Invalidity dossier
US 10210255
Distributed system for large volume deep web data extraction
Current assignee: Qomplx Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 11:35:28 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US10210255B2
Title: Distributed system for large volume deep web data extraction
Patent number: US10210255B2
Application number: US14/986,536
Publication (grant) date: 2019-02-19
Priority/filing date: 2015-12-31
Inventors: Jason Crabtree; Andrew Sellers
Assignee (as listed): Current assignee — Qomplx Inc. Original assignee — Fractal Industries Inc. The source notes that listed assignees may be inaccurate and that Google Patents has not performed a legal analysis.
Status: Legal status listed as Active, expires 2036-10-11. The source states this legal status is an assumption and not a legal conclusion or representation as to accuracy.
Purpose and plain-language scope (from the supplied text): The patent concerns a distributed system for large volume deep web data extraction. The supplied text identifies prior-art keywords — "scrape," "data," "campaign," "web," "spiders" — which indicate the subject matter involves coordinating web-scraping campaigns and software "spiders" across a distributed system to extract data at large volume from the deep web. Beyond these keywords and the title, the supplied excerpt does not describe the specific architecture, components, or methods.
Publication version: US20170193110A1 (published 2017-07-06).
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10210255B2/en (fetched 2026-09-23).
What the supplied excerpt does not establish:
- It contains no claims text, so no claim scope, claim limitations, or independent/dependent claim structure can be stated.
- It contains no detailed description, drawings, or abstract, so the specific distributed architecture, spider coordination, "campaign" handling, or deep web extraction techniques are not evidenced here.
- It does not establish litigation, ownership transfers, validity, patentability, or prior-art analysis.
- It does not confirm the accuracy of the stated assignee, priority date, or legal status, all of which the source itself flags as assumptions.
- It does not establish the relationship or content of the many other applications merely listed as priority filings in the source text.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:32:36 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10210255. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.