US 9762692

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9762692:

US Patent 9762692: Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)

• Title: Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)
• Current Assignee: Sandpiper Cdn LLC (as of 2024-04-26)
• Inventors: David Fullagar, Christopher Newton, Laurence Lipstone
• Filing Date: 2010-09-13
• Issue Date: 2017-09-12
• Abstract: A content delivery network features at least a first tier of servers. A method involves a first server in this tier receiving a client's request for a resource. If the resource is locally available or with a peer, it's served. Otherwise, the system checks if the resource is popular. If popular, the first server obtains and serves it. If not popular, the client is redirected to a second server in a different tier (e.g., an intermediate tier or an origin server), and this second server then serves the resource to the client.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method of content delivery): This claim describes a method where a CDN server in a first tier (e.g., an edge server) receives a request for a resource. If the resource isn't readily available there, the system determines its popularity. If the resource is popular, the first server gets and delivers it. If it's not popular, the client is sent to a second server in a different, intermediate tier (not the edge tier), which holds a specific, distinct portion of the content provider's library (including the requested resource). This second server then delivers the resource.

• Claim 10 (Content delivery framework): This claim outlines a content delivery system comprising edge servers (first tier), parent servers (second tier), and at least one popularity service. The popularity service gathers information on content requests from edge servers and, based on content popularity, informs the edge servers which tier should handle the requests. The core idea is that different, distinct parts of a content provider's library are distributed across the parent servers in the second tier.

• Claim 15 (Method of content delivery with selective redirection and hashing): This claim details a method in a multi-tiered CDN. When a first server in any tier receives a client's request for a resource, and that resource isn't locally available, the request is selectively redirected to a second tier server (in a different tier) based on the resource's current popularity. This second tier server contains a specific portion of the content library, which is distinct from portions on other servers in that tier. Crucially, the system uses a hash function to determine which specific second-tier server (e.g., an intermediate server or origin server) stores the requested content before directing the client there.

Litigation Status (as of April 26, 2026):
The patent is currently active and is involved in litigation. Specific cases include:

• A PTAB case, IPR2026-00174, has been filed and is pending.
• Two US cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00664 and case 2:24-cv-00886).
• The first worldwide family litigation was filed in 2009-03-21.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 9762692, as of April 26, 2026:

1. PTAB Case

   • Case Number: IPR2026-00174 [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Status: Pending [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner) [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Defendant(s): Sandpiper Cdn LLC (Patent Owner - current assignee as of 2024-04-26) (Implicit, as Unified Patents typically challenges patents asserted against its members) [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number IPR2026-00174 suggests it was filed in 2026.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Pending [cite: US9762692B2]

2. US District Court Case (Texas Eastern District Court)

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00664 [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Status: Litigation [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number 2:25-cv-00664 suggests it was filed in 2025.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing litigation [cite: US9762692B2]

3. US District Court Case (Texas Eastern District Court)

   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00886 [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Status: Litigation [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number 2:24-cv-00886 suggests it was filed in 2024.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing litigation [cite: US9762692B2]

4. First Worldwide Family Litigation

   • Case Details: This entry indicates that the first worldwide litigation involving the patent family (ID=45831925) has been filed. [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Status: Litigation [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Jurisdiction: Not explicitly stated, but implies a jurisdiction outside of the US based on "worldwide family litigation". [cite: US9762692B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing litigation. [cite: US9762692B2]

The Google Patents page (US9762692B2) is the source for this information. The current assignee of the patent is Sandpiper Cdn LLC, as of April 26, 2024. [cite: US9762692B2]

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9762692, which has a status of "Institution Denied." This outcome means the patent has survived a challenge at the institution stage, giving it a hardened defensive posture against similar IPR-based challenges.

IPR2026-00174 — Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper Cdn LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-17
• Status: Institution Denied (The PTAB declined to institute the review, meaning the trial did not proceed.)
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time from the provided PTAB data.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available in the provided data or readily discoverable for a petition that was denied institution.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2026-05-26. The petition was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied and no final written decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2026-00174 indicates that the patent owner successfully defended the patent against this particular challenge, strengthening the patent's validity against the grounds raised by Microsoft Corporation. An IPR-based defense on the same or substantially similar grounds will face an uphill battle.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9762692 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the merits stage of an AIA trial. While an IPR petition was filed by Microsoft Corporation, it was denied institution by the PTAB. This means that no claims of the patent have been canceled or found unpatentable in an AIA trial proceeding.

Estoppel landscape: Since the IPR was denied institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. This means that Microsoft Corporation (and its privies) are not barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution, though not publicly detailed here, likely provides insight into the weaknesses of the petitioner's arguments or prior art presented, which could discourage future challenges on similar grounds.

Pattern signals: Only one IPR has been filed on this patent, and it was denied institution. This suggests that as of now, the patent has successfully withstood an initial challenge. The current assignee is Sandpiper CDN LLC. Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in a litigation context related to this patent family (IPR2026-00174 filed), indicating defensive aggregator interest, but the actual petitioner for IPR2026-00174 is Microsoft Corporation.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of US9762692, it is important to review the PTAB's decision denying institution for IPR2026-00174. While the specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided data, understanding it would be crucial to assess the strength of the patent and identify potentially viable new (or different) prior art or arguments not previously considered by the PTAB.
• Given that the patent has survived its only IPR challenge at the institution stage, any new IPR petition would need to present a compelling case based on distinct prior art or novel arguments to overcome the Board's previous non-institution decision.## Proceedings overview
  There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9762692, which has a status of "Institution Denied." This outcome means the patent has survived a challenge at the institution stage, giving it a hardened defensive posture against similar IPR-based challenges.

IPR2026-00174 — Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper Cdn LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-17
• Status: Institution Denied (The PTAB declined to institute the review, meaning the trial did not proceed.)
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available in the provided data or readily discoverable for a petition that was denied institution without a publicly available written decision document.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2026-05-26. The petition was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied and no final written decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2026-00174 indicates that the patent owner successfully defended the patent against this particular challenge, strengthening the patent's validity against the grounds raised by Microsoft Corporation. An IPR-based defense on the same or substantially similar grounds will face an uphill battle.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9762692 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the merits stage of an AIA trial. While an IPR petition was filed by Microsoft Corporation, it was denied institution by the PTAB. This means that no claims of the patent have been canceled or found unpatentable in an AIA trial proceeding.

Estoppel landscape: Since the IPR was denied institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. This means that Microsoft Corporation (and its privies) are not barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution, though not publicly detailed here, likely provides insight into the weaknesses of the petitioner's arguments or prior art presented, which could discourage future challenges on similar grounds.

Pattern signals: Only one IPR has been filed on this patent, and it was denied institution. This suggests that as of now, the patent has successfully withstood an initial challenge. The current assignee is Sandpiper CDN LLC. Unified Patents is associated with a related litigation and IPR (IPR2026-00174 is listed as filed by Unified Patents in a litigation summary), but the petitioner for the IPR itself is Microsoft Corporation. This indicates some defensive aggregator interest, but the initial attempt to invalidate through IPR was unsuccessful.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of US9762692, it is important to review the PTAB's decision denying institution for IPR2026-00174. While the specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided data, understanding it would be crucial to assess the strength of the patent and identify potentially viable new (or different) prior art or arguments not previously considered by the PTAB.
• Given that the patent has survived its only IPR challenge at the institution stage, any new IPR petition would need to present a compelling case based on distinct prior art or novel arguments to overcome the Board's previous non-institution decision.

Inventors

• David Fullagar (Level 3 Communications LLC)
• Christopher Newton (Level 3 Communications LLC)
• Laurence Lipstone (Level 3 Communications LLC)

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventor departures based on the provided data.

Original assignee

Level 3 Communications LLC.

Level 3 Communications was a telecommunications and internet service provider that offered content delivery network (CDN) services. The patent claims relate to handling long-tail content in a CDN, which aligns with their primary line of business.

Level 3 Communications LLC was acquired by CenturyLink (now Lumen Technologies) in 2017.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-09-13 (executed) / recorded 2010-09-13 — Reel 025406/0064

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NEWTON, CHRISTOPHER; FULLAGAR, DAVID; LIPSTONE, LAURENCE
  • Assignee: LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT D. REIDEL, ESQ., HOLLAND & HART LLP, 555 17TH STREET, SUITE 3200, DENVER, CO 80202
  • Context: Assignment from inventors to original corporate assignee.

• 2024-04-26 (executed) / recorded 2024-05-02 — Reel 063712/0358

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: SANDPIPER CDN, LLC
  • Correspondent: STEVEN T. COTTRELL, NIXON & VANDERHYE PC, 901 N. GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR, ARLINGTON, VA 22203
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9762692
    2008 : Priority date
    2010 : Inventors assigned to Level 3 Communications
    2017 : Issued
    2024 : Assigned to Sandpiper CDN LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Level 3 Communications, LLC (an operating company) to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC. The name "SANDPIPER CDN, LLC" with "LLC" and "CDN" (Content Delivery Network) in the name suggests a specific focus on monetizing CDN-related patents, often a characteristic of a licensing-only entity.

   • Evidence: Reel 063712/0358 (executed 2024-04-26, recorded 2024-05-02).

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. Sandpiper CDN, LLC is identified as a petitioner in an IPR case (IPR2026-00174) and a plaintiff in district court cases in the Texas Eastern District Court, which are common activities for NPEs, but it's not explicitly on the common NPE lists provided.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents are listed for the two recorded assignments.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment after the initial inventor assignment.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment to Sandpiper CDN, LLC was executed on 2024-04-26 and recorded on 2024-05-02. Unified Patents records show a US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court on 2024-cv-00886 and another on 2025-cv-00664, suggesting the assignment happened close in time to or before litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Level 3 Communications was acquired, not in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While the transfer is from an operating company (Level 3 Communications/Lumen Technologies), there's no direct evidence from the provided text to confirm if Sandpiper CDN, LLC is asserting on behalf of Lumen Technologies against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent was assigned to Sandpiper CDN, LLC, not to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The transfer from an operating company (Level 3 Communications, LLC) to a named LLC (SANDPIPER CDN, LLC) with a suggestive name, coupled with the timing of the assignment preceding litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court (a common venue for patent assertion lawsuits), strongly indicates an NPE pattern. Specifically, the assignment occurred on 2024-04-26 (Reel 063712/0358), and district court cases were filed in the Texas Eastern District Court in 2024 and 2025.

USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search patent number 9762692)

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9762692, based on the provided patent text and its cited references.

The most relevant prior art documents cited by US9762692B2, as listed in its "References" section on Google Patents, are:

1. US 8,930,538 B2

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 8,930,538 B2, titled “Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)”, by Fullagar et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed March 21, 2009; Granted January 6, 2015. This patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/042,412, filed April 4, 2008.
• Brief Description: This patent, which US9762692B2 is a Continuation-in-Part of, describes a method and system for managing "long-tail content" in a content delivery network (CDN). It tracks the popularity of content and dynamically determines which tier of servers (e.g., edge, parent, or origin) should serve a client's request based on popularity thresholds. If content is popular, it may be served from a closer edge server. If unpopular, requests may be redirected to parent or origin servers.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant and likely anticipates many of the core concepts of US9762692B2.
  • Claim 1 (Method): The fundamental method of obtaining a client request, checking content availability at the first server, determining popularity if not available, and then either serving from the first server (if popular) or directing the client to a second tier (intermediate tier) server (if not popular). The distinction for US9762692B2 likely lies in the explicit details of "wherein the second server comprises a first portion of the content provider's library, the first portion comprising at least the resource, wherein at least one other server in the second tier comprises a second portion of the content provider's library, wherein the first portion of the content provider's library is distinct from the second portion." While 8930538 describes redirection to parent/origin, the specific logical partitioning within the intermediate tier is a key refinement in 9762692.
  • Claim 8: The method of determining popularity by comparing a current popularity value to a threshold. This is a core teaching of 8930538.
  • Claim 9: The use of different popularity thresholds for different tiers. This tiered threshold concept is also described in 8930538.
  • Claim 10 (Framework): The content delivery framework including edge servers, parent servers, and a popularity service that makes redirection decisions based on popularity. The primary distinguishing feature in 9762692's claim 10 appears to be "wherein distinct portions of the content provider's library are logically partitioned across parent servers in the second tier."
  • Claim 15 (Method with Redirection): The selective redirection based on popularity to a second-tier server. Similar to claim 1, the distinguishing element is the explicit mention of content partitioning across multiple second-tier servers and "wherein the step of selectively redirecting the request from the client to a second tier server comprises determining to which second tier server the request should be directed, the determining step using a hash function to identify a second tier server that stores the first portion of the content provider's library." This hash-based intra-tier routing is a specific detail that may differentiate 9762692.

2. US 2003/0065762 A1

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0065762 A1, titled “Configurable adaptive global traffic control and management”, by Harsch et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed September 30, 2002; Published April 3, 2003.
• Brief Description: This publication details an Intelligent Traffic Manager (ITM) or Adaptive Traffic Controller (ATC) system for directing client requests to suitable network resources (e.g., servers in a CDN). The system considers various factors such as client location, network load, and configurable policies to optimize traffic routing.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document anticipates the general mechanisms for initial server selection and traffic management within a CDN. It broadly covers the "server selector system" (104/106) functionality mentioned in the background of US9762692B2, which is responsible for directing clients to an initial edge server. While claims 1, 10, and 15 of US9762692B2 involve the overall flow of client requests and redirection, US 2003/0065762 A1 does not teach the specific inventive concepts of managing "long-tail content" based on popularity or the logical partitioning of content across intermediate tiers. Therefore, it describes a foundational component but does not anticipate the core novelty of US9762692B2.

3. US 7,860,964 B2

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,860,964 B2, titled “Policy-based content delivery network selection”, by Harsch et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed October 26, 2007; Granted December 28, 2010.
• Brief Description: This patent, a related ITM application, describes systems and methods for selecting content delivery networks based on predefined policies. These policies can influence how and where content is delivered to optimize factors like cost, performance, and security.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent extends the concept of traffic management by introducing policy-based selection. It anticipates the general idea of using policies to control content delivery within a CDN. However, it does not disclose the specific mechanism of using dynamic content popularity to make real-time decisions about content placement and redirection across different tiers to handle "long-tail content," nor does it describe the logical partitioning of content across servers within an intermediate tier as detailed in US9762692B2. Thus, it anticipates broader policy-driven CDN operations rather than the specific invention.

4. US 6,185,598 B2

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,185,598 B2, titled “Optimized network resource location”, by Harsch et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed May 2, 1997; Granted February 6, 2001.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a system for optimizing the selection of network resources, particularly "repeater servers" (CDN servers), to serve client requests. It utilizes a "Best Repeater Selector" (BRS) mechanism to determine the most appropriate server based on various metrics to improve delivery efficiency.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This is a foundational patent for intelligent server selection in CDNs. It broadly anticipates the general concept of directing a client to an "appropriate server" based on optimization criteria (e.g., proximity, load), as generally described in the background of US9762692B2 and as a prerequisite for any content delivery system. However, this patent does not describe the inventive steps related to tracking content popularity, dynamically managing "long-tail content" across multiple tiers, or the specific methods of logically partitioning content within intermediate tiers, which are central to the claims of US9762692B2.

In summary, US 8,930,538 B2 is the most relevant prior art, directly addressing the handling of long-tail content in a CDN. The other cited patents/publications cover foundational CDN technologies like server selection and traffic management, providing the context and infrastructure upon which US9762692B2 builds, but not its specific inventive steps related to popularity-based content partitioning and intra-tier routing.

For an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the focus is on whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, given the prior art. This requires identifying a motivation to combine prior art references and a reasonable expectation of success from that combination.

Based on the provided patent text for US9762692B2 and its cited prior art, here's an analysis of potential obviousness combinations for the independent claims:

General Principles for Obviousness:
An obviousness rejection requires a clear articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The rationale to modify or combine prior art does not have to be explicitly stated in the prior art; it can be reasoned from common knowledge, scientific principles, or legal precedent. Examiners are cautioned against using per se rules and must explain how the rationale applies to the facts. All claim limitations must be considered when assessing patentability.

Prior Art References (from the patent document's "Cited By" section, which also includes "Families Citing this family"):

The patent lists several "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" references. While "Cited By" references typically point to later patents that cite US9762692, "Families Citing this family" often includes prior art that was considered during prosecution or is relevant to the field. For the purpose of obviousness, we are interested in prior art references with priority dates before April 4, 2008 (the priority date of US9762692).

Let's look at some potentially relevant prior art from the "Families Citing this family" section with priority dates before April 4, 2008:

• US7860964B2 (Priority 2001-09-28, Publication 2010-12-28, Assignee: Level 3 Communications, LLC): Titled "Policy-based content delivery network selection." This patent, assigned to the original assignee of US9762692, is highly relevant as it deals with CDNs and policy-based content delivery. It describes selecting a CDN based on various factors.
• US9167036B2 (Priority 2002-02-14, Publication 2015-10-20, Assignee: Level 3 Communications, LLC): Titled "Managed object replication and delivery." This also by Level 3, focuses on replication and delivery within a CDN.
• US8028090B2 (Priority 2008-11-17, Publication 2011-09-27, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): Titled "Request routing utilizing client location information." Although its priority date is later than US9762692's earliest priority date, it shows the state of the art around that time regarding intelligent routing. We should prioritize prior art with earlier priority dates. Let's look for others.
• US7991910B2 (Priority 2008-11-17, Publication 2011-08-02, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Updating routing information based on client location." Similar to the above.
• US7970820B1 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2011-06-28, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Locality based content distribution." This has a priority date close to US9762692's and is directly relevant to content distribution in a CDN based on location.
• US8601090B1 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2013-12-03, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Network resource identification." This also has a close priority date.
• US8321568B2 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2012-11-27, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Content management." This has a close priority date and is highly relevant.
• US8533293B1 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2013-09-10, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Client side cache management." This focuses on caching, a core aspect of CDNs.
• US8156243B2 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2012-04-10, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Request routing." Directly relevant to routing in a CDN.
• US7962597B2 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2011-06-14, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Request routing based on class." This could imply different handling for different types of content.
• US8447831B1 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2013-05-21, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Incentive driven content delivery."
• US8606996B2 (Priority 2008-03-31, Publication 2013-12-10, Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.): "Cache optimization." Highly relevant to managing content in a CDN.

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claims:

Claim 1 (Method of content delivery):
This claim focuses on:

1. Obtaining a request at a first server (edge).
2. Checking for local/peer availability.
3. Determining popularity if not available.
4. If popular, first server obtains and serves.
5. If not popular, redirecting to a second server in a distinct intermediate tier, where content is partitioned, and the second server serves.

• Combination 1: US7970820B1 (Locality based content distribution) + US8321568B2 (Content management) + US8606996B2 (Cache optimization)

  • US7970820B1 describes locality-based content distribution, implying a system where content is distributed across a network (similar to a CDN with tiers) and served from locations "close" to clients. This inherently suggests a multi-server architecture with content distribution.
  • US8321568B2 details content management within such a network, which would include the storage and retrieval of content. Given the concept of "long-tail" content, managing content efficiently (e.g., deciding where to store less popular content) would be a known problem.
  • US8606996B2 explicitly addresses cache optimization, which would naturally lead a PHOSITA to consider strategies for managing cached content based on demand or popularity to maximize efficiency and minimize costs. The patent US9762692 itself states that "Content can become popular (by various measures of popularity) or fade into relative obscurity dynamically, so a content library cannot easily be explicitly partitioned. Instead, the CDN tracks popularity of certain content, and selectively migrates content toward the edge (i.e., toward the tier 1 servers) as that content becomes popular." This highlights the known need for dynamic content management based on popularity in CDNs.

  Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA aiming to optimize content delivery and caching in a CDN (as described in US7970820B1 and US8606996B2) would be motivated to use content management techniques (from US8321568B2) to handle different types of content, including less popular "long-tail" content. It would be obvious to differentiate content based on popularity and serve unpopular content from a less "expensive" or more centralized location (like an intermediate tier or origin) to conserve resources at the edge. The concept of partitioning content across servers in an intermediate tier to distribute load and manage storage efficiently would be a logical extension of general load balancing and data distribution techniques in a networked environment, especially when dealing with large content libraries as described in US9762692. The patent itself highlights that "the partitioning of content libraries across servers in an intermediate tier of a CDN provides a type of preemptive load-balancing such that certain parent servers are only responsible for handling a pre-defined subset of a content provider's library."

Claim 10 (Content delivery framework):
This claim describes a framework with edge servers (first tier), parent servers (second tier), and a popularity service that determines which tier handles requests based on popularity, with distinct portions of the content provider's library logically partitioned across parent servers.

• Combination 1: US7860964B2 (Policy-based content delivery network selection) + US9167036B2 (Managed object replication and delivery) + US8606996B2 (Cache optimization) + US7962597B2 (Request routing based on class)

  • US7860964B2 teaches policy-based selection in a CDN, which could encompass policies related to content popularity or tiering.
  • US9167036B2 describes managed object replication and delivery, directly addressing how content is handled and distributed within a CDN, including considerations for efficiency.
  • US8606996B2 addresses cache optimization, which strongly implies managing content placement based on its anticipated use (popularity).
  • US7962597B2 teaches request routing based on "class." A PHOSITA would readily understand "class" to include popularity (e.g., popular vs. unpopular content).

  Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA optimizing a CDN for diverse content (including "long-tail" content, which is a known problem in the art as acknowledged by US9762692) would be motivated to combine policy-based selection and managed replication with cache optimization and class-based routing. This combination would lead to a system where content is intelligently distributed and served from appropriate tiers based on its popularity (a "class" of content). The logical partitioning of content across parent servers to manage large libraries and distribute load would be a known engineering solution in large-scale data storage and delivery systems. US9762692 notes that "the partitioning of content libraries across servers in an intermediate tier of a CDN provides a type of preemptive load-balancing". This implies that load-balancing by partitioning content was a known or obvious concept.

Claim 15 (Method of content delivery with selective redirection and hashing):
This claim details a method where a first server in any tier, finding a resource unavailable, selectively redirects the request to a second tier server based on popularity. This second server has a partitioned portion of the library, and a hash function is used to identify which specific second-tier server stores the content.

• Combination 1: US7860964B2 (Policy-based content delivery network selection) + US8156243B2 (Request routing) + US8606996B2 (Cache optimization) + any reference teaching basic hashing for data distribution (e.g., for load balancing or data partitioning, which are common in distributed systems)

  • US7860964B2 provides the framework for policy-based decisions within a CDN, which would include popularity.
  • US8156243B2 describes general request routing in a network, making the redirection of requests a known element.
  • US8606996B2 strongly motivates using popularity for caching decisions.
  • The use of hash functions for distributing data across multiple servers (e.g., for load balancing, consistent hashing, or partitioning large datasets) was a well-known technique in distributed computing and networking prior to 2008. US9762692 itself describes, "The mapping of requests/content to slots is based on some function of the object name and perhaps other information associated with the request for the object. Preferably the mapping of objects to slots is based on a hash or message digest function (such as MAD or the like) over the object name (and preferably including some parts of the query string)." This confirms that hashing for content mapping was a known technique.

  Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA aiming to implement a robust and scalable CDN with tiered storage, as motivated by the need to handle "long-tail" content efficiently, would combine policy-based content delivery (US7860964B2) and request routing (US8156243B2) with cache optimization based on popularity (US8606996B2). Given the goal of distributing large content libraries across multiple servers in an intermediate tier to alleviate the burden on origin servers and efficiently manage storage (as described in the patent), it would be obvious to use a well-established technique like hashing to consistently and efficiently map a requested resource to its specific storage location among the partitioned servers in that tier. This ensures that redirected requests land on the correct server holding the desired content portion.

Here's an analysis of US Patent 9762692 regarding its patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation and divisional applications, related family members, and projected expiration date.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is granted to compensate patent applicants for certain delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the prosecution of a patent application. These delays can include the USPTO failing to: issue a first office action within 14 months of filing; respond to an applicant's reply within four months; or issue the patent within four months of the issue fee payment. PTA can also be granted if the application is pending for more than three years, with some exclusions for applicant-caused delays.

For US Patent 9762692, the patent record indicates an "Adjusted expiration" date of 2034-03-08 [cite: US9762692B2]. This adjustment implies that PTA was calculated and applied to the patent term to compensate for USPTO delays. However, the specific number of days of PTA granted or the detailed calculation for US9762692 are not explicitly detailed in the provided patent text or readily available through general search queries without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or Official Gazette for this specific patent.

Patent Term Extension (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is a separate mechanism under 35 U.S.C. § 156 designed to restore a portion of the patent term lost due to the lengthy regulatory review process required for certain products, primarily pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and food additives, by agencies like the FDA. The primary purpose of PTE is to restore the effective patent life that is eroded while a product awaits pre-market regulatory approval.

Given that US Patent 9762692 relates to "Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)," it does not pertain to regulated products requiring FDA or similar pre-market approval. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this patent would be eligible for a Patent Term Extension (PTE).

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation-in-Part (CIP) Application: US9762692B2 originated from a continuation-in-part (CIP) application, specifically claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/408,681, filed on March 21, 2009. This parent application later issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,930,538. [cite: US9762692B2] The application for US9762692B2 (US12/880,324) also claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 61/042,412, filed on April 4, 2008. [cite: US9762692B2]
• Continuation Applications: The patent family also includes continuation applications. For instance, US Patent 10,218,806 B2 (application number US15/645,584) is identified as a "Continuation" of US9762692B2. [cite: US9762692B2]
• Divisional Applications: No explicit divisional applications are listed in the provided information for US9762692B2. Divisional applications typically arise when an applicant divides claims from a single parent application into two or more separate applications.

Related Family Members

US Patent 9762692B2 belongs to patent family ID 45831925. Key related family members, including priority applications and applications claiming priority, are:

• Priority Applications:

  • US 61/042,412 (filed 2008-04-04)
  • US 12/408,681 (filed 2009-03-21, issued as US 8,930,538 B2) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US 12/880,324 (filed 2010-09-13, the application for US9762692B2) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • PCT/US2011/051252 (filed 2011-09-12, published as WO2012037039A1) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • EP11825742.7A (filed 2011-09-12, published as EP2616951B1) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • CA2811210A (filed 2011-09-12, published as CA2811210C) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US15/645,584 (filed 2017-07-10, issued as US10218806B2) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US16/284,791 (filed 2019-02-25, issued as US10924573B2) [cite: US9762692B2]

• Published Applications/Granted Patents:

  • US 8,930,538 B2 ("Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)") [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US 2010/0332595 A1 (Publication of the US12/880,324 application) [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US 10,218,806 B2 ("Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)") [cite: US9762692B2]
  • US 10,924,573 B2 ("Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)") [cite: US9762692B2]
  • WO2012037039A1 [cite: US9762692B2]
  • EP2616951B1 [cite: US9762692B2]
  • CA2811210C [cite: US9762692B2]

Projected Expiration Date

The projected expiration date for US Patent 9762692B2 is 2034-03-08 [cite: US9762692B2]. This date is identified as the "Adjusted expiration" date. [cite: US9762692B2] The standard patent term for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, is 20 years from the earliest effective filing date, with adjustments for USPTO delays (PTA) or regulatory review delays (PTE, if applicable). Since this patent is a continuation-in-part of an application filed on March 21, 2009, and claims priority to an application filed on April 4, 2008, its term would typically be calculated from the earliest effective priority date (April 4, 2008), plus any PTA. The stated expiration date of March 8, 2034, reflects this base term plus any PTA.