US 9800633

An analysis of US Patent 9,800,633 reveals the following details:

Title: Just-in-time distributed video cache

Assignee: The current assignee of record is Tir Technologies Ltd, based on an assignment recorded on May 4, 2025. The original assignee was Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd.

Inventors: Erik R. Swenson, Jaime Heilpern, Sandeep Pombra, Ron Earley, Vadim Arshanskiy.

Filing Date: September 4, 2015

Issue Date: October 24, 2017

Abstract: The patent describes a system where a video optimizer, upon receiving a request to optimize and stream a source file, uses a unique key to query a cache database. This key identifies both the original source file and the specific optimization parameters required for the user's device. The database maintains a record of optimized files stored in the local caches of a cluster of video optimizers. If a matching, pre-optimized version of the file exists on another optimizer, the database provides its location, allowing the system to avoid redundant transcoding.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

An independent claim represents the broadest definition of the invention. US Patent 9,800,633 contains three independent claims:

Claim 1: A Method
This claim outlines a method for a computer ("first video optimizer") to efficiently deliver optimized video. When a user requests a video, the request includes a unique "ID key" that specifies both the original video and the exact optimized version needed (e.g., for a specific device or network speed). The first optimizer uses this key to ask a central "cache database" if another computer ("second video optimizer") has already created and stored this specific version. If it exists, the first optimizer retrieves the already-optimized video from the second optimizer and sends it to the user, thereby saving the time and processing power needed to optimize the video from scratch.

Claim 9: A Non-transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium
This claim protects a physical storage product, such as a server's hard drive or memory, that contains the software instructions to execute the method described in Claim 1. In essence, it covers the software that, when run on a computer, turns it into the "first video optimizer" capable of querying the cache database and serving pre-optimized videos from other optimizers.

Claim 16: A System
This claim covers the video optimizer system itself. It describes a computer system specifically configured to perform the patented method. The system is designed to receive the video request with the unique ID key, query the cache database, and if a matching file is located on a second optimizer, retrieve and stream that file to the user's device. This claim protects the hardware and software combination that forms the intelligent video caching and delivery server.

As of today's date, a search of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 dockets did not yield any results for litigation involving US patent 9,800,633.

As of April 26, 2026, the provided search results from Unified Patents and Darts-ip indicate that US Patent 9,800,633 is involved in the following litigation cases:

1. Case Filed in Texas Western District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-00865
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

2. Case Filed in Delaware District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00056
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

3. Case Filed in Delaware District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-00885
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,800,633. This proceeding is still active and pending, meaning no claims have been invalidated or sustained by the PTAB yet. This status provides no immediate hardening or weakening of the patent's claims for a potential defendant.

IPR2026-00346 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Erik R. Swenson et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-05-13
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed and is awaiting an institution decision.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available as the case is still in its initial stages.
• Petition grounds: Details of the claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available, as the petition is still under review.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the institution decision is typically one year from the filing of the petition, but can be earlier.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has occurred.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Meta Platforms, Inc. is challenging the patent, but its impact on the patent's validity is currently unknown. For a defendant facing assertion, the outcome of this IPR will be highly relevant, but as of now, there is no verdict on the claims.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 22, 2026, all claims of US Patent 9,800,633 remain untested by a final PTAB decision. The single pending IPR, IPR2026-00346, initiated by Meta Platforms, Inc., has not yet reached an institution decision, meaning no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB. Therefore, the patent's claims are neither hardened nor narrowed through PTAB trials at this juncture.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is not yet applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued. Once an FWD is issued, Meta Platforms, Inc. and its privies would be estopped from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR concerning the claims subject to the FWD. Currently, all prior-art grounds remain theoretically available to a new defendant. There are no observable patterns of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner, given the nascent stage of the sole proceeding.

Recommended next steps

The IPR2026-00346 proceeding is in its early stages. A key milestone to watch for is the institution decision, which will determine if the PTAB agrees to institute a trial on the challenged claims. The statutory deadline for this decision is typically within three months of the patent owner’s preliminary response, or six months from the date of the petition if no preliminary response is filed. The IPR has a statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution. Monitoring the progress of IPR2026-00346 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system is crucial for understanding the evolving validity landscape of US9800633.

Inventors

• Erik R. Swenson: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Jaime Heilpern: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Sandeep Pombra: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Ron Earley: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Vadim Arshanskiy: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document.

The patent document does not explicitly state the employers of the inventors at the time of filing. The original assignee was Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent was Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd.

Based on the patent description, Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd appears to be involved in providing network efficiency solutions, specifically "a world-class media optimization solution that brings a surgical capacity advantage to wireless operators as well as Internet service providers." This suggests they were an operating company focused on network optimization and media delivery, shipping products embodying the claims related to video optimization and caching.

As of today's date, the current status of Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd as an operating entity is not immediately determinable from the patent text or general knowledge without further specific corporate searches. However, the patent's ownership has changed multiple times, indicating it is no longer the current owner.

Assignment timeline

The following assignment timeline is reconstructed from the USPTO Assignment Search database for Patent Number 9,800,633.

• 2016-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-26 — Reel 038237/0400

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SKYFIRE LABS, INC.
  • Assignee: OPERA SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BIANCA K. CHOY, FENWICK & WEST LLP, 801 CALIFORNIA STREET, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES 94041. This correspondent firm also appears in other recorded assignments.
  • Context: Transfer of inventors' interest to Skyfire Labs, Inc., then to Opera Software Ireland Limited. This appears to be part of an acquisition where Skyfire Labs was acquired by Opera.

• 2016-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-10-26 — Reel 038237/0399

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EARLEY, Ron, HEILPERN, JAIME, POMBRA, SANDEEP, SWENSON, ERIK R., ARSHANSKIY, Vadim
  • Assignee: SKYFIRE LABS, INC.
  • Correspondent: BIANCA K. CHOY, FENWICK & WEST LLP, 801 CALIFORNIA STREET, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES 94041. This correspondent firm also appears in other recorded assignments.
  • Context: Assignment of patent rights from the individual inventors to Skyfire Labs, Inc., likely an employment assignment.

• 2017-03-23 (executed) / recorded 2017-03-23 — Reel 039474/0209

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OPERA SOFTWARE IRELAND LTD.
  • Assignee: PERFORMANCE AND PRIVACY IRELAND LTD.
  • Correspondent: BIANCA K. CHOY, FENWICK & WEST LLP, 801 CALIFORNIA STREET, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES 94041. This correspondent firm also appears in other recorded assignments.
  • Context: Transfer back to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. This could be part of a corporate restructuring or divestiture.

• 2023-03-29 (executed) / recorded 2023-03-29 — Reel 055276/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Performance and Privacy Ireland Limited
  • Assignee: OTELLO CORPORATION ASA
  • Correspondent: GULKO, ARAM, PERKINS COIE LLP, 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4900, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 98101-3099.
  • Context: Acquisition of assets or corporate restructuring. Otello Corporation ASA is the former Opera Software ASA.

• 2025-05-04 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-04 — Reel 059902/0833

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OTELLO CORPORATION ASA
  • Assignee: TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
  • Correspondent: ANNE J. BRUNO, BRUNO PATENT LAW, LLC, 203 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 1600, AKRON, OHIO UNITED STATES 44308.
  • Context: Divestiture or sale of intellectual property from Otello Corporation ASA to Tir Technologies Limited. This transfer is reported to be an acquisition of a portfolio by TIR Technologies Limited from Otello Corp. ASA.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9800633
    2015 : Application filed by Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd
    2016 : Inventors assign to Skyfire Labs
         : Skyfire Labs assigns to Opera Software Ireland Ltd
    2017 : Opera Software Ireland Ltd to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd
         : Patent Issued
    2023 : Performance & Privacy Ireland Ltd assigns to Otello Corp ASA
    2025 : Otello Corp ASA assigns to Tir Technologies Ltd
         : IPR2026-00346 filed by Meta Platforms Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.

   • Tir Technologies Limited: Formed October 18, 2023. Its primary activity is listed as " Other Business Support Service Activities N.E.C.". This broad category, coupled with the immediate assertion of patents after acquisition, aligns with a shell entity for patent licensing. RPX has identified Tir Technologies Limited as an NPE and an entity of Atlantic IP Services Limited.
   • Performance And Privacy Ireland Limited: While an original assignee, it was dissolved on September 22, 2024. The patent transferred from it in 2023, prior to its dissolution. This suggests the patents were divested before the operating company ceased operations.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.

   • Tir Technologies Limited: Identified as an NPE and an entity of Atlantic IP Services Limited, which is known for patent assertion campaigns. Tir Technologies has already sued Amazon, Meta Platforms, and Comcast Cable Communications over this and related patents. The litigation summary provided earlier also shows cases filed in Texas Western and Delaware District Courts in 2025 and 2026, which aligns with NPE assertion activity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.

   • Bianca K. Choy, Fenwick & West LLP: Appears on three consecutive assignments: Reel 038237/0399 (Inventors to Skyfire Labs), Reel 038237/0400 (Skyfire Labs to Opera Software Ireland Limited), and Reel 039474/0209 (Opera Software Ireland Ltd. to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd.). This indicates a consistent legal representation during a period of corporate transfers.

4. Cascading transfers — Present.

   • The patent was transferred from Inventors to Skyfire Labs, then immediately to Opera Software Ireland Limited on the same day (2016-10-26, Reel 038237/0399 and 038237/0400). This rapid succession of transfers (within hours or minutes, given the same recording date and sequential reel/frame numbers) indicates a pre-arranged corporate transfer, likely part of an acquisition.
   • The transfer from Otello Corporation ASA to Tir Technologies Limited (2025-05-04, Reel 059902/0833) also fits this, as Tir Technologies immediately began asserting the patent.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present.

   • The assignment to Tir Technologies Limited was recorded on 2025-05-04 (Reel 059902/0833). Litigation cases involving US 9,800,633 were filed in Texas Western District Court (1:25-cv-00865) and Delaware District Court (1:25-cv-00885) in 2025. RPX reported that Tir Technologies sued Amazon in May 2025, shortly after acquiring the patents. This places the transfer within months (and potentially weeks) of the first known infringement suit, strongly indicating it was arranged to enable assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy proceedings for any assignor in the chain was found.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Otello Corporation ASA (formerly Opera Software ASA) sold the patent to an NPE (Tir Technologies Limited), there is no explicit evidence that Otello Corporation ASA is funding or directing Tir Technologies Limited to assert the patent against Otello's competitors. Otello Corporation ASA's focus is on mobile media and entertainment through its subsidiary Bemobi.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with Tir Technologies Limited, which is an identified NPE.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by multiple strong signals. Tir Technologies Limited, the current assignee (recorded 2025-05-04, Reel 059902/0833), is identified as a known NPE and an entity of Atlantic IP Services Limited, and has commenced litigation with this patent shortly after its acquisition. The rapid "cascading transfers" from the inventors to Skyfire Labs then to Opera Software Ireland Limited on the same day in 2016 (Reel 038237/0399, Reel 038237/0400) and the "pre-litigation transfer" to Tir Technologies Limited in 2025 just before lawsuit filings strongly indicate a strategy designed for patent assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US9800633

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,800,633, I need to access the patent's full citation list. Unfortunately, I cannot directly browse the USPTO database for patent citations and descriptions using the provided tools. The search results indicate that the USPTO provides tools like "Patent Public Search" to search their database of patents and patent application publications. However, I don't have the capability to interact with these tools directly to extract the detailed citation information.

Therefore, I cannot provide a list of each patent citation with its full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To analyze the obviousness of US Patent 9,800,633 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider the state of the art at the patent's priority date (July 18, 2012) and evaluate whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) by combining existing knowledge or prior art references.

The patent itself outlines the background art, which serves as a foundation for this obviousness analysis.

Background Art Acknowledged by the Patent

The patent's background and overview sections acknowledge several existing technologies and problems:

1. Mobile Video Streaming and Optimization: "Mobile devices, such as smart phones and tablets, have become prevalent in recent years... more and more users view streamed videos on their mobile devices." It also states that "Existing network providers or media sources have attempted to improve the bandwidth usage during video streaming by performing a video optimization on the streamed video." This establishes the knowledge of video optimization and transcoding for different device and network conditions.
2. Local Caching: "Network providers and media sources may use local caching as a method for improving the streaming quality of source files such as video to mobile devices." It further notes that "Local caching allows the video optimizer to store the transcoded source file (or optimized version of the source file) for a short duration and respond to a user's requests... without having to re-retrieve the source file for transcoding." This demonstrates that local caching of transcoded files at individual servers was known to reduce delays for repeat requests within a single session.
3. Problem with Redundant Transcoding in Distributed Systems: The patent explicitly identifies a key problem: "Even if cached files are not purged, a user has to be fortunate enough to be routed to a particular video optimizer, out of potentially thousands, having cached the optimized source file. Otherwise, the user has to wait through the same transcoding operation as the user who had previously streamed the video from another video optimizer." This highlights the inefficiency and redundancy when multiple independent video optimizers exist, but lack a mechanism to share their cached, optimized content effectively.
4. Components of an ID Key: The patent mentions that a "source file signature may comprise a hash of the original file or portion of the original file, attributes of the video (e.g., bit rate, frame width, frame height, sample rate, audio properties and the like), URL of the original file and so forth." This indicates that methods for uniquely identifying original files and specifying optimization parameters were individually known.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims (Claims 1, 9, and 16)

The independent claims (Claim 1, 9, and 16) describe a system and method for a "first video optimizer" to receive a request with a specific "ID key" (identifying both the original source file and the desired optimization parameters), query a "cache database" to find if a "second video optimizer" has the matching optimized file, and then retrieve and stream that file to the user, thereby avoiding redundant transcoding.

A PHOSITA in the field of video streaming, content delivery networks (CDNs), and network optimization at the priority date would possess knowledge of the following concepts:

• Video transcoding and optimization: Adapting video content to various device capabilities and network conditions.
• Distributed computing and networks: Systems comprising multiple servers (like video optimizers) cooperating to provide a service.
• Load balancing and content redirection: Directing user requests to appropriate servers, often based on server load or content availability.
• Centralized databases or registries: Used in distributed systems to track resources, content, or server locations (e.g., for CDNs, distributed file systems, or service discovery).
• Content identification: Using hashes, URLs, or metadata to uniquely identify content.

Obviousness Combination:
A PHOSITA, when presented with the problem of "redundant transcoding" across "potentially thousands" of video optimizers that individually use "local caching", would have a strong motivation to combine existing technologies to address this inefficiency. The obvious solution would be to implement a mechanism for these distributed optimizers to share information about their cached content.

Proposed Combination of Prior Art for Obviousness:

1. Distributed Video Optimizers with Local Caches: As acknowledged by the patent, individual video optimizers performing optimization and maintaining "local caching" of transcoded files were known. This forms the basis of the "first video optimizer" and "second video optimizer" with their "local caches."
2. Centralized Resource Registry/Database in a Distributed System: It would be obvious for a PHOSITA managing a distributed system (like a cluster of video optimizers) to implement a "cache database" (Prior Art 4) or registry to keep track of resources available across the network. This is a common architectural pattern in distributed computing and content delivery networks to improve efficiency and avoid duplication of effort.
3. Unique Content Identification with Parameters: To make the centralized database useful for video optimization, the cached entries need to be uniquely identifiable. It would be obvious for a PHOSITA to use an ID key that not only identifies the "original source file" (e.g., via hash or URL as described in the patent) but also incorporates the "optimization parameters" (e.g., bit rate, frame size, etc. as described in the patent). This is because the 'optimized version' of a video is defined by these parameters, and a client will only benefit from a cached version if it matches the required parameters. The combination of these known identification elements into a single lookup key for a distributed cache is a straightforward design choice.
4. Inter-Server Communication and Redirection: Once the central database identifies an optimizer holding the desired optimized file, it would be obvious to either retrieve the file from that optimizer (server-to-server transfer, a standard CDN function) or redirect the user device directly to that optimizer (HTTP redirection, a standard load balancing and CDN function).

Motivation for Combination:

The motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these elements is directly articulated in the patent's background: to overcome the inefficiency and delays caused by redundant transcoding in a distributed video optimization environment where individual local caches do not communicate. By implementing a central "cache database" to track which "optimized version" of a "source file" (identified by a combined ID key) is stored in which "local cache" of a "video optimizer," the system can avoid re-transcoding, thus reducing processing load, saving bandwidth, and improving user experience by providing optimized content "just-in-time" from an already existing source. This directly addresses the problem of users having to "wait through the same transcoding operation as the user who had previously streamed the video from another video optimizer" due to a lack of shared knowledge across optimizers.

Therefore, the core concept of using a centralized database to coordinate local caches of optimized video files across multiple optimizers, identified by an ID key representing both the original file and its optimization parameters, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to improve efficiency in distributed video streaming systems.

To provide details on patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation applications, divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date for US Patent 9,800,633, I need to access its full prosecution history and official USPTO records. While I can confirm the general concepts of these patent terms, I cannot directly browse the USPTO database for specific details on this patent with the provided tools.

Based on the information available:

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is a process that adds time to the 20-year lifespan of a U.S. patent to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the patent application's prosecution. These delays can include the USPTO failing to issue a first office action within 14 months of filing, failing to respond to an applicant's reply within four months, or failing to issue a patent within three years of the application filing date, among other reasons. The calculation of PTA is typically performed by a computer program at the time the patent issues and is indicated in the Issue Notification Letter. Without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search for US9800633, I cannot provide the specific PTA granted for this patent.

• Patent Term Extension (PTE): Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available for patents covering certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products, to restore some of the patent term lost due to premarket government approval from a regulatory agency like the FDA. This patent, "Just-in-time distributed video cache," does not appear to relate to these categories of products. Therefore, it is highly unlikely to have received any Patent Term Extension.

• Continuation and Divisional Applications:

  • Continuation applications are subsequent applications filed by the same applicant, disclosing the same invention as a prior non-provisional application, and claiming priority to that prior application. They allow for continued prosecution of claims not allowed in the parent application.
  • Divisional applications are filed when an earlier application claimed two or more independent and distinct inventions, and the examiner required restriction to one of the inventions. A divisional application claims only subject matter disclosed in the parent application but directed to an invention not elected in the parent.
  • The patent indicates it is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/945,747, filed on Jul. 18, 2013. This explicitly identifies a divisional application relationship. It also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/673,188, filed on Jul. 18, 2012. Without access to the full patent family tree on the USPTO database, I cannot determine if there are any further continuation or divisional applications directly stemming from US9800633 or its parent.

• Related Family Members: The patent states, "This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/945,747, filed on Jul. 18, 2013, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/673,188, filed on Jul. 18, 2012, which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety." Therefore, US Patent Application Serial No. 13/945,747 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/673,188 are related family members.

• Projected Expiration Date:

  • The patent states a "Prior art date" of 2012-07-18 and a "Filing date" of 2015-09-04. It also states the patent "expires 2034-02-24".
  • For U.S. utility patents, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. The application Ser. No. 13/945,747, from which this patent is a divisional, was filed on July 18, 2013.
  • The Adjusted expiration date listed as 2034-02-24 suggests that the patent has received some amount of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). The difference between the 20-year term from the 2013 filing date (July 18, 2033) and the adjusted expiration date (February 24, 2034) indicates a PTA of approximately 7 months and 6 days. This adjustment compensates for delays during prosecution by the USPTO.

To obtain the precise details of PTA, continuation/divisional applications beyond those explicitly stated, and a complete family tree, direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center for US9800633 would be required.