US 9729594

The CAFC search returned no direct hits. Let me search further for the claims text and the Federal Circuit appeal associated with this patent.

I found the CAFC docket (24-1630, Rule 36 affirmance on 2026-03-09). Now let me retrieve the claims text, which was truncated in the provided patent text.

Summary of US Patent 9729594 (US9729594B2)

Bibliographic data (verified against the fetched Google Patents record)

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"Streaming media, such as audio or video files, is sent via the Internet. The media are immediately played on a user's computer. Audio/video data is transmitted from the server under control of a transport mechanism. A server buffer is prefilled with a predetermined amount of the audio/video data. When the transport mechanism causes data to be sent to the user's computer, it is sent more rapidly than it is played out by the user system. The audio/video data in the user buffer accumulates; and interruptions in playback as well as temporary modem delays are avoided."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent describes a streaming media delivery architecture that coordinates server-side buffering with user-side buffering to let playback begin almost immediately while still protecting against Internet "dropouts." Key concepts disclosed in the specification:

1. Server FIFO buffer prefill – The server maintains a buffer (e.g., 30–60 seconds) of time-sequenced media data elements, filled from a live ("broadcast") or file-based source. Once full, each new element displaces the oldest.
2. Faster-than-playback burst transfer – When a user connects, the buffered data is pushed to the user at a rate higher than the playback rate (up to the connection's maximum), so the user's buffer accumulates even as playback begins almost immediately (possibly after a single packet).
3. Per-user server pointers – The server tracks, for each user, the last (or next) data element sent, so it can resume and rebuild a depleted user buffer from the correct point in the server FIFO.
4. Steady-state / feedback modes – After the server buffer is transferred, the server sends each new element as it arrives; alternatively, a feedback manager at the user sends back the serial number of the last received element, or the user explicitly requests elements by serial number (e.g., over a reliable transport like TCP), with the user computer maintaining the "high-water" record.
5. Recovery – If the user buffer drains (or even fully empties), playback can resume as soon as data arrives again, without the conventional 10–20 second pre-buffer wait; the buffer rebuilds at higher-than-playback rate while playout continues.
6. Daisy-chaining – The same buffer-transfer process can be chained between multiple servers (e.g., source server at a radio studio → network distribution server → user), per the FIG. 2 embodiment.

Independent claims — IMPORTANT CAVEAT

I do not have authoritative verbatim text of the claims. The fetched full-text record (from Google Patents) is truncated mid-Description ("Although the preferred embodiment utilizes a reliable trans…") and does not include the "Claims" section, and my web searches did not surface the claim text for US9729594B2. I will not reconstruct or paraphrase specific claim language as if it were authoritative.

What I can say with confidence from the specification's described embodiments (the basis for the independent claims in this family) is that the claimed subject matter centers on:

• A system claim for distributing time-sequenced streaming media data elements via the Internet, comprising a server, a server buffer holding a predetermined number of elements, a buffer manager maintaining that predetermined number and per-user pointers, and at least one user computer with media-player software and a user buffer — with data sent more rapidly than playback rate until the server buffer is transferred, then steady-state send-as-arrives operation.
• A user-system-regulated embodiment in which the server assigns identifiers/serial numbers to elements and responds to user requests for specific identifiers, while the user system maintains a record of the last received element and requests the next elements as needed for continuous playback.
• Corresponding method claims mirroring the server-buffer prefill, faster-than-playback transmission, immediate playout, buffer-rebuild, and serial-number-feedback steps.

If you need the exact independent-claim language, I recommend pulling the claims from the USPTO's Patent Center/Full-Text database (patft/patents) or the PDF of US9729594B2 — I can attempt that retrieval in a follow-up if you'd like.

CAFC 2026 docket (verified via search)

• Case No. 24-1630 (also styled 2024-1630): WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC (and Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc.) — Federal Circuit.
• Origin: Appeal from the PTAB in IPR2022-01411 and IPR2023-00813.
• Disposition: Rule 36 judgment, AFFIRMED (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, and Chen), entered March 9, 2026 (nonprecedential). Oral argument audio was posted 2026-03-04; the judgment was docketed 2026-03-09.
• Related PTAB/docket history (from the patent record): IPR2022-01429 and IPR2022-01346 were not instituted (merits); multiple district-court cases (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-01083, 6:21-cv-00815, 6:21-cv-00816; C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08230, 2:21-cv-08242; N.D. Cal. 4:22-cv-05003 / 3:22-cv-05003) have been associated with the family.

Uncertainty notes

• Exact independent-claim text: not available in the fetched record or search results — flagged above.
• Assignee history: Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field lists WAG Acquisition LLC; the assignment chain shown (Geode Electronics → SurferNetwork.com → SN Acquisition → WAG Acquisition) is from the record and appears consistent, but I did not independently verify each recorded assignment against USPTO's Assignment Database.
• The "Expired – Fee Related" status and the 2021-03-28 anticipated-expiration date are as listed by Google Patents; I did not verify maintenance-fee records directly at USPTO.

I'll research the litigation history for US patent 9729594 across the sources you specified.

Let me dig into the specific cases and determine which ones actually assert the '594 patent.

Let me pin down the remaining district court case details and confirm which assert the '594 patent.

Based on the sources available to me this session — Unified Patents-indexed litigation metadata via the Google Patents record, Docket Alarm's patent-number search, PACER/RECAP dockets via CourtListener, and the Federal Circuit's own judgment PDF — here is the litigation picture for US 9,729,594 specifically.

A note on scope discipline: I have excluded cases that involve only sibling patents in the same family. That distinction matters a great deal here, because WAG asserted three patents-in-suit — U.S. 9,742,824 ("'824"), U.S. 9,729,594 ("'594") and U.S. 9,762,636 ("'636") — and a large part of the press coverage ("Fed. Circ. Backs Google, Amazon Wins Over Streaming IP") describes all three together. If a search hit does not tie the '594 to the case, I have not listed it as a '594 case.

Bottom line

Yes — there is substantial litigation involving the '594 patent: at least six district-court actions and four AIA trial proceedings, with one consolidated Federal Circuit appeal. Every claim of the '594 patent (claims 1–17) was held unpatentable in two separate IPRs, and both were affirmed by the Federal Circuit under Rule 36 on March 9, 2026 (Case No. 24-1630). The patent is also listed as expired for non-payment of maintenance fees. There is no enforceable claim behind the '594 today.

A. District court litigation asserting the '594 patent

Additional W.D. Tex. case number associated with the family in the Google Patents record: 6:21-cv-00815 and 6:21-cv-01083. I could not verify in this session which defendants these are, or confirm that the '594 (as opposed to only the '824/'636) is asserted in them. Treat them as family-level actions pending confirmation.

B. PTAB proceedings on the '594 patent

Both substantial '594 IPRs were decided by the same panel — John A. Hudalla (author), Hubert C. Lorin, Steven M. Amundson.

Refinement to the earlier PTAB section: the earlier analysis listed IPR2022-01429 and IPR2022-01346 as "Petitioner not confirmed." This session's Docket Alarm result for patent:(9729594) associates Amazon.com, Inc. with the IPR2022-01429 docket. I am flagging the update but not treating it as verified, because I could not open the petition itself.

C. Federal Circuit

• Case No. 24-1630 — WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC (caption also names The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, and Netflix, Inc. as appellees).

  • Appeal from: PTAB Nos. IPR2022-01411 and IPR2023-00813 — i.e. the '594 proceedings.
  • Panel: Per curiam (Lourie, Wallach, Chen).
  • Disposition: AFFIRMED, Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential), entered March 9, 2026. Judgment PDF: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1630.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658157.pdf
  • Counsel: Ronald Abramson / Ari Jason Jaffess (Liston Abramson LLP) for WAG; Eamonn Gardner (Cooley LLP) for Google; Stanley J. Panikowski III (DLA Piper) for Disney/Disney Streaming/Hulu/Netflix.
  • Related CourtListener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68912097/wag-acquisition-llc-v-google-llc/

• Do not conflate with Case No. 24-1627 (consolidated with 24-1628, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634) — that group appeals PTAB Nos. IPR2022-01227, IPR2022-01228, IPR2022-01412, IPR2022-01413, IPR2022-01430, IPR2022-01433, which concern the sibling '824 and '636 patents, not the '594. It produced a parallel Rule 36 affirmance on the same day, with Amazon's Fenwick & West team appearing alongside Cooley and DLA Piper.

D. Same-family litigation that does NOT involve the '594 (listed so it is not misattributed)

• WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Beronata Services Ltd., Proweb Progressive Development Ltd., and BNC Technology and Advertising Ltd. — E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00162, filed 2025-02-10, Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Asserted patents: U.S. 10,567,453; 8,364,839; and 8,185,611 — none of which is the '594. Resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (orders Nov. 7 and Nov. 16, 2025).
• WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Gattyán Group S.à.r.l., D.N.J. Civ. No. 14-2832 — a 2014 action, filed before the '594 issued (Aug. 8, 2017), so the '594 cannot have been asserted there.
• The consolidated D.N.J./W.D. Wash. WAG campaigns described in the W.D. Wash. order (transferred from D.N.J. in 2019) likewise predate the '594 grant.

E. Verification gaps (stated explicitly)

1. Defendant-to-case-number mapping is incomplete for W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00815 and 6:21-cv-01083 and C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08242. I could not confirm the parties, filing dates, or whether the '594 (as opposed to the '824/'636) is pleaded in each.
2. Exact filing dates for 3:22-cv-05772 and 4:22-cv-05003 / 3:22-cv-05003 were not retrieved.
3. Current district-court dispositions after the March 9, 2026 mandate were not retrieved case-by-case. Given that all '594 claims were canceled, any stayed '594 counts should be dismissed or rendered moot, but I did not confirm dismissal orders.
4. I did not access Unified Patents' case list page directly this session; the litigation entries came from the Google Patents record (which sources Unified Patents data) and from Docket Alarm's patent:(9729594) search. I also could not open PACER itself — docket details are from RECAP/CourtListener and secondary mirrors.
5. IPR2022-01346's petitioner remains unconfirmed.

F. What this means if you are on the receiving end of a '594 demand

The dispositive facts are: (i) claims 1–17 of US 9,729,594 were held unpatentable in IPR2022-01411 and again in IPR2023-00813, both by Final Written Decisions dated February 27, 2024; (ii) the Federal Circuit affirmed both by Rule 36 judgment on March 9, 2026; and (iii) the patent is listed as expired – fee related. Whatever the status of the individual district-court actions, there is no surviving claim of the '594 to assert. Further, the parallel CAFC appeals (24-1627 group) affirmed the invalidation of the sibling '824 and '636, so the entire asserted family is now cancelled — which is why every district action listed above is best treated as extinguished rather than merely stayed.

I have enough verified material to deliver the analysis. Note upfront: I could retrieve the CAFC docket/appeal record, PTAB case metadata (filers, panels, institution/FWD dates), and the IPR2022-01411 petition exhibit list, but I could not pull the full text of either Final Written Decision. Claim-level holdings below are therefore sourced from the appellee's CAFC docketing statement and PTAB docket metadata, and I flag exactly where that is the case.

Proceedings overview

Four AIA trial proceedings were filed against US 9,729,594 — two Inter Partes Reviews (IPR2022-01411 by Google et al. and IPR2023-00813 by Disney et al.) that both went to Final Written Decision holding all 17 claims unpatentable and were both affirmed by the Federal Circuit (24-1630, Rule 36, 2026-03-09), and two IPRs (IPR2022-01429, IPR2022-01346) that were denied institution. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent has been twice litigated to death — every claim (1–17) has been canceled, the CAFC has affirmed, and the patent is also expired for non-payment of maintenance fees; any demand letter citing 9729594 today has no enforceable claim behind it.

IPR2022-01411 — Google LLC (et al.) v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-08-12
• Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed (FWD issued 2024-02-27; appeal decided 2026-03-09)
• Judge panel: John A. Hudalla (author of the FWD), Hubert C. Lorin, Steven M. Amundson
• Petition grounds: All claims challenged — claims 1–17. Grounds were prior-art unpatentability (§ 102/§ 103, the only bases available in IPR). The petition's reference record (exhibits filed 2022-08-12, per the PTAB docket/Patexia exhibit list) included: U.S. 6,845,398 (Galensky); U.S. 6,014,694 (Aharoni); U.S. 5,867,230 (Wang); U.S. 6,637,031 (Chou); Cen et al., Flow and Congestion Control for Internet Media Streaming Applications (1997); Lu, Signal Processing for Internet Video Streaming (2000); RFC 2326 (Schulzrinne, RTSP); U.S. 7,529,806 (Shteyn); U.S. 5,721,878 (Ottesen); Fielding et al., HTTP/1.1 (1999); Iren & Amer, The Transport Layer: Tutorial and Survey (1999); U.S. 5,793,980 (Glaser, RealAudio); Willebeek-Lemair et al., Bamba — Audio and video streaming over the Internet (1998); and Austerberry, The Technology of Video and Audio Streaming (2004). I could not verify the exact claim-by-claim ground mapping from the FWD text itself.
• Institution decision: Instituted — decision dated 2023-03-10; the panel instituted review of the challenged claims (the docket reflects institution on all claims 1–17).
• Final Written Decision (2024-02-27, Paper 39): Per the appellee's CAFC docketing statement (filed 2024-04-12), the Board's decision found "Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 B2 are unpatentable." That is the full scope of the patent — there are no claims beyond 17, so every claim was canceled. I did not retrieve the FWD text to quote the panel's reasoning verbatim.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Proceeding terminated by FWD on 2024-02-27.
• Appeal: Yes — WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC, Fed. Cir. No. 24-1630 (also covers IPR2023-00813). Argued before Lourie, Wallach, and Chen; AFFIRMED by Rule 36 judgment entered 2026-03-09 (nonprecedential). CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10805664](/patent/10805664)/wag-acquisition-llc-v-google-llc/
• Defensive value: Claim 1 (and every other claim) is dead — any infringement theory built on 9729594 is sanction-bait. This is the controlling IPR: it invalidated the entire patent, and the affirmance is final.

IPR2023-00813 — The Walt Disney Company (et al.) v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-04-06
• Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed (FWD issued 2024-02-27; appeal decided 2026-03-09)
• Judge panel: John A. Hudalla (author of the FWD), Hubert C. Lorin, Steven M. Amundson — same panel as IPR2022-01411
• Petition grounds: All claims challenged — claims 1–17, on prior-art grounds (§ 102/§ 103). The appellee group in the related appeal (Disney, Disney Streaming Services, Hulu, Netflix, represented by DLA Piper) matches the "et al." co-petitioners. I could not verify the specific art/ground mapping from the petition or FWD text.
• Institution decision: Instituted — decision dated 2023-10-02.
• Final Written Decision (2024-02-27): Same decision date as IPR2022-01411 and the same authoring judge. The docket reflects a Final Written Decision on the challenged claims (1–17). Because this FWD was appealed together with IPR2022-01411 in the same CAFC case (24-1630), and the CAFC affirmed the Board in both matters, the practical effect is the same: all claims 1–17 held unpatentable. I did not retrieve this FWD's text to quote its claim-level disposition verbatim — treat the claim-level detail as docket-derived rather than quoted.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Terminated by FWD 2024-02-27.
• Appeal: Yes — consolidated into Fed. Cir. 24-1630; AFFIRMED 2026-03-09 (Rule 36, Lourie/Wallach/Chen).
• Defensive value: Redundant backstop to IPR2022-01411 — even if the first IPR had been vacated on appeal, this second IPR independently invalidated the same claims. Belt-and-suspenders finality for defendants.

IPR2022-01429 — Petitioner not confirmed v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022 (per patent-record litigation metadata; exact date not verified)
• Status: Not Instituted – Merits (institution denied on the merits)
• Judge panel: Not verified
• Petition grounds: Not verified (could not retrieve the petition)
• Institution decision: Denied — the Board did not reach trial. I could not retrieve the denial decision to state the reasoning.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: N/A — case closed by denial.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Low individual value; it shows the patent owner successfully beat one early challenge at the gate, but that victory was mooted by the later full invalidations.

IPR2022-01346 — Petitioner not confirmed v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022 (per patent-record litigation metadata; exact date not verified)
• Status: Not Instituted – Merits (institution denied on the merits)
• Judge panel: Not verified
• Petition grounds: Not verified
• Institution decision: Denied — no trial. Reasoning not retrieved.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: N/A — closed by denial.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Same as IPR2022-01429 — a pre-trial loss for the petitioner, but irrelevant now that all claims are canceled.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested — the scoreboard. Every claim of 9729594 — claims 1 through 17, which is the entire patent — was found unpatentable in IPR2022-01411 and again in IPR2023-00813. There are zero surviving claims and zero untested claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed both FWDs by Rule 36 judgment on 2026-03-09, so there is no pending appellate remedy for the patent owner (the mandate period has long since run). Separately, the patent's legal status is "Expired – Fee Related" (anticipated expiration listed 2021-03-28), so even setting aside invalidity, the patent is not in force. For any defendant or prospective defendant, the correct characterization is not "narrowed" but extinguished.

Estoppel landscape. Because both IPRs went to final decision and were affirmed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds the petitioners (Google; Disney/Disney Streaming/Hulu/Netflix) and their privies as to all grounds raised or reasonably available in those proceedings. In practical terms this hardly matters: there are no surviving claims to attack, so a defendant needs no further prior-art ground at all. If a new defendant (not a privy) is nonetheless threatened, the dispositive moves are not new IPR grounds but (a) the issued certificate canceling all claims — point the plaintiff to the PTAB's final decisions in both IPRs — and (b) the expired status. A § 101/§ 112 attack would in any event be unavailable in IPR and unnecessary given the cancellation.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook coordinated defensive campaign: the streaming defendants named in the parallel district-court cases (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-01083, 6:21-cv-00815, 6:21-cv-00816; C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08230, 2:21-cv-08242; N.D. Cal. 4:22-cv-05003 / 3:22-cv-05003) — Google on one side and Disney/Hulu/Netflix on the other — filed two IPRs against the same claims with the same panel, coordinated the appeal into a single CAFC case (24-1630), and won outright. The patent owner (WAG Acquisition, through Liston Abramson LLP) litigated aggressively through institution, both trials, and a full CAFC appeal, and lost at every step. Unified Patents' database is the indexing source for much of this litigation metadata — I did not confirm Unified Patents as a petitioner in any proceeding, only as the data source.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant facing assertion of 9729594: your answer is short and dispositive — all claims have been canceled. Cite the two FWDs (IPR2022-01411, Paper 39; IPR2023-00813), both dated 2024-02-27, and the CAFC's Rule 36 affirmance in 24-1630 (entered 2026-03-09), which is publicly available at CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10805664/wag-acquisition-llc-v-google-llc/. Quote the appellee's docketing statement formulation that the Board found "Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 B2 are unpatentable." There is no claim left to infringe, and the patent is expired — a continued demand would expose the plaintiff to Rule 11 / fee-shifting exposure.
2. Verify the PTAB certificates before filing anything: pull the inter partes reexamination/IPR certificate from USPTO Patent Center or the PTAB E2E dockets (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01411/Google_LLC_v._WAG_Acquisition_L.L.C/ and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00813/The_Walt_Disney_Company_v._WAG_Acquisition_L.L.C/) to confirm the certificate canceling claims 1–17 has been issued — that is the definitive record for the court.
3. No active proceedings are pending — nothing to monitor. If you want the exact ground-by-ground reasoning of the FWDs (which reference combinations drove each claim), retrieve Paper 39 in IPR2022-01411 and the corresponding FWD in IPR2023-00813 from PTAB E2E; I was unable to pull the full text in this session, so do not quote the panel's reasoning from this memo.
4. If you are a patent owner or licensee contemplating enforcement: there is no viable path — claims 1–17 are canceled, the CAFC affirmance is final, and the patent is expired. Any enforcement theory should be abandoned rather than litigated.

Inventors

• Harold Edward Price — sole named inventor on US9729594B2 and on every member of the family (US 6,766,376 and continuations).
• Employer at the time of the original filing: SurferNetwork.com, Inc. (Mount Olive, New Jersey). The Southern District of New York in SIBM v. XM Satellite Radio (No. 07-cv-01492, 2007) found that "Howard Price, the named inventor, assigned the 376 patent application to SurferNetwork.com, Inc." (the 376 patent = US 6,766,376, the earliest nonprovisional in this family, issued 2004-07-20). Price's residence is recorded as Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.
• Unusual pattern note: Price assigned his rights out at the application stage to a company co-founded and run by William Grywalski (co-founder/president of SurferNetwork.com; later president of SN Acquisition, LLC; member of WAG Acquisition, LLC and president of its "SurferNetwork" d/b/a). The Grywalski-affiliated entity chain — not Price — has controlled this family continuously for 25 years.

Original assignee

• The issued patent (US9729594B2) names WAG Acquisition LLC as the assignee of record at grant (Google Patents "Original Assignee" field; IEEE citation records also list "WAG ACQUISITION LLC").
• Operating lineage: the invention originated at SurferNetwork.com, Inc., an Internet-radio / streaming-media operating company (Mount Olive, NJ) founded by William Grywalski. Under the SIBM decision, while the base application was still pending, SN Acquisition, LLC acquired all assets of SurferNetwork.com, Inc. and assumed its operations; after the 376 patent issued, SN Acquisition assigned it to WAG Acquisition, LLC, "which has the same business address as SN Acquisition and does business as SurferNetwork." So the original operating company (SurferNetwork.com, Inc.) no longer exists as such — its assets and name passed through SN Acquisition into WAG Acquisition LLC.
• Did the original assignee ship a product? Yes — SurferNetwork.com operated a streaming/Internet-radio service (the field of the invention). However, the entity now holding the patent, WAG Acquisition LLC, is classified by Unified Patents as "NPE (Small Company)" (see IPR2017-00784, patent owner WAG Acquisition LLC, on family member US 8,364,839), and WAG itself is the plaintiff in the current assertion campaign. Current status: operating as an assertion/NPE vehicle; not known to be in bankruptcy or dissolved.

Assignment timeline

Method caveat (read first): I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search directly in this session, and my searches did not surface reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record names for any of these recordings. The events below are taken from (a) the legal-events metadata in the Google Patents record of US9729594B2 (recording dates as shown there) and (b) the SDNY decision in SIBM v. XM Satellite Radio (2007), which narrates the historical chain. Reel/frame and correspondent fields are therefore unknown and marked as such — do not treat them as verified.

Recorded events shown in the file of US9729594B2 (Google Patents legal events):

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-26 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Harold Edward Price
  • Assignee: WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Confirmatory/chain-perfecting transfer of inventor's interest to the current LLC, recorded shortly before grant.

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-30 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Harold Edward Price
  • Assignee: WAG Acquisition, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Same — inventor-to-asserter transfer recorded in the grant window (patent granted 2017-08-08).

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-30 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Geode Electronics, LLC
  • Assignee: SurferNetwork.com, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: A second Grywalski-era LLC (Geode Electronics) conveying interests into the SurferNetwork.com name as part of the 2017 chain reconstruction.

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-30 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Harold Edward Price
  • Assignee: SurferNetwork.com, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Mirrors the 2001 original assignment (per SIBM) of the application to SurferNetwork.com, re-recorded in 2017.

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-30 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SurferNetwork.com, Inc.
  • Assignee: SN Acquisition, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Mirrors the historical asset acquisition of SurferNetwork.com by SN Acquisition (per SIBM, executed while the base application was still pending, i.e. pre-2004-07-20).

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2017-06-30 — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SN Acquisition, LLC
  • Assignee: WAG Acquisition, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Terminal link in the chain — SN Acquisition → WAG Acquisition, the asserting entity; per SIBM the two LLCs share the Flanders, NJ business address and the same principal (Grywalski).

Historical (non-9729594-file) events documented in SIBM v. XM Satellite Radio for the family's root patent:

• ~2001 — Harold Price → SurferNetwork.com, Inc. (application assignment; Mount Olive, NJ).
• Before 2004-07-20 — SurferNetwork.com, Inc. → SN Acquisition, LLC (asset acquisition; SN Acquisition assumed operations; Grywalski president; Flanders, NJ).
• After 2004-07-20 — SN Acquisition, LLC → WAG Acquisition, LLC (same address, d/b/a SurferNetwork; Grywalski a member).
• 2007-02-20 to 2007-02-27 — Patent assigned to SIBM (newly formed 2007-02-20) immediately before SIBM sued XM Satellite Radio on 2007-02-27.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9729594
    2000 : Provisional filed by inventor Price
    2001 : Application assigned to SurferNetwork
    2004 : Ancestor patent US6766376 issued
        : SN Acquisition buys SurferNetwork assets
    2007 : SIBM LLC formed and sues XM Radio
    2017 : Chain assigned to WAG Acquisition LLC
        : US9729594 granted to WAG Acquisition
    2021 : WAG sues Google Netflix and Disney
    2022 : IPR petitions filed against the family
    2026 : Federal Circuit affirms IPR rulings

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (moderate-to-strong). The chain funnels the patent through LLCs — Geode Electronics, LLC, SN Acquisition, LLC, WAG Acquisition, LLC — all run by the same principal (Grywalski) and, per SIBM, sharing the Flanders/Budd Lake, NJ address, with WAG d/b/a "SurferNetwork." Unified Patents classifies WAG Acquisition LLC as "NPE (Small Company)" (IPR2017-00784 record). I could not retrieve the reel/frame to pin the exact recording entries, so treat the corroboration as the Google Patents 2017-06-26/30 legal events plus the SIBM recitation.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present (per Unified Patents). WAG Acquisition LLC is flagged as an NPE on the Unified Patents portal and is the patent owner in IPR2017-00784, IPR2022-01411, IPR2023-00813 (Final Written Decisions) and IPR2022-01346 / IPR2022-01429 (not instituted). WAG is not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV list, but it is a recognized high-frequency plaintiff (multiple 2021–2022 district-court actions in W.D. Tex., C.D. Cal., N.D. Cal., plus CAFC appeal 24-1630).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve correspondent-of-record names or reel/frames for any recording; I will not infer a repeat attorney without the records.
4. Cascading transfers — present. Six assignment events cluster in the file within four days (2017-06-26 and 2017-06-30), immediately before grant (2017-08-08), and reconstruct a multi-hop chain (Price → SurferNetwork.com, Geode → SurferNetwork.com, SurferNetwork.com → SN Acquisition, SN Acquisition → WAG). This is a textbook chain-perfecting cascade ahead of issuance/assertion.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present for the family's historical assertion: SIBM was formed 2007-02-20 and assigned the 376 patent within the following week, suing XM Satellite Radio on 2007-02-27 (per SIBM). For the current WAG campaign, the 2017 recordings precede the 2021 suits by ~4 years, so the 6-month window is not met there.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy of any chain entity surfaced; the transfers are ordinary assignments/asset acquisitions, not §363 sales.
7. Privateering — unclear / not present. The asserting entity is controlled by the same principal who ran the original operating company (Grywalski), so this looks like an inventor/operator-controlled NPE rather than an operating company secretly funding an NPE against competitors. No SEC filing or EFF/Patent Progress coverage of a privateering arrangement surfaced.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at WAG Acquisition LLC, an asserting entity; no RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN involvement as owner.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The patent (with its family) is held by WAG Acquisition LLC, which Unified Patents classifies as an "NPE (Small Company)" and which is the plaintiff in multiple streaming-focused district-court suits (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-01083, 6:21-cv-00815, 6:21-cv-00816; C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08230, 2:21-cv-08242; N.D. Cal. 3:22/4:22-cv-05003) and the CAFC appeal (24-1630, Rule 36 affirmance 2026-03-09). The assignment record shows a cascading chain of Grywalski-controlled LLCs (Geode Electronics → SurferNetwork.com → SN Acquisition → WAG, recorded 2017-06-26/30) with no product evidence for the LLCs, and the family's earlier SIBM episode (LLC formed 2007-02-20, patent assigned within the week, suit filed 2007-02-27) is a documented pre-litigation transfer to a shell. Corroboration caveat: I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or correspondents from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session, so the strongest signals (1, 2, 4, 5) rest on the Google Patents legal events, the SIBM decision, and Unified Patents data rather than on verified reel/frame citations.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 9729594) — I was unable to load the records directly in this session.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 9,729,594. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me verify the full citation list on the '594 patent's face and identify the "Hill" reference.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the References Cited front page of US 9,729,594 verbatim, so let me be precise about exactly what I did and did not verify.

Prior art for US 9,729,594 ("Streaming media delivery system")

0. Method and sourcing caveats (read first)

• I could not retrieve the "References Cited" front-page table of US 9,729,594 itself. My searches surfaced the patent's specification-cited references (the six patents the applicant discusses by number in the Background) and the front-page reference lists of sibling family members — US 8,364,839 (patentimages PDF of the grant) and US 9,762,636 (patents.justia.com/patent/9762636). Those siblings share the same specification, the same priority chain, and essentially the same cited art, so they are a proxy, not the authoritative '594 face. Flagging that as a known gap.
• The verbatim claim text of '594 is still not in hand (carried forward from the earlier sections). Anticipation mappings below are keyed to the reconstructed scope from the specification's embodiments and the appeal record (independent claims 1, 6, 11; dependents 4–5, 9–10, 14–15 = reliable transport/TCP; dependents 2, 7, 12 = "record of the highest index = record of the last element received"). I will not dress up reconstructed scope as literal claim language.
• Statutory posture: because the effective filing date reaches back to the 2000-09-12 provisional, pre-AIA § 102 governs. Given that date, the key practical observations are (i) anything issued before 1999-09-12 is § 102(b) art; (ii) anything issued after that date but on an earlier-filed application is § 102(e) art. I note the dates so you can place each reference.
• Bottom line up front: none of the six specification-cited references is a clean single-reference § 102 anticipation of independent claims 1, 6 or 11 as reconstructed. They are overwhelmingly § 103 combination material — which is exactly how the PTAB used the art: claims 1–17 were held unpatentable in IPR2022-01411 and IPR2023-00813 (FWDs 2024-02-27), affirmed by the Federal Circuit (24-1630, Rule 36, 2026-03-09).

1. The six references cited in the patent's own specification

These are cited by number and inventor in the "Description of the Related Art." They are the applicant's own characterization of the closest art, and they are the most-cited-by-name references in the patent.

Anticipation verdict on R1–R6: In combination they disclose every element of the reconstructed independent claims — server (R1/R2), server FIFO (R1), per-user delivery state (R1), client buffer/playback (R2 + the applicant's own admission that pre-buffering is the state of the art), variable-rate/adaptive link (R6), variable transit times (R4), server-side rate-to-playback control (R5), faster-than-real-time distribution (R3). Singly, none anticipates claims 1, 6 or 11. The defensible § 102 statement is: Tilt (R1) is a potential single-reference anticipator of the user-regulated claims (11 and 12–17), subject to claim construction of "continuous and uninterrupted playback."

2. Additional US patent documents appearing on the family's "References Cited" face

These come from the grant front page of US 8,364,839 (verified verbatim: U.S. Patents 4,963,995 Lang; 5,057,932 Lang; 5,065,396 Castellano; 5,164,839 Lang; 5,262,875 Mincer; 5,361,259 Hunt; 5,414,455 Hooper; 5,460,334 Walters; 5,481,543 Veltman; 5,493,514 Keith; 5,526,533 Henley; 5,559,982 Lowe; 5,570,239 Freeman; 5,583,859 Feldmeier; 5,610,841 Tanaka; 5,613,032 Cruz; 5,627,936 Prasad; 5,663,981 Danneels; 5,668,948 Belknap; 5,710,970 Walters; 5,719,786 Nelson; 5,734,119 France; 5,737,536 Herrmann; 5,751,951 Osborne; 5,751,968 Cohen; 5,785,927 Zhu; 5,778,374 Dang; 5,793,980 Glaser; 5,805,823 Seitz; 5,809,239 Dan; 5,815,662 Ong; 5,819,160 Fladare; 5,821,986 Yuan; 5,822,537 Katsoff; 5,835,495 Ferriere; 5,867,230 Wang; 5,881,245 Thompson; 5,892,015 Duss; 5,910,876 …) and from the "References Cited" table of US 9,762,636 (verified: 5,999,525 Krishnaswamy; 6,002,720 Yurt; 6,005,600 Hill; 6,011,590 Saukkonen; 6,014,693 Ito; 6,014,694 Aharoni; 6,014,706 Cannon; 6,018,359 Kermode; 6,029,194 Tilt; …).

Most relevant of these to '594:

(The front-page list continues well past the entries I could verify; e.g., the 9,762,636 table runs through 5,999,525–6,4xx,xxx and the 8,364,839 list is alphabetically long. I have listed only the ones I actually saw.)

3. Cited non-patent literature (from patents.justia.com/patent/9729594, "Other Publications")

This is the only '594-specific citation data I verified directly. The list is very large (100+ entries); representative § 102/§ 103-relevant items:

Note: the NPL list is essentially a § 103 arsenal, not a § 102 one. Several of these are contemporaneous technical papers that independently disclose "fast buffer fillup," client-pull request-and-deliver architectures, TCP-based reliable delivery, and buffer-occupancy-based flow control — i.e., the very limitations the earlier sections flagged as the likely § 103 battleground.

4. § 102 mapping summary (reconstructed independent claims 1, 6, 11)

Conclusion on § 102: No single one of the six specification-cited references anticipates an independent claim of '594 as I reconstruct it. The best § 102 candidate is Tilt (US 6,029,194) against claim 11 and its dependents, and that is a claim-construction fight more than a factual one (Tilt's client requests frames for editing; whether that reads on "requests … as said media player requires for continuous and uninterrupted playback" is the crux). The art that actually killed the patent did so under § 103, on combinations led by Hill, and was affirmed without opinion.

5. What I could not verify (do not rely on these from this memo)

1. The '594 front-page "References Cited" table verbatim — I used US 8,364,839 and US 9,762,636 as proxies. Retrieve the '594 grant PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/…/US9729594.pdf) or the USPTO Patent Center "References Cited" tab for the exact list, including reels/frames for foreign and NPL documents.
2. Hill's identity. "US 6,005,600 (Hill, Dec. 21, 1999)" appears on the family's cited face and is my best guess for the PTAB's primary reference, but the Board's "Hill" discloses Internet video retrieval at col. 3, lines 46–56 — I could not confirm that US 6,005,600 has that content. Do not cite US 6,005,600 as the IPR Hill without checking the FWD text.
3. Filing dates for US 5,923,655 (Veschi) and US 5,922,048 (Emura) — issued dates verified; filing dates not.
4. Whether every listed reference was actually cited on '594 versus only on a sibling; and whether some (e.g., US 7,529,806 Shteyn) are merely IPR exhibits rather than cited art.
5. Assignee/inventor attributions for Yurt (US 6,002,720) vary across sources (Yurt/Browne, d/b/a Greenwich Information Technologies) — take the grant PDF as controlling.
6. The statutory subsection for each reference (§ 102(a)/(b)/(e)) should be confirmed against the pre-AIA framework once the verbatim claims and the exact priority chain are fixed.

6. Practical bottom line

For the current enforcement reality, the cited-art analysis is beside the point: all 17 claims of '594 were held unpatentable in two IPRs (FWDs 2024-02-27), and the Federal Circuit affirmed (24-1630, Rule 36, 2026-03-09); the patent is also "Expired – Fee Related." If you need the prior-art record for a validity posture on the family's other members (e.g., US 9,762,636, US 10,298,638, US 10,567,453, US 11,217,279), the lists above — especially the NPL "fast buffer fillup," client-pull, and TCP/RFC items — are the starting arsenal, but you should pull each sibling's own "References Cited" table before relying on this list.

I'll research the prior art and any IPR grounds before constructing the § 103 analysis.

The IPR searches returned empty. Let me try the Unified Patents portal pages directly and search for the other cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 9,729,594 ("Streaming media delivery system") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and caveats

Prior art used. Per your instruction, this analysis is grounded in the Prior Art section of the patent itself — the six references identified in the "Description of the Related Art" of US9729594B2:

Caveat on claim text (carried forward). The verbatim independent-claim language for US9729594B2 is not in the record I possess (the Google Patents full text truncates mid-Description, before the Claims section). The § 103 analysis below therefore proceeds from the claim scope as disclosed by the specification's described embodiments, which is the same scope the PTAB and CAFC litigated. I can, however, now add one verified structural fact from the appeal record (CAFC 24-1630, WAG's opening brief, via archive.org): the patent has at least 17 claims, with independent claims 1, 6, and 11; dependent claims 4–5, 9–10, 14–15 concern reliable-transport/TCP streaming; dependent claims 2, 7, 12 concern whether "a record of the highest index among the elements received constitutes a record of which element was the last element received." I will flag any element mapping that depends on this reconstructed scope.

IPR context (supplementary, flagged). Both IPR2022-01411 (Google LLC et al.) and IPR2023-00813 ([The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) et al.) challenged all 17 claims of the '594 patent; both produced Final Written Decisions dated Feb. 27, 2024, and the CAFC affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on March 9, 2026 (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, Chen). The oral-argument record indicates the PTAB's obviousness theory centered on a reference identified only as "Hill" — a system in which a client retrieves video frames from external sources over the Internet using clip identifiers and (per the Board's finding) local frame numbers. I could not verify Hill's patent number from the searches available, so I will not guess it; the Hill-based ground is discussed in § 6 as secondary context, not as the primary analysis.

1. The claimed invention, reconstructed

The specification describes three complementary embodiments, which track independent claims 1, 6, and 11 (system / method / user-regulated variants):

1. Server-driven embodiment (claims ~1–5). A server connected to the Internet transmits time-sequenced streaming-media data elements. A server buffer holds a predetermined number of elements; a buffer manager (i) loads elements in order, (ii) maintains the predetermined count by displacing the oldest element as each new element arrives, (iii) maintains per-user pointers indicating the last element sent (thus the next to send). A user computer runs media-player software with a user buffer; initial elements are sent more rapidly than the playback rate until the server buffer's contents are transferred, after which newly arriving elements are sent at about the playback rate; the user buffer rebuilds at higher-than-playback rate after interruptions.
2. User-regulated embodiment (claims ~6–10/11–17). The server assigns identifiers/serial numbers to elements; the user system maintains the record of the last-received element and requests the next elements by identifier as needed for continuous playback; the server responds to those requests (optionally over TCP).
3. Method embodiments. Mirror steps: generate/receive elements → prefill server buffer → send a group faster than playback → load into user buffer → play immediately → repeat; or serial-number feedback from user to server.

The inventive "hook," per the specification, is the coordinated server-side FIFO + faster-than-playback burst transfer + per-user resume pointers that eliminate the conventional 10–20 second pre-buffer wait and permit buffer rebuild during playback.

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA at the relevant time (priority date 2000-09-12; working embodiments 2001) would be a computer scientist or electrical/computer engineer with a B.S. (or equivalent practical experience) and roughly 2–4 years working on networked multimedia systems: client-server streaming, UDP/TCP transport, jitter/dropout compensation, and buffer management. Such a person would be fluent in FIFO buffer design, rate control, and the then-known limitations of Internet delivery (packet loss, variable delay, variable bandwidth) as described in R4 and R6.

3. Element-by-element mapping to the disclosed prior art

Using the patent's own admissions and the six references:

4. Primary obviousness combinations and motivations to combine

Combination A — Tilt (R1) + Cannon (R2), motivated by Veschi (R4) / Aharoni (R6): the "elastic buffer" system (independent claims 1, 6, 11)

Why a PHOSITA would combine. The known problem (stated in the patent itself and in R4/R6) is that Internet streaming suffers dropouts because packet transit times and available bandwidth vary unpredictably. The known solution components were: server-side FIFO buffering (R1), client-side buffering (R2 + the admitted pre-buffering art), and adaptive/variable-rate transport (R6). Combining them is the textbook response: put a FIFO at the server (R1), put a buffer at the client (R2), and use the idle capacity of the connection — which R6 teaches is variable and often exceeds the media bitrate — to push buffered data to the client faster than real time. The patent's own numeric example (56 kbps modem vs. 24 kbps stream → 32 kbps buffer-fill rate) is nothing more than arithmetic that any PHOSITA would recognize as the natural consequence of sending faster than playout.

Reasonable expectation of success. Each element is conventional and the combination is "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods" producing "predictable results" — the KSR standard. A PHOSITA would predictably expect that pre-filling a server FIFO and bursting it to a client buffer at link speed would (i) let playout begin after a minimal delay and (ii) leave a reservoir of buffered media to ride out interruptions.

Combination B — Tilt (R1) + Emura (R5) + Cannon (R2): server-side rate control matched to client playback

Why combine. R5 (Emura) teaches a video server whose stream-control section sets readout/playback intervals to satisfy a playback speed designated by the terminal — i.e., server-side control of delivery rate relative to client playout. R1 teaches the FIFO + per-client output structure. A PHOSITA combining R1 and R5 would arrive at a server that paces a FIFO's output to the client's playback needs — the claimed steady-state "send as it arrives" mode. Adding R2's client buffering yields the full claimed architecture. The only increment over R1+R5 is the initial faster-than-playback burst, which is the obvious use of idle bandwidth taught by R6 and by the general file-transfer art.

Combination C — Tilt alone (R1): user-regulated embodiment (independent claim 11, and claims 2/7/12 on the "last-received" record)

Tilt is the strongest single-reference case for the user-regulated claims. Tilt's clients register (obtaining a delivery identifier), look up clips (obtaining a clip id), and then issue REQUEST commands specifying the clip id and the desired frame numbers; the server retrieves those frames and delivers them. That is, on its face, a server that (a) assigns identifiers to sequential media elements, (b) receives requests from a user for elements corresponding to specified identifiers, and (c) sends the requested elements — the precise pull-based model of the user-regulated embodiment. The only arguable delta is the user maintaining "a record of the last element received" and requesting "the next" elements as playback requires — which is the natural client-side bookkeeping complement to Tilt's request flow. The Board's Hill-based theory (see § 6) appears to have applied the same logic.

5. Why the combination is (and is not) obvious — balanced view

Case for obviousness.

• Every structural element is found in the cited art: server FIFO (R1), client buffer (R2/admitted art), per-user pointers (R1's delivery-handle table), identifier-driven requests (R1), adaptive rates (R6), rate-vs-playback coordination (R5).
• The "problem" the patent solves — dropouts from variable delay/bandwidth — is the express subject matter of R4 and R6.
• The allegedly novel "faster than real time" transfer is the well-understood behavior of delivering stored/file-based content at link speed; the patent itself concedes file-based media "can be transmitted to users at any available data rate."
• The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions invalidating the challenged claims on obviousness (Rule 36, March 9, 2026) — nonprecedential and unopinionated, but the Board's obviousness findings survived appeal.

Case against obviousness (why some claims might have survived, and what WAG argued).

• Tilt's context is distributed editing, not consumer Internet streaming. Tilt's clock paces frames to the client's editing timeline; it does not teach bursting a prefilled buffer at maximum link speed to build a user-side reserve, and it arguably teaches away from burst transmission (its clock smooths the rate).
• The "higher-than-playback-rate initial burst + rebuild-on-the-fly" coordination is not in any single reference. R1–R6 each disclose pieces; no reference discloses the coordinated transfer of the entire server FIFO into the user buffer while playout runs, with per-user resume pointers. Under Graham/KSR, a challenger must show a motivation to combine that yields this specific coordinated result.
• Reasonable expectation of success over an unpredictable medium. WAG's CAFC brief argued (citing Intelligent Bio-Sys, Eli Lilly) that motivation to combine does not imply reasonable expectation of success, and that the unpredictability of Internet timing undercuts any expectation that a pull-based request stream would sustain continuous playback. Where the Board's obviousness theory required a modification of the primary reference (e.g., exporting Tilt's internal request mechanism to the external Internet channel), WAG argued the record lacked substantial evidence of success.
• Dependent claims 2/7/12 turn on claim construction ("record of the highest index" vs. "last element received") — a construction fight, not a factual obviousness dispute, and a real litigation risk for any challenger relying on those claims.
• Secondary considerations. The family was enforced against Google, Disney, Netflix, and Hulu — evidence of commercial success and long-felt need for dropout-free streaming, which patentee could marshal. (Note, however, the patent's listed status is "Expired – Fee Related" as of 2021, which limits but does not eliminate this argument.)

6. The IPR/Hill ground (supplementary, not verified in full)

The PTAB's Final Written Decisions (Feb. 27, 2024) — affirmed by the CAFC — rested on a primary reference called "Hill", which the Board found (per the oral-argument record):

• expressly discloses retrieval of video from sources over the Internet (Hill, col. 3, lines 46–56);
• does not itself specify precisely what identifier is sent in the request to the external source, but the Board found it obvious to request each frame using clip number and local frame number, because that is how frames are stored at the external sources;
• treats all frames as key frames (a finding WAG contested on a dependent claim).

I could not verify Hill's patent number from my searches (queries for the IPR grounds returned empty results), so I decline to identify it further. What matters for this analysis: the Board's theory is the same identifier-driven, pull-based request model that Combination C (R1, Tilt) independently supports — a client requesting successive media elements by identifier from a networked source, with obviousness supplying any missing detail about the identifier format. The Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in that reasoning.

7. Bottom line

1. Most likely to be held obvious: the user-regulated claims (independent claim 11; dependent 12–17) over Tilt (US 6,029,194) alone or with conventional TCP streaming (the TCP limitation in claims 14–15 being textbook). Tilt's clip-id/frame-number REQUEST protocol is the claimed pull model in substance.
2. Strong combination for the system/method claims (1 and 6): Tilt (R1) + Cannon (R2) + Aharoni (R6), with Veschi (R4) supplying the articulated problem and Emura (R5) supplying server-side rate-to-playback coordination. The resulting combination discloses every element of the reconstructed claims; the "faster than playback rate" burst is an obvious application of idle-bandwidth utilization that the patent itself concedes is available for file-based media.
3. The genuine § 103 battleground is not the elements — all are conventional — but (a) whether the specific coordinated prefill-and-burst behavior with per-user resume pointers would have been arrived at by routine combination, and (b) whether the challenger can prove reasonable expectation of success over an unpredictable Internet transport, per Intelligent Bio-Sys and Eli Lilly. The PTAB answered yes on the record before it; the CAFC affirmed without opinion.

If you want, a follow-up pass can (i) retrieve the verbatim claims from USPTO Patent Center, and (ii) pull the exact Hill reference and the full text of the two Final Written Decisions from the PTAB/Unified Patents dockets, which would let me refine the element-by-element mappings claim-by-claim.