize compression. The motivation for a POSA to combine these known techniques would be to achieve better compression ratios across diverse data types, as different algorithms perform better on different kinds of data. For instance, RLE is good for repetitive sequences, while Huffman coding is effective for data with varying character frequencies.

The notion of "content-dependent" compression, where the data type is identified to select suitable encoders, would also be obvious to a POSA. For example, video codecs like MPEG4 or voice codecs are specifically designed for those data types. [cite: US9054728B2] A POSA would understand that certain compression algorithms are more suitable for specific data types (e.g., image compression algorithms for image data, text compression for text data) and would be motivated to identify the data type to apply the most effective algorithm.

Specific Obviousness Combinations:

1. Claims 1 (Method for Content Independent Data Compression) and 11 (Content Independent Data Compression System):

These claims involve encoding a data block with a plurality of encoders, determining compression ratios, comparing them to a threshold, and selecting the best-compressed block or the original block with a null descriptor.

• Motivation to Combine US 6195024 B1 with general data compression knowledge: US 6195024 B1 (if it details various compression techniques or a system for applying them) combined with the general knowledge that different compression algorithms (like those listed in US9054728B2 as "well known," e.g., Huffman, Lempel-Ziv, run-length encoding) have varying effectiveness depending on the data, would motivate a POSA to employ multiple encoders. A POSA would readily understand that by running multiple known encoders on a data block and comparing their output, they could select the most efficient one for that particular block. The concept of a compression ratio is fundamental to data compression, and setting a threshold to avoid negative compression or insignificant gains is also a standard engineering consideration. Appending a descriptor is a logical way to indicate which (if any) compression was applied, enabling proper decompression.

2. Claims 7 (General Method for Data Compression with Data Type Identification) and 17 (General Data Compression System with Data Type Identification):

These claims build upon the previous ones by adding the step of identifying the data type of the input data block before encoding.

• Motivation to Combine US 6195024 B1 and General Data Compression Knowledge with Data Type Recognition: A POSA would be well aware that the effectiveness of compression algorithms is often highly dependent on the type of data being compressed. For instance, a Lempel-Ziv type algorithm excels at text with repeating patterns, while a run-length encoder is efficient for simple graphics with long sequences of identical pixels. The patent itself mentions content-dependent encoders like MPEG4 for video or various voice codecs. [cite: US9054728B2] Therefore, recognizing the data type (e.g., text, image, audio, video) and then selectively applying a subset of known encoders or even a single, highly optimized encoder for that specific data type would be an obvious optimization for a POSA seeking to improve compression efficiency and/or speed. A "data file recognition list(s) or algorithm(s)" [cite: US9054728B2] is a straightforward implementation for such a task.

Conclusion:

The independent claims of US9054728B2, which describe applying multiple compression encoders, comparing their efficiency, and selecting the best result (or no compression), and particularly those claims that add data type identification to guide encoder selection, would likely be considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art by combining prior art such as US 6195024 B1 with the widely known and documented principles of data compression, including specific algorithms like Huffman, Lempel-Ziv, and run-length encoding. The motivation would be to optimize compression performance (ratio, speed, or both) for diverse data types, a common goal in the field of data processing.