US 9762907

I'll verify the patent details against live sources and check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

Let me pull the actual claim text, since the patent's claims section wasn't fully included in the provided excerpt.

I have good metadata. Let me retrieve the actual claim language from an authoritative source.

Verification and Summary — US Patent No. 9,762,907

Verification note: I searched and confirmed the identifier "9762907" maps to a real, granted US patent (US 9,762,907 B2). I did not find a different patent under a similar number that should be substituted. All alphanumeric identifiers below are reported literally as found.

1. Bibliographic Data (confirmed)

Assignment chain (from the record): Original filing by the inventors; assigned June 9, 2015 to Realtime Data LLC; reassigned March 14, 2017 to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC. Note: Justia lists the assignee as "Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC (Tyler, TX)," while Google Patents' bibliographic "original assignee" field also says Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC — the two records are inconsistent with the assignment-history entries, which show Realtime Data LLC as the filer-time holder.

Continuation chain (all same family/specification): 14/733,565 ← 14/577,286 (abandoned) ← 14/134,933 (now US 8,929,442) ← 14/033,245 (now US 8,934,535) ← 13/154,239 (now US 8,553,759) ← 12/123,081 (now US 8,073,047) ← 10/076,013 (now US 7,386,046) ← provisional 60/268,394.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method for compressing data is disclosed. The system and method include one or more data compression algorithms with at least one data compression algorithm from among the one or more data compression algorithms utilizing an asymmetric data compression. The system and method determine a type of data having one or more parameters, attributes, or values of the data from at least a portion of a data block; select one or more data compression algorithms from among the one or more data compression algorithms based upon the determined type of data and a throughput of a communications channel; and perform data compression with the selected one or more data compression algorithms on at least the portion of the data block."

3. Plain-Language Technical Overview (from the specification)

The patent descends from Realtime Data's "bandwidth-sensitive compression" family. Core idea: choose which compression algorithm to use dynamically, rather than using one fixed codec.

• Asymmetric vs. symmetric algorithms. An "asymmetric" algorithm has very different compress vs. decompress times (e.g., Lempel-Ziv dictionary coding: slow compress / fast decompress, or the reverse). A "symmetric" algorithm has roughly equal times (e.g., Huffman). Asymmetric algorithms typically give better compression ratios.
• Two selection inputs. (1) Throughput/bandwidth of the system or communication channel — when throughput drops below a threshold (e.g., pending disk accesses or pending transmission requests back up), the controller switches to a faster (often symmetric) routine to clear the bottleneck, then reverts to the slower high-ratio routine when the backlog clears. (2) Data type / access profile — pre-defined "Access Profiles" map data types to algorithm classes:
  • Profile 1 (write once, read many — OS, apps, websites): slow-compress/fast-decompress asymmetric.
  • Profile 2 (write many, read few — auto-updated databases): fast-compress/slow-decompress asymmetric.
  • Profile 3 (read ≈ write — documents, spreadsheets): symmetric.
• Decompression determinism. The algorithm choice must be made at or before compression time, because decompression must match whatever encoder was used; the spec stores compression-type descriptors (e.g., a "C Type" field in a sector map) so the right decoder can be selected later.

4. Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview ⚠️

Important limitation on this section. The authoritative claim text of US 9,762,907 was not fully reproduced in the material I was able to retrieve in this session — the sources returned the specification and family-level claim sets, but not the issued '907 claims verbatim. I therefore cannot state the '907 claim wording with high confidence, and I am not going to reconstruct it by assumption.

What I can say with reasonable confidence, from the family relationship and the source material:

• The '907 belongs to a continuation chain whose sibling patents (US 8,929,442; US 8,934,535) issued with independent claims in the general form: [determine a parameter/attribute of a data block] → [select one or more compressors (at least one asymmetric) based on that parameter/attribute and/or throughput of a communication channel] → [compress the data block] → [store the compressed result] — with method and apparatus (and non-transitory medium) variants.
• The '907's challenged claims in the PTAB proceedings (see below) recite limitations such as compression-algorithm selection "based upon a frequency of access" and "throughput of a communication channel," with "at least one of the plurality of compression algorithms is asymmetric."
• The '535-family independent claims I could retrieve (offered only as a proxy, not as the '907 text) include: a method of determining a parameter/attribute of a data block, selecting an access profile from among a plurality of access profiles, and compressing using information from the selected profile with at least one slow-compress/fast-decompress encoder; and a method of selecting one or more asymmetric compressors based on a determined parameter and storing the compressed output.

If you need the exact '907 claim language, I recommend pulling the granted claims directly from USPTO Patent Center / the Google Patents "Claims" tab / patentimages PDF for US 9,762,907. I am flagging this as an unresolved gap rather than guessing.

5. Post-Grant Litigation, PTAB, and Federal Circuit Status

Litigation (family-level, per the Google Patents record): Numerous district court suits — Del. 1:17-cv-01693, 1:17-cv-01692, 1:17-cv-01520, 1:17-cv-01519; E.D. Tex. 6:17-cv-00591; W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00441; D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10355; D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02692; C.D. Cal. 2:17-cv-07611, 2:18-cv-09344, 2:19-cv-06361. One case I could open (Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097) involved claim-construction briefing on "asymmetric compressor"/"asymmetric data compression" for the related '535 and '610 patents.

PTAB: IPR2018-01817 (Unified Patents, reached Final Written Decision) and IPR2018-01299 (settlement) are listed in the '907 family's litigation record. ⚠️ I could not confirm that IPR2018-01817 was directed at the '907 patent specifically as opposed to a sibling family member; the listing appears at family level. Treat the patent-to-IPR mapping as unverified.

Federal Circuit: Recorded appeals in the family include Nos. 20-2164, 21-1484, 21-1485, 21-1519, and 21-2268.

2026 CAFC docket check: I searched specifically for 2026 Federal Circuit activity on patent 9,762,907. I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entry for this patent. The 2026 Federal Circuit material returned by my searches concerned unrelated patents/parties (Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics, Disney, Exafer v. Microsoft) and one Realtime-family appeal brief discussing the related '610 patent and Adaptive Streaming, 836 F. App'x 903 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (an eligibility/§ 101 and § 285 exceptional-case matter). I cannot confirm any pending 2026 CAFC matter involving US 9,762,907 — absence of a hit is not proof of absence, and my docket coverage here is limited to the sources returned.

6. Explicit Uncertainty List

1. Issued claim text of '907 — not retrieved; not stated here. (Highest-priority gap.)
2. Assignee of record — sources disagree (Realtime Data LLC at filing vs. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC as listed assignee/current owner).
3. Patent-to-IPR mapping (IPR2018-01817 vs. IPR2018-01299) — unverified for the '907 specifically.
4. 2026 CAFC activity — none found; cannot affirmatively rule it out.
5. Classification oddity — Justia's page displays a "Current U.S. Class: Radioactive Substance Applied To Body For Therapy (600/1)," which is plainly inconsistent with the video/audio compression subject matter and appears to be a database artifact. The CPC classes (H04N 19/*, H03M 7/30) are the coherent ones.

I'll research litigation involving US 9,762,907 using the sources you specified, plus the litigation records already embedded in the patent page itself.

Let me gather details on the specific district court cases and appeals.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 ("the '907 patent")

Short answer: Yes — litigation is extensively documented. The '907 patent (System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution; filed June 8, 2015; granted Sept. 12, 2017; assignee Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC) was asserted by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC against a large group of consumer-electronics and streaming defendants in 2017–2018, was the subject of at least two PTAB inter partes reviews (one of which invalidated all challenged claims), and generated several Federal Circuit appeals. Below is what I can document, with sources.

A. District court infringement cases in which the '907 patent was asserted

Note on one common mis-attribution: In Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. No. 6:17-cv-00549 (filed Sept. 27, 2017), the AO-120 form in the record lists only U.S. Patents 8,934,535; 9,769,477; and 8,929,442 — not the '907 patent. I therefore do not list Amazon as a '907 case, even though it appears in the same MDL Schedule A family grouping.

B. PTAB proceedings on the '907 patent

The IPR2018-01817 petition relied on the declaration of Dr. James A. Storer; Realtime's response relied on Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger. In its reply, Netflix asserted Realtime conceded all limitations except 1[d] and 1[e] and dependent claims 2, 12, and 13.

C. Federal Circuit appeals

The Google Patents litigation record for US9762907 lists these CAFC dockets:

• 20-2164 — Realtime's appeal from IPR2018-01817 (the '907 IPR in which the Board invalidated claims 1–14). Netflix cross-appealed on fee issues.
• 21-1484 — listed for the '907 patent.
• 21-1485 — listed for the '907 patent.
• 21-1519 — listed for the '907 patent.
• 21-2268 — listed for the '907 patent. (A separate CAFC No. 21-2268, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., concerns the '610 patent, not the '907 patent — see below.)

Important caveat: Google Patents attaches litigation to patents at what appears to be a family/portfolio level. I was not able to confirm from the retrieved sources which of 21-1484, 21-1485, 21-1519, and 21-2268 specifically adjudicated the '907 patent versus sibling patents ('535, '477, '610, '442, '046, '462, '298). I would verify each docket directly on the CAFC/PACER before relying on it.

Related, frequently-cited Realtime appellate activity that is NOT about the '907 patent (but is often conflated with it):

• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Nos. 21-2268 / 23-1035 (Fed. Cir.) — about the '610 patent; § 101 summary judgment affirmed May 11, 2023; exceptionality/fee award ($3.9M) vacated and remanded Aug. 23, 2024.
• Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App'x 900 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2020) — a different Realtime-family patent.

D. Consolidated/MDL proceeding

• In re: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2845, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 1, 2018) — Realtime moved to centralize 12 actions in D. Colo. or E.D. Tex. The Panel DENIED transfer. The eight patents at issue included the '907 patent. Schedule A listed, among others, the Hulu (2:17-cv-07611), Sling TV (1:17-cv-02097), Polycom (1:17-cv-02692), Apple (1:17-cv-02869), Brightcove (1:17-cv-01519), Haivision (1:17-cv-01520), Netflix (1:17-cv-01692), Sony (1:17-cv-01693), Adobe (1:18-cv-10355), Amazon (6:17-cv-00549), Cisco (6:17-cv-00591), and Samsung (6:18-cv-00113) actions.

E. Overall outcome / current status of the '907 patent

• Claims 1–14 were held unpatentable in Netflix's IPR2018-01817 (FWD Mar. 30, 2020).
• Defendants named on the Google Patents record as having settled or been dismissed include Sony and Polycom (via the Nov. 2018 IPR settlement); Brightcove, Haivision, and Sony Delaware cases are shown as closed.
• Netflix ultimately prevailed in its defense and obtained a $409,402.50 fee award for the California actions (with a cross-appeal seeking IPR and Delaware fees).
• The '907 patent's own Google Patents legal status is "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of Feb. 13, 2022.

F. Confidence and limitations (please read)

• The litigation links in the patent text you provided are Unified Patents portal URLs; I verified the substance against the IPR2018-01817 Final Written Decision, the J.P.M.L. MDL denial order, the Stanford NPE database, D. Del. dockets, and SEC/EDGAR litigation disclosures — but I did not open each Unified Patents or PACER docket directly.
• Filing dates for the Colorado, Texas, and Massachusetts cases are taken from MDL Schedule A and IPR record statements and may be off by a few days.
• I could not identify the defendant(s) in 6:19-cv-00441 (W.D. Tex.) or 2:19-cv-06361 (C.D. Cal.); these appear only in Google's aggregated litigation data and should be verified.
• I did not auto-correct any patent or case numbers. Where two sources gave different dates (e.g., Brightcove), I flagged it rather than choosing silently.

If you want, I can pull the PACER dockets for the 2019 cases and the five CAFC dockets (20-2164, 21-1484, 21-1485, 21-1519, 21-2268) to confirm which specifically involve the '907 patent and their final dispositions.

I'll start by pulling the canonical structured data and then running targeted searches on the two PTAB numbers that appear in the patent's Google Patents litigation block.

Strong signal: the Google Patents litigation block lists two PTAB cases (IPR2018-01817 and IPR2018-01299), and they involve different petitioners. Let me pin down the second one and the appeal outcomes.

Flag before anything else: the structured ODP list is wrong (or at least incomplete)

The "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,762,907. That is contradicted by three independent sources — including the patent's own Google Patents page in this prompt, whose litigation block lists "[PTAB case IPR2018-01817 filed (Final Written Decision)]" and "[PTAB case IPR2018-01299 filed (Settlement)]." Third-party PTAB dockets (Docket Alarm, GreyB/IPVerse) confirm both. Treat the ODP "no proceedings" result as a legacy-data gap for this 2018-era case, not as an absence of activity. Two AIA proceedings exist.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings were filed against US 9,762,907: one claims-invalidated (IPR2018-01817 — Netflix; Final Written Decision canceled all of claims 1–14) and one settled pre-institution (IPR2018-01299 — Sony/Polycom; terminated 2018-11-08, no institution decision ever issued). Bottom line for a defendant: there is no live claim of the '907 patent left standing at the Board — the only independent claim (claim 1) and all thirteen dependents were held unpatentable on 2020-03-30, so if a demand letter today cites claims 1–14, the asserted subject matter is a canceled claim set (subject only to the disposition of Realtime's Federal Circuit appeal, which I could not verify — see caveats).

IPR2018-01817 — Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2018-10-09 (petition, Paper 2, 71 pages; supported by the Declaration of James A. Storer, Ph.D.)
• Status (verbatim): "Final Written Decision" (Law360 case entry) / "Final Decision-35 Judgment — Final Written Decision — Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" (PTAB paper 35). Plain English: trial instituted on all challenged claims, all claims canceled.
• Judge panel: Gregg I. Anderson (writing), Garth D. Baer, Kamran Jivani
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–14 (the entire patent; claim 1 is the sole independent claim). Three grounds were asserted, tried with the Storer declaration (Ex. 1003) and a Storer reply declaration (Ex. 1027); Patent Owner relied on the declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001). From the 2020-01-09 oral hearing transcript, Ground 1 is built on U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,150 to Pauls (the parties disputed whether Pauls anticipates or renders obvious — Patent Owner framed Petitioner's argument as anticipation, Petitioner argued obviousness, including on Pauls' "bit stream" and "file" teachings) and Ground 2 involves Imai (sequential encoder switching). Petitioner offered two alternative readings of limitation 1[d] ("concurrent user" vs. "sequential access") and two candidate "data parameters" tied to expected/anticipated throughput of the communications channel (user ID and data type). The statutory basis presented at the hearing was § 103 obviousness; I could not verify from the retrieved text whether any ground was pleaded in the alternative as § 102, or the identity of the third ground's reference — flagging that as unverified rather than guessing.
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims (Institution Decision = Paper 7). The institution date is reported as 2019-04-15 in Realtime's Federal Circuit briefing appendix. The panel's institution reasoning is not reproduced in the sources I retrieved.
• Final Written Decision: 2020-03-30 (Paper 35). Verdict at claim level: claims 1–14 unpatentable — all challenged claims canceled. Independent claim 1 canceled; dependent claims 2–14 canceled. The FWD states: "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–14 of the '907 patent are unpatentable." (35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.) No claim was upheld. The Board's claim-level reasoning beyond this is not visible in the excerpt I could retrieve — do not assume the FWD made separate written findings per dependent claim.
• Post-FWD motion practice: Netflix filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 36), decided 2020-06-15 (Paper 37) — "Denying Petitioner's Request on Rehearing of Final Written Decision." The panel summarized its own judgment as "our Final Written Decision ... cancelling claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 B2." Netflix's request contested the findings on claims 1–4 and 6–14 (everything except claim 5) and was denied. FWD · Rehearing denial · Oral hearing transcript
• Settlement / termination: None. Tried to FWD and post-FWD rehearing.
• Appeal: Realtime appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit — No. 20-2164. Netflix's answering brief in that appeal is captioned "20-2164: appeal of Realtime from IPR2018-01817, where the Board held [claims 1–14 unpatentable]." The Google Patents family block also lists "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ... case/20-2164." I could not verify the disposition (affirmance, vacatur, or Arthrex remand) from the sources retrieved — the panel's early-2020 FWD sits squarely in the Arthrex window, and at least one co-litigant brief in the parallel Netlist/SK hynix matter argued FWDs in this period could be vacated on Appointments Clause grounds. Treat the appeal outcome as an open verification item, not as an affirmance.
• Real parties in interest: Netflix, Inc. and Netflix Streaming Services, Inc. Patent Owner identified Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC as sole RPI.
• Defensive value: Claim 1 — the only independent claim — is canceled, and with it claims 2–14. Any infringement theory built on claims 1–14 rests on claims that a PTAB panel has already held unpatentable; a defendant should put the FWD in front of the patent owner on day one. The residual risk is entirely a function of the 20-2164 disposition: if the FWD was vacated (e.g., Arthrex), the claims revive and Netflix's estoppel is the only thing standing — which does not help a different defendant.

IPR2018-01299 — Sony Corporation and Polycom, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2018-06-28
• Status (verbatim): "Terminated-Settled"; termination date 2018-11-08. Plain English: settled and terminated before any institution decision — the Board never reached the merits. The docket shows no Decision on Institution.
• Judge panel: None identified; no merits panel ever issued a decision.
• Petition grounds: Not adjudicated. The case file identifies Patent 9,762,907 (application 14/733,565, Tech Center 2600) and the petitioners as Sony Corporation and Polycom, Inc. The petition's art/§ bases were never evaluated by the Board and I could not verify them.
• Institution decision: None. No institution decision issued on this docket.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The parties reached a global settlement covering IPR2018-01299, IPR2018-01413, and IPR2018-01439 (the latter two captioned in the Board's correspondence as "Sony Corp. and Polycom, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC"). By email of 2018-11-07, the Board authorized joint motions to terminate, reminded the parties of their § 317 duty to file the settlement agreement and any collateral/licensing agreements, and set a 2018-11-12 due date. The parties requested that the two confidential settlement agreements (Sony–Realtime and Polycom–Realtime) be kept separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and filed as "BOARD ONLY." Terms are confidential. Termination is recorded as 2018-11-08. Case record · Board email authorizing termination · Sony/Polycom power of attorney on this docket
• Appeal: None. A settlement-terminated pre-institution IPR has nothing appealable.
• Companion petitions (flag): IPR2018-01413 and IPR2018-01439 were resolved by the same settlement; IPR2018-01413's joint-motion-to-terminate decision is recorded as entered 2019-01-02. I could not verify which patents those two challenged — the Google Patents family block for the '907 patent lists only IPR2018-01299 and IPR2018-01817, so do not assume they covered the '907 patent without pulling the decisions.
• Defensive value: Because termination occurred before institution, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to Sony or Polycom. That is a net positive for a new defendant: the Sony/Polycom grounds, if any good, remain unadjudicated and un-estopped — but they were never tested on the merits, so they carry no persuasive weight as "the patent already lost on this art."

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 9,762,907. The patent is small: claim 1 is the only independent claim, and claims 1–14 are the entire claim set (both facts stated in the Board's own rehearing decision). CANCELED: claims 1–14 — every claim, per the 2020-03-30 FWD (Paper 35), as characterized by the same panel on 2020-06-15 ("our Final Written Decision ... cancelling claims 1–14"). SUSTAINED: none. There is no claim of this patent that has survived an IPR; the only proceedings that produced a merits outcome extinguished the whole patent. UNTESTED: none as to this patent, precisely because Netflix challenged the full claim set and the Board instituted on all of it. The single caveat is appellate: the FWD was appealed (CAFC 20-2164) and I could not confirm it was affirmed. If you are clearing a product, do not rely on the FWD alone — confirm the mandate. Note also that the patent's PTO status is "Expired - Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2022-02-13, so any exposure is historical regardless of validity.

Estoppel landscape. Netflix (and its privies, including Netflix Streaming Services) is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to every ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2018-01817 — that includes the Pauls and Imai grounds litigated to FWD, plus any art Netflix had in hand. That estoppel is Netflix-specific and does not transfer to you; there is no indication any other party joined or sought joinder into IPR2018-01817 (by contrast, in the sibling '535-patent Netflix IPR, ARRIS sought § 315(c) joinder on a substantively identical petition — a different patent and a different proceeding). Sony and Polycom are not estopped at all: their petition was terminated pre-institution, so § 315(e) never triggered. Practically, for a defendant today the relevant prior-art field is wide open — nothing about the '907 IPR forecloses you from using Pauls, Imai, or anything else — and the only thing you would be estopped from is what you (not Netflix) raised in a proceeding you never filed.

Pattern signals. Realtime is a serial, litigation-first enforcer of this Fallon-family portfolio: the '907 patent was asserted in at least eight district court actions (Netflix and Sony in D. Del.; Brightcove, Haivision; Hulu; Cisco; Polycom; Adobe), and the JPML refused to consolidate the campaign into an MDL (In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2018)). Petitioners were diversified — Netflix filed IPR2018-01817; Sony/Polycom filed IPR2018-01299 (plus 01413/01439) and then bought their way out by settlement in November 2018, which is why this patent has only one merits decision. Unified Patents does appear in this campaign, but not on this patent — the Google Patents PTAB entries for IPR2018-01817 and IPR2018-01299 carry the Unified Patents attribution string, but the Unified filing I can document is IPR2018-00883 against a different Realtime Adaptive Streaming patent (record shows a judgment entered 2019-01-31), so do not credit Unified with killing the '907 claims. The kill shot came from Netflix. One more cross-portfolio signal worth carrying into a defense: the near-identical sibling claim in US 8,867,610 ('610) was held § 101 ineligible by the District of Colorado on summary judgment (2021 WL 3888263), affirmed per curiam at Fed. Cir. No. 21-2268 (2023-05-11), and the Federal Circuit separately affirmed dismissal in Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App'x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) — so both § 103 (at the PTAB) and § 101 (in the district court) have proven lethal to this claim family.

Recommended next steps

1. Get the mandate on CAFC No. 20-2164. Pull the docket via CourtListener and the Federal Circuit's docket; the entire "prior claims" defense turns on whether the FWD was affirmed or vacated. Also check for an Arthrex-style vacatur/remand given the March/April 2020 decision date.
2. Pull the FWD itself (PTAB Paper 35) from PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for IPR2018-01817 and read the claim-by-claim analysis, the three ground headings, and the § 103 reasoning. The FWD's disposition sentence is: "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–14 of the '907 patent are unpatentable." If you need to put a quote in a letter or motion, quote that and the rehearing decision's "cancelling claims 1–14." Do not represent that the FWD made claim-by-claim findings it may not have made — I could not verify that level of granularity.
3. If the FWD stands, lead with it: claims 1–14 are canceled, claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and any infringement theory on this patent is dead on arrival. Pair it with the § 101 outcome on the '610 patent (D. Colo. SJ order; Fed. Cir. 21-2268) as a second independent invalidity theory for the family.
4. If the FWD was vacated, the claims revive and you are facing an un-est ceased patent owner. In that scenario: (a) the Netflix grounds are pre-briefed and free for you to adopt (no estoppel runs against you); (b) check whether the asserted claim set maps to any pending or later-issued continuation in this family (the '907 is a continuation chain running to provisional 60/268,394 / Feb. 13, 2001, with later-issued family members such as US 10,212,417 and additional applications filed 2018–2019) — a canceled claim can be re-papered in a new continuation, so scope down the analysis to the actual asserted claim, not just the '907 claim numbers.
5. Treat the Sony/Polycom settlement as non-precedential. No institution, no FWD, no estoppel. Do not represent it as a merits win for anyone; if you want the art they used, pull their petition from the IPR2018-01299 file — it was never evaluated by the Board.
6. Diarize nothing on this patent. There are no pending PTAB milestones: both proceedings are terminated, the statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year clock on IPR2018-01817 ran out with the 2020-03-30 FWD, and the patent's anticipated expiration (2022-02-13) plus "Expired - Fee Related" status means the only remaining live question is appellate.

Unverified items I am deliberately not asserting: the identity of the third ground's reference in IPR2018-01817; the Institution Decision's reasoning; the FWD's per-dependent-claim findings; the patents at issue in IPR2018-01413/-1439; and the outcome of CAFC 20-2164. Each is flagged above rather than filled in.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,762,907 before building the report.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the entity history.

I have reel/frame leads. Let me pin down the exact records and correspondent.

I hit the tool-call limit mid-research, so I've flagged below exactly what is confirmed by retrieved records versus what I could not verify. Do not treat the unverified items as findings.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,762,907 B2

Patent: "System and methods for video and audio data distribution" — App. No. 14/733,565, filed 2015-06-08, granted 2017-09-12. Earliest priority 2001-02-13 (Prov. 60/268,394), non-provisional ancestor 10/076,013 filed 2002-02-13.

Inventors

Pattern note — inverse of a fire-sale tell. In a typical pre-fire-sale fact pattern the inventors leave the original assignee within 12 months and stop prosecuting. Here the opposite is true: the same two inventors (Fallon and McErlain) remain the named inventors across the entire 2001-priority continuation family, and Fallon personally continued filing continuations through at least 2019 (e.g., App. 15/382,263 → US 10,212,417). This is a single-inventor-controlled family that was retained and mined, not abandoned. One timing oddity is material and is discussed in the timeline: the inventors' assignment was executed in August 2002 but not recorded with the USPTO until July 2013 — an ~11-year recordation lag that ends just before the Realtime Data assertion campaign began.

Original assignee

Two different answers depending on which "original" you mean, and the distinction matters:

• Assignee on the issued patent face (as indexed by Google Patents): Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Tyler, TX — because the owner-to-owner assignment recorded 2017-03-14 (reel 041573/0683) landed before the 2017-09-12 grant.
• True original assignee under the first recorded assignment: Realtime Data, LLC, New York, NY — the entity that took the inventors' rights and prosecuted the family. Realtime Data did business as "IXO" and is the named plaintiff in the earlier wave of suits (e.g., Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Actian Corp., 6:15-cv-00463).

Line of business / product: Realtime Data / Realtime Adaptive Streaming is a patent-holding and licensing entity, not a seller of the video/audio products the claims read on. The most direct, quotable evidence is in a public-company filing: EchoStar's periodic report states — "Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein." I did not find credible evidence in the retrieved record that the original assignee shipped a commercial product embodying these claims; several defendants (Adobe, Netflix, DISH/EchoStar, Samsung) are the ones who ship the accused products.

Current status: Realtime Data, LLC and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC both appear to remain in existence as licensing entities. The patent itself is at end of life — Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2022-02-13 and legal status "Expired – Fee Related," and the family shows maintenance-fee lapse events. The family has extensive litigation history (Delaware 2017 wave; E.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir. appeals 20-2164, 21-1484, 21-1485, 21-1519, 21-2268).

Assignment timeline

Retrieved record for this chain. Reel/frame values marked ⚠️ were surfaced for sibling family members and are very likely (but not directly confirmed by me) the same portfolio-wide recordings covering the '907 application.

• 2002-08-02 / 2002-08-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-25 — Reel 030877/0211 ⚠️

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: James J. Fallon; Stephen J. McErlain (individuals)
  • Assignee: Realtime Data, LLC, New York, NY
  • Correspondent: not recovered — see caveat below
  • Context: Founder-to-company assignment, executed one month after the ancestors were on file, but recorded only in 2013, immediately ahead of the assertion campaign. (Directly documented on sibling US 8,553,759; I could not isolate the '907 application's own reel/frame.)

• Also recorded for the family: Reel 031267/0357 ⚠️ — "From FALLON, JAMES F. et al. To: Realtime Data, LLC," quoted verbatim in a PTAB filing as the recorded chain-of-title document for sibling US 8,934,535. Same conveyance, same parties, same correspondent-position as 030877/0211. Multiple reel/frames exist because the family was recorded in tranches; I could not determine which single reel/frame attaches to App. 14/733,565.

• 2015-06-09 (recorded / reported) — Reel/frame not recovered

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest (per Google Patents legal events)
  • Assignor: Fallon, James J.; McErlain, Stephen J.
  • Assignee: Realtime Data LLC
  • Correspondent: not recovered
  • Context: Continuation-application recordation. Google Patents' legal-events feed for the '907 patent shows an inventor→Realtime Data LLC assignment associated with the 2015-06-08 filing of App. 14/733,565. I could not retrieve the reel/frame or correspondent from the sources I reached before running out of tool budget.

• Effective 2017-03-07 / recorded 2017-03-14 — Reel 041573/0683 ✅ (confirmed by two independent sources)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Realtime Data LLC
  • Assignee: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Tyler, TX (1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, TX 75701, per its complaints)
  • Correspondent: not recovered — see caveat below
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / rebranding of the asserting entity. The same reel/frame (041573/0683) is cited as the operative title document for sibling '535 and '759 patents, so it is a portfolio-wide assignment. It took effect ~7 months before Realtime Adaptive Streaming began filing the October 2017 suits and immediately before it was substituted as plaintiff in the Colorado action (Oct 10, 2017).

Correspondent caveat (important to your brief). I could not verify any recorded correspondent/attorney of record. One retrieved PTAB exhibit excerpt shows an "Applicant/Patent Owner: Realtime Data, LLC … Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, a Limited Liability Company" chain-of-title statement referencing reel 041573/0683 and a partially-OCR'd name beginning "Michael V." dated December 20, 2017 — but that text is too degraded to attribute as the recording correspondent, and I will not assert it. The correspondent field must be pulled directly from Assignment Center (search patent 9,762,907, then open each reel/frame) before any "repeat correspondent" finding is made. This was the one signal I was specifically unable to close out.

If Assignment Center returns no additional entries beyond the above: that itself is normal here — the two-owner structure (inventors → Realtime Data → Realtime Adaptive Streaming) is the complete known chain, and the absence of further post-2017 assignments is consistent with a single asserting entity holding to expiration.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9762907
    2001 : Provisional filed by Fallon and McErlain
    2002 : Non-provisional ancestor filed
         : Inventors assign to Realtime Data LLC
    2013 : 2002 assignment recorded at reel 030877
    2015 : Continuation filed as 14/733565
         : Inventor assignment to Realtime Data recorded
    2017 : Transfer to Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
         : Reel 041573 frame 0683
         : First suit on 907 patent vs Brightcove
    2018 : Sued Samsung in East Texas
         : Netflix IPR filed on 907
    2022 : Patent term ended

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Reel 041573/0683 (eff. 2017-03-07): the patent moved out of the prosecuting owner into Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, a licensing-only LLC with a stated Tyler, Texas business address. The "no products" element is not inferred from the name — it is stated by a defendant in a securities filing: "Realtime Adaptive Streaming is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein."

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. The chain runs through Realtime Data LLC (d/b/a IXO) and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, both high-frequency plaintiffs indexed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and the subject of dozens of PTAB IPRs (e.g., IPR2018-01817 Netflix v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming on the '907 patent itself; IPR2018-01299, terminated by settlement). Target set is operating media/tech companies — Brightcove, Samsung, Netflix, Adobe, Amazon/Hulu, DISH/Sling, Apple — not competitors selling into a market the plaintiff serves. This is a classic licensing-entity assertion profile rather than an operating-company competitor dispute.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED. No correspondent of record was recoverable from the sources I reached. I will not convert a missing field into a finding. Action item: pull the correspondent from each reel/frame in Assignment Center and check it against Unified Patents / RPX assertion lists — this is the highest-value remaining check on this patent.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only a two-link owner chain (inventors → Realtime Data → Realtime Adaptive Streaming), separated by ~15 years. There is no <24-month daisy chain of LLCs sharing an address, correspondent, or principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT on the strict 6-month test (but close, and clearly campaign-linked). Transfer effective 2017-03-07; first suit naming the '907 patent, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Brightcove Inc. et al., 1:17-cv-01519 (D. Del.), filed 2017-10-26 — ~7.6 months, outside the 6-month window. However, the transfer was plainly arranged for assertion: it preceded the October 2017 campaign, and Realtime Adaptive Streaming was substituted as plaintiff in the Colorado action on 2017-10-10. Treat as a timing-adjacent fact, not a strict hit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no 363 sale, no SEC-reported portfolio liquidation associated with this chain.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating-company transferor using the NPE as a proxy against competitors. The patent was developed inside the Fallon-controlled entity and asserted by that same entity — self-assertion, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an asserting NPE, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralization event found.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are directly documented: (i) a transfer-to-asserter into a licensing-only LLC, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, recorded at reel 041573/0683 effective 2017-03-07, and (ii) a known asserter in the chain, corroborated by a public company's own characterization that the assignee "seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein," plus the 2017-10-26 Brightcove suit (1:17-cv-01519) and the 2018-03-09 Samsung suit (6:18-cv-00113) filed on this patent. The single-inventor-controlled prosecution history and the 11-year recordation lag on the 2002 assignment reinforce the picture of a portfolio assembled and recorded in preparation for licensing — though the repeat-correspondent signal remains open pending a direct Assignment Center pull.

Verify here: Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9762907"); alternate index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9762907/en#legalEvents.

I'll pull the authoritative citation data for US 9,762,907 from USPTO and Google Patents. Let me run several targeted searches.

The family-member results are in, but I still need the front-page "References Cited" list and the PTAB prior-art record. Let me dig deeper.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 9,762,907 (US 9,762,907 B2)

0. Number confinement (per your strict rule)

I searched only for the exact string 9762907. It resolves to US 9,762,907 B2, "System and methods for video and audio data distribution," App. No. 14/733,565, filed 2015-06-08, granted 2017-09-12, inventors Fallon & McErlain, assignee Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC. I did not substitute or "auto-correct" to any similar number.

⚠️ Critical disambiguation: The record repeatedly shows a sibling patent US 9,769,477 B2 ("the '477 patent") — a different patent in the same Realtime Data family. Many IPRs and district-court cases name the '477, not the '907. I have excluded '477-specific material below except where a source explicitly names 9,762,907. Do not let these two numbers be conflated.

1. Why the "front-page citation list" is the weakest available source here

The task asks me to walk the patent citations printed on the '907 front page ("References Cited"). I was unable to retrieve the granted front page / patentimages PDF for US9762907 in this session — the searches returned the specification body, family-member annexes, and litigation/PTAB records, but not the "(56) References Cited" table.

I am not going to reconstruct that table from memory or inference. Stating a front-page reference that I did not retrieve would be fabrication. Flagged as Gap #1.

What I could retrieve is far more probative anyway: a USPTO PTAB Final Written Decision that adjudicated the validity of this exact patent against specific art. That is the authoritative "most relevant prior art" answer.

2. The authoritative prior-art set — IPR2018-01817 (USPTO/PTAB)

Source: Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01817, Final Written Decision, Paper 35 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2020) — Judgment: "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
URL: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01817/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9762907/docs/03-30-2020-Board/Final_Decision-35-Judgment___Final_Written_Decision___Determining_All_Challenged_Claims_Unpatentable.pdf

The Board held all challenged claims 1–14 unpatentable. The grounds (from Petitioners' demonstratives, Ex. 1028) were:

2.1 The three references

(a) "Pauls" (Ex. 1004) — the primary reference.

• Citation as it appears in the record: "Pauls," Petitioner's Exhibit 1004. The exact patent/publication number, jurisdiction, and dates were not contained in the retrieved excerpts — I am explicitly not guessing them (Gap #2).
• Description (grounded in the record): Discloses an access-server system with multiple concurrent users, each receiving video data compressed with a different compression routine; Pauls teaches using at least three asymmetric data compression algorithms — H.263, JPEG, and MPEG-2 — and formats a bitstream per user based on that user's network/preferences (the bitstream carries a user ID "for identifying the user to whom the data is intended"). Its disclosed flow is: host → access server data selector → per-user encoded bitstream.
• Potential §102 relevance: Pauls is the only reference the Board treated as sufficient alone to render claims unpatentable (Ground 1) — but it did so under § 103, not § 102. As a § 102 anticipation candidate it therefore maps to claims 1–4 and 6–14, with the caveat that the Board never made an anticipation finding.

(b) "Imai" (Ex. 1005; English translation Ex. 1006).

• Citation: "Imai," Ex. 1005, with translation at Ex. 1006. Number/date not retrieved (a Japanese-language reference is strongly implied by the presence of a separate translation exhibit, but I will not assert the JP number). Gap #2.
• Description: Teaches changing the encoding schedule based on the detected transmission rate of the network. Patent Owner argued this "transmission rate" is not a data parameter "analyzed from the data block," and that Imai discloses no selection of two or more different compression routines.
• Potential §102 relevance: Used only in Grounds 2 and 3 (§ 103 combinations with Pauls/Dawson) against claims 1–4, 6–14. No standalone § 102 finding; as a § 102 reference it is weak because the record shows it lacks the "select two or more routines" and "parameter from the data block" elements.

(c) "Dawson" (Ex. 1017).

• Citation: "Dawson," Ex. 1017. Number/date not retrieved. Gap #2.
• Description: Tied specifically to the dependent claim 5 in a three-way § 103 combination. The retrieved record confirms only that a POSITA motivation to combine Dawson was contested and briefed; substantive content of Dawson was not in the retrieved excerpts.
• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 5 only, and only in a § 103 combination. Not an independent anticipation candidate on this record.

3. Direct answer to "which claims does each reference potentially anticipate under § 102?"

Blunt finding: No reference in the record was adjudicated as a § 102 anticipation. Every ground in IPR2018-01817 was a § 103 obviousness ground. So any § 102 attribution below is a reviewer's mapping of the record, not a holding:

If you specifically need a § 102 theory, the only defensible one on this record is Pauls alone against claims 1–4 and 6–14 — and even that requires you to argue anticipation notwithstanding that the Petitioner and the Board framed it as obviousness.

4. Recovered Claim 1 language (fills a gap in the prior summary)

The earlier summary flagged that the '907 claim text was not retrieved. The PTAB briefs now supply substantial verbatim claim 1 language:

"…one or more different asymmetric data compression algorithms, wherein each algorithm … comprises one or more asymmetric data compression routines of a plurality of different asymmetric data compression routines, wherein a first asymmetric data compression routine … is configured to produce compressed data with a higher data rate for a given throughput than a second asymmetric data compression routine …
[1d] to analyze one or more data parameters from one or more data blocks containing video data, wherein at least one data parameter relates to an expected or anticipated throughput of a communications channel; and
[1e] to select two or more different data compression routines from among a plurality of different data compression routines based upon, at least in part, the one or more data parameters relating to the expected or anticipated throughput of the communications channel."
Source: Petitioners' Demonstratives, Ex. 1028 (IPR2018-01817).

This matters for § 102 analysis: the live limitations were the "two or more routines" selection (1[e]) and the requirement that the analyzed throughput parameter come from the data block itself (1[d]). Any § 102 reference must disclose both — which is why no single reference was pushed as an anticipation ground.

5. Other citations appearing in the record (context, not § 102 art)

• Sibling/family members, NOT prior art (appear in the family annex and Google Patents "family" lists and are sometimes mistaken for citations): US 7,386,046; US 8,073,047; US 8,553,759; US 8,929,442; US 8,934,535; US 8,867,610; US 8,054,879; US 9,769,477; US 10,212,417; and publications US 2002/0191692 A1, US 2009/0154545 A1, US 2010/0316114 A1, US 2014/0105270 A1, US 2014/0105271 A1, US 2014/0023135 A1, US 2018/0359467 A1, US 2019/0394457 A1. These share the '907 specification (continuation chain) and cannot be § 102 art against it.
• Parallel PTAB proceeding: Sony Corp. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01299 — listed as a related proceeding, terminated by settlement; no FWD furnishing § 102 art.
• IPR2018-01817 real parties: Petitioners identified Netflix, Inc. and Netflix Streaming Services, Inc.; the Jan. 2020 demonstratives caption also names Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Patent Owner identified Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC as sole RPI.
• "Akagiri et al., US 5,873,065" appears as EX1016 in a Sling TV declaration exhibit list (ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1527081). ⚠️ That document concerns Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097, and the retrieved excerpt does not establish that Agakiri/5,873,065 was cited against the '907 specifically. Treat as unverified for this patent.

6. Explicit uncertainty / gaps

1. Front-page "(56) References Cited" table for US 9,762,907 — NOT RETRIEVED. No front-page prior-art list is asserted here. (Highest-priority gap.)
2. Full citations (numbers, dates, jurisdictions) for "Pauls," "Imai," and "Dawson" — NOT RETRIEVED. Only the exhibit numbers (Ex. 1004, 1005/1006, 1017) and their described content are grounded. I have deliberately not guessed patent numbers.
3. No § 102 ground was ever instituted or decided for the '907; all three IPR grounds were § 103. My § 102 attributions in § 3 are analytical mappings, labeled as such.
4. Verbatim full claim set (claims 1–14) — only claim 1 is partially recovered from the demonstratives; the exact granted text should be pulled from USPTO Patent Center / the patentimages PDF.
5. Date note: your task header states April 26, 2026, while my session environment timestamp reads 2026-09-28. I flag the inconsistency rather than silently reconcile it. The prior summary found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket entry for 9,762,907; nothing retrieved this session changes that, and absence of a hit is not proof of absence.

Bottom line: The most relevant prior art for US 9,762,907, as adjudicated by the USPTO, is the Pauls reference (alone and in combination with Imai and Dawson), applied under § 103 — and it succeeded in invalidating all of claims 1–14. Retrieve the granted front page to confirm the applicant-cited list, and pull the Pauls/Imai/Dawson exhibit cover pages to complete the citations.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art record. Let me pull the IPR2018-01817 Final Written Decision and its grounds, the issued claim language, and the references cited.

Good — I now have the actual issued claim 1 and the three grounds of the IPR. Let me pin down the specific references (Pauls, Imai, Dawson) and the full claim set.

Let me retrieve the full claim set and the substance of the Pauls reference (EP0905939A2), plus the Board's own reasoning in the Final Written Decision.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on the "Prior Art section of this page." The Google Patents page for US9762907 does not contain a substantive prior-art reference list. Its "Prior Art" fields are keyword/date metadata only — literally: prior art keywords = data, compression, data compression, disk, different; prior art date = 2001-02-13. Those keywords are uninformative for a § 103 analysis. The substantive prior-art record for this patent is the one the USPTO itself generated: Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01817, in which a three-judge PTAB panel adjudicated claims 1–14 of this patent on § 103 grounds. I use that record below, with each reference identified literally by its exhibit number and publication number.

Cross-reference / contradiction flag. The earlier "Patent summary" section of this analysis listed the issued '907 claim text as its highest-priority unresolved gap and said the challenged claims recite selection "based upon a frequency of access." I have now retrieved claim 1 verbatim from the Board's decision (below). Claim 1 does not recite "frequency of access." That phrasing appears in the sibling '442 patent (claims 16/23, per the '442 IPR institution decision), so I believe the earlier section conflated the '442 with the '907. Treat the claim text below as superseding that characterization.

1. Legal frame

• Governing statute. The '907 issued from App. 14/733,565 (filed June 8, 2015) but claims benefit through an unbroken continuation chain to provisional 60/268,394 (Feb. 13, 2001). The claims therefore carry a pre-March 16, 2013 effective filing date, and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs. (Petitioner pleaded "§ 103 (pre-AIA)" expressly against the co-family '477 patent; the '907 FWD refers to "§ 318(a)" as the judgment provision but does not restate the § 103 subsection in the passages I retrieved — flagged as a minor gap.)
• Standard. Graham v. John Deere factors; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex for motivation/rationale; the Board applied the broadest reasonable interpretation because this was an IPR. Note the Federal Circuit's later observation that the Board "considered and expressly rejected the district court's construction of 'throughput' in favor of a broader construction."
• Reference-date status (all pre-2001):

All three substantially predate the Feb. 13, 2001 priority date and are analogous art (digital data compression/coding for network transmission).

2. The claim to be tested — independent claim 1 (verbatim)

Reproduced by the Board in the rehearing decision (Ex. 1001, 20:49–21:6):

1. A system comprising:
[1[a]] one or more different asymmetric data compression algorithms,
[1[b]] wherein each algorithm of the one or more different asymmetric data compression algorithms utilizes one or more asymmetric data compression routines of a plurality of different asymmetric data compression routines,
[1[c]] wherein a first asymmetric data compression routine of the plurality of different asymmetric data compression routines is configured to produce compressed data with a higher data rate for a given data throughput than a second asymmetric data compression routine of the plurality of different asymmetric data compression routines; and
[1[d]] a processor configured:
to analyze one or more data parameters from one or more data blocks containing video data, wherein at least one data parameter relates to an expected or anticipated throughput of a communications channel; and
[1[e]] to select two or more different data compression routines from among a plurality of different data compression routines based upon, at least in part, the one or more data parameters relating to the expected or anticipated throughput of the communications channel.

Claims 2–14 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. I have not retrieved the verbatim text of claims 2–14 and will not reconstruct it. I can confirm from the briefing that claim 5 recites that at least one data parameter "comprises a resolution of the one or more data blocks" (Zeger Decl. quote in the Patent Owner's Response), and that the Patent Owner contested only claims 2, 12, and 13 beyond claim 1 — conceding the remainder.

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1–4, 6–14 obvious over Pauls alone

3(a) What Pauls discloses (Ex. 1004)

Pauls (Alcatel) is a network access-server system in which a bitstream from a host (22) is adaptively formatted — i.e., encoded/compressed and error-controlled — before delivery to a user (14):

• Adaptive selection of transcoding (compression) technique. A data selector 30 in the access server (20) selects the transcoding technique and error-control scheme based on "factors, such as the nature of the communications network connecting a user to an access server, the preferences of the user, and the data type of the data being transmitted."
• Video data explicitly in scope. The bitstream's control information carries a data type indicator; data types include "speech/voice, video/image and text," with video/image sub-types keyed to file extensions — .tif, .gif, .mpg, .mp2.
• Video transcoders, including asymmetric ones. Pauls' transcoder set includes video encoders such as H.263 and MPEG — exactly the kind of dictionary/motion-based codecs whose compress and decompress times differ significantly (i.e., asymmetric in the '907 patent's own definition, which the specification illustrates with Lempel-Ziv).
• Network/throughput-driven formatting. The formatting adapts to the nature/condition of the communications network — the '907's "expected or anticipated throughput of a communications channel."

3(b) Mapping to claim 1

3(c) Motivation to combine (single-reference case)

Obviousness over a single reference still requires a reasoned basis for the missing limitation — here, principally "two or more" routines and the "throughput" parameter. Petitioner's articulated basis: Pauls itself teaches a plurality of transcoding techniques (a set of transcoders) from which the server selects, and a POSITA would recognize that satisfying two or more routines by (a) selecting different routines for successive data blocks, or (b) selecting different routines for different users' concurrent access to the same data, is an ordinary design choice within Pauls' own disclosure, requiring no new architecture. That is the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale of KSR.

3(d) Patent Owner's counterarguments (all ultimately rejected)

Realtime argued (Patent Owner Response; Sur-reply):

1. Pauls' "bitstream" is not a "data block" (not "a single unit of data"), and Pauls' "file" contains no throughput parameter — so 1[d] fails.
2. Pauls at most analyzes a single parameter and selects at most a single routine — data selector 30 "only ever selects a single transcoding (or encoding) technique."
3. Pauls is a single-user-at-a-time system; "concurrent" appears nowhere; adding concurrent access would require multiplexing/buffering that Petitioner never explained.
4. Petitioner's reply raised new theories ("parallel programming," a "sequential-selection scenario") not in the Petition.

The Board rejected these and found all challenged claims unpatentable. The key legal holding, relevant to your question, was that claim 1[e] is "not so narrow that it precludes" a system that selects different routines for different data blocks/users — i.e., the claim does not require simultaneous selection of two routines for the same block. Once 1[e] is read that way, Pauls' per-user adaptive transcoding supplies it.

4. Ground 2 — Claim 1–4, 6–14 obvious over Pauls in view of Imai

This is the ground with the clearest, best-documented motivation to combine, and it is the one I would lead with.

4(a) What Imai adds

Imai (JP H11-331305 / U.S. 6,507,611) encodes and transmits digital signals in real time using a plurality of coding methods — PCM, ADPCM, MPEG layers 1/2/3, ATRAC, ATRAC2, HVXC — selected by a selection instructing unit 55 driving an encoding selecting circuit 56, and the switch (52) may be changed midway through encoding so that different portions of the signal use different coding methods. Selection factors include:

• transmission rate of the network (i.e., channel throughput),
• processing/decoding capability of the receiving device, and
• the content of the signal itself (e.g., predominantly voice → HVXC; predominantly instrument → ATRAC).

Imai is expressly applicable to video, not just audio.

4(b) Why a POSITA would combine them

The Board in the closely related IPR2018-01630 (the '477 patent, same specification family) credited exactly this reasoning:

"We specifically credit the testimony of Dr. Storer regarding the ease with which a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified or replaced the encoders disclosed in Imai to include the compression algorithms of Pauls, especially in light of Imai's suggestion that Imai's system could additionally be used for video data compression."

Articulated rationales, each independently sufficient under KSR / MPEP § 2143:

1. Common problem, common field. Both references address the same problem — selecting an encoder for data to be transmitted over a network whose characteristics vary — so the prior art itself supplies the motivation.
2. Imai's own explicit invitation. Imai states its system can be used for video; a POSITA implementing Imai for video would naturally look to Pauls, which is a rich teaching of video transcoder selection (H.263, MPEG) driven by network conditions and data type.
3. Predictable result / known technique improving similar device. Substituting Pauls' video transcoder set into Imai's already-existing multi-encoder selection architecture is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device (MPEP § 2143 example (C)).
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are encoder-selection architectures over the same class of data; audio/video compression and per-channel bit-rate adaptation were well understood by 2001.

4(c) Mapping to claim 1 (Ground 2 fills the gaps in Ground 1)

• 1[d] "data parameter … from data blocks containing video data … relat[ing] to an expected or anticipated throughput" → Imai's analysis of the transmission rate of the network and the content of the data block itself (voice vs. instrument; by extension, video content), combined with Pauls' data-type/network-condition analysis.
• 1[e] "select two or more different data compression routines … based upon … the … throughput" → Imai's plurality of encoders 53₁–53_N with selecting circuit 56, switched mid-stream — supplying the "two or more" plural-selection element that Patent Owner attacked in Ground 1.

4(d) Patent Owner's counterarguments on Ground 2 (rejected)

• Imai's "transmission rate" is not analyzed from the data blocks → not the claimed data parameter.
• Imai "does not disclose selecting two or more different compression routines"; it only "change[s] the encoding schedule" with "zero details."
• Petitioner "never articulates any actual or coherent combination" of Pauls and Imai.

These failed. Note the claim-construction asymmetry that worked against Realtime: in a parallel IPR on the '442 patent, the Board construed "throughput of a communication channel" as "encompass[ing] at least the number of pending transmission requests over a communication channel" — a broad reading under BRI.

5. Ground 3 — Claim 5 obvious over Pauls + Imai + Dawson

• Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds that the analyzed data parameter comprises a resolution of the data block(s).
• Dawson (U.S. 5,553,160) is the reference Petitioner relied on for the resolution element. ⚠️ I could not retrieve Dawson's disclosure text in this session, so I describe its role in the ground rather than its verbatim content. Take the substance of this paragraph as unverified.
• Motivation to combine: Dawson is a second reference in the same field (compressed video/image transmission in which image resolution is a formatting parameter), so adding it to the Pauls+Imai combination is a "use of a known technique to improve similar devices" rationale. The Board found claim 5 obvious.
• Prosecution-history nuance worth noting: Patent Owner's expert observed that Dawson was in fact considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the '907 (it appeared on an IDS among "more than 2,500 prior art references"). Being considered by the Examiner does not immunize a reference from § 103 — the Board still invalidated claim 5.

6. Dependent claims 2–14

• Claims 2, 12, and 13 were the only dependent claims Realtime contested; Petitioner argued (and the Board agreed) Realtime conceded the rest.
• Claim 2 is the one I am least able to map: I could not retrieve its text. Petitioner's Reply states Realtime disputed it; the dependent-claim mapping in the Storer Declaration allocates claims to Ground 1 (§ VIII.A.2, 6–8, 10–11, 12–13, 14) and Ground 2 (§ VIII.B.3–7, incl. claim 9, and claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14). Do not rely on any specific mapping I give for claim 2.
• Claims 12/13 relate to additional compression-algorithm/routine attributes; the Board found them unpatentable.
• Claim 5 → Ground 3 (Dawson).

The Board's disposition in the FWD was "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" — i.e., every one of claims 1–14.

7. What I would (and would not) rest the § 103 case on

Strong, well-grounded combination — lead with this:

Pauls (EP 0905939 A2) in view of Imai (JP H11-331305 / U.S. 6,507,611), optionally further in view of Dawson (U.S. 5,553,160) for claim 5.

Why it is a clean § 103 case:

1. Both primary references are squarely analogous art in the same field (network-transmitted data compression).
2. Both predate the Feb. 13, 2001 priority date by years and qualify under § 102(b) (Pauls, Dawson) and § 102(b)/(e) (Imai).
3. Every element of claim 1 has a specific, citable disclosure, and the one element that is arguably absent from Pauls standing alone (two or more routines) is expressly supplied by Imai — a reference the Board found a POSITA would obviously consult, and which itself invites video application.
4. The motivation to combine is documented in the references themselves (identical problem; Imai's video-application suggestion), avoiding the hindsight trap the Board policed in Arendi-style challenges.
5. There is actual adjudicated precedent: the Board held all of claims 1–14 unpatentable on these grounds (FWD Mar. 30, 2020), and denied Netflix's request for rehearing (June 15, 2020).

Weaker / higher-risk combination:

Pauls alone for claims 1–4, 6–14. This worked before the Board, but it depends on (a) reading claim 1[e] as not requiring simultaneous selection of two routines, and (b) treating Pauls' bitstream or file as the "data block." Patent Owner fought both, and a district court applying a narrower claim construction (as on the '610 patent) could reach the opposite result. Tee up Ground 2 as the fallback.

Secondary considerations: I found no record of objective indicia (long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success nexus, praise, licensing, copying) being presented or credited in IPR2018-01817. Absent such evidence, the Graham secondary factors do not cut against the obviousness conclusion.

8. Explicit uncertainty / verification list

1. Claims 2–14 verbatim — not retrieved. Only claim 1 is quoted verbatim (Ex. 1001, 20:49–21:6), and claim 5's resolution limitation is known only through the parties' briefing.
2. Dawson (U.S. 5,553,160) content — role in Ground 3 known; disclosure text unverified here.
3. Statutory subsection — pre-AIA § 103(a) is my reasoned conclusion from the 2001 priority chain; the passages of the '907 FWD I retrieved state only § 318(a).
4. "Frequency of access" — I could not confirm that phrasing in the '907 claims; it appears to belong to the sibling '442 patent. This contradicts the earlier "Patent summary" section and should be corrected there.
5. All docket URLs above are Docket Alarm mirrors of PTAB papers; I did not independently open PACER/USPTO PTAB originals. Page-level claim citations (e.g., "8:4–5," "20:49–21:6") are as quoted by the Board, not re-verified against the patent PDF.

Bottom line: Claim 1 of the '907 — and by extension claims 2–14 — is obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a) over Pauls alone, and more robustly over Pauls in view of Imai, with Dawson added for claim 5. The combination rests on express disclosures in each reference, a motivation to combine supplied by the references themselves (shared problem; Imai's express video applicability; Pauls' teaching of video transcoder selection by network condition), and a predictable, expected result — and it is confirmed by the PTAB's own Final Written Decision invalidating all fourteen claims.