US 10187491

I have the bibliographic details. Now let me retrieve the abstract and the claims text to accurately summarize the independent claims.

I have the bibliographic data. Now let me get the abstract and claims text, and check for any CAFC litigation involving this patent.

I've gathered the available data. Here is the summary, with uncertainty flagged where applicable.

US Patent 10,187,491 — Summary

Note on scope of my search: I searched for the specific number 10187491 and did not rely on similar numbers. Bibliographic details below are corroborated by the Google Patents record (patents.google.com/patent/US10187491B2) and USPTO-derived records (uspto.report/patent/grant/10,187,491). I was not able to retrieve the verbatim abstract or the full claim text from those sources, and my searches returned no CAFC 2026 docket entry specifically naming this patent. Those gaps are flagged below.

Bibliographic data (high confidence)

• Patent number: US 10,187,491 B2
• Title (as issued, literal): "Request-response processing an a content delivery network" — note the title contains the apparent typo "an a" exactly as printed; I am reproducing it literally per instructions.
• Application: US 14/302,865, filed June 12, 2014 (a continuation application)
• Priority date: December 14, 2011 (the family traces to provisional application US 61/570,486, filed Dec. 14, 2011; the Google Patents family data lists the priority date as 2011-12-14)
• Issue date: January 22, 2019
• Inventor(s): Christopher Newton (Westlake Village, CA), Laurence R. Lipstone (Calabasas, CA), William Crowder (Camarillo, CA), Jeffrey G. Koller (Oxnard, CA), David Fullagar (Boulder, CO), Maksim Yevmenkin (Thousand Oaks, CA)
• Original assignee (at grant): Level 3 Communications, LLC (Broomfield, CO)
• Current assignee (per Google Patents assignment record): Sandpiper CDN LLC — assignment from Level 3 Communications, LLC recorded July 9, 2024
• Prior publication: US 2014/0372588 A1, published Dec. 18, 2014
• Primary Examiner: Brian Whipple
• Status: Active; adjusted expiration listed as August 9, 2033
• Litigation flag: Google Patents lists the family (Darts-ip family ID 48611345) as having "First worldwide family litigation filed." I could not independently verify any specific CAFC 2026 docket matter naming patent 10,187,491.

Abstract

Uncertainty: The fetched patent text and the search results did not include the verbatim abstract text, so I cannot quote it with confidence. Based on the specification (which is provided in full in the source material), the invention concerns request-response processing in a content delivery network (CDN): a CDN component (typically a cache server) receives a resource request, determines whether the request corresponds to a valid customer (using a Global Configuration Object, or "GCO"), obtains the customer's Customer Configuration Script (CCS) if one exists, and processes the request using sequences of handlers — ordered lists of handlers (possibly customer-specific, possibly script-based) installed at various hook points in the request/response path. The server may obtain the requested resource from its own cache, another cache, or an origin server, and then serve it to the client. If you need the exact abstract wording, it should be pulled directly from the USPTO full-text page (I could not retrieve it verbatim in this session).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Uncertainty: The claims section was not included in the text provided to me, and my searches did not surface the full claim language. The following overview is therefore inferred from the specification (which thoroughly describes the "sequencer/handler" architecture) and from the parallel claim families of related Level 3/Sandpiper patents (e.g., US 9,516,136 "Customer-specific request-response processing in a content delivery network"). Treat the specific claim language as unverified.

Based on the specification, the independent claims are believed to cover, in substance:

1. A method of request-response processing in a CDN — a server (e.g., a cache) receives a client request for a resource; it uses a global configuration object to determine whether the request can be served (i.e., whether it maps to a valid customer); it obtains a customer configuration script (CCS) associated with the customer; the CCS configures a sequence of handlers (an ordered list of handlers, possibly including script-based or customer-specific handlers) used to process the request; the handlers process the request, potentially causing the resource to be fetched from a cache, peer, parent, or origin server; and the server provides a response to the client.

2. A server/system configured for such request-response processing — a cache server (or CDN component) with hardware/software implementing the request-response mechanism described above, including the ability to obtain the GCO and CCS from a control core, assemble and execute handler sequences at hook points, and serve the resource (or redirect the client).

3. A computer-readable medium storing instructions for carrying out the above processing — i.e., a non-transitory medium encoding the sequence/handler-based request-response logic.

Caveat: The number and precise scope of independent claims (and whether they are method/system/medium in form) could not be confirmed from the sources retrieved. The patent family uses this "GCO + CCS + handler sequence" framework across multiple related patents, so this overview is a reasonable but not authoritative characterization. For exact claim text, consult the USPTO full-text database or the Google Patents "Claims" tab for US10187491B2.

Key additional facts (from the record)

• The patent is part of a very large Level 3 Communications CDN patent family (more than a dozen related continuations/children, including US 10,841,398, US 11,218,566, US 11,838,385, and US 12,284,260, the latter issued Apr. 22, 2025 under Sandpiper CDN LLC).
• Classifications include H04L 67/568 (caching at an intermediate stage), H04L 41/08 (configuration management), H04L 67/02 (HTTP-based protocols), and others.

Bottom line: If you need the verbatim abstract and claim language for a formal analysis (e.g., infringement or IPR work), I'd recommend pulling the full text from the USPTO Patent Center/PatFT, since the fetched Google Patents snapshot provided the specification but not the claims/abstract, and I could not verify any 2026 CAFC docket activity for this patent number.