Invalidity dossier
US 10230746
System and method for evaluating network threats and usage
Current assignee: Palantir Technologies Inc
Added 9/20/2026, 5:17:58 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US10230746B2
Title: System and method for evaluating network threats and usage
Assignee/Current Assignee: Palantir Technologies Inc. (original assignee also Palantir Technologies Inc.)
Inventor: Alexander Visbal
Key dates: Priority date 2014-01-03; filing date 2017-01-30; publication date 2019-03-12; anticipated expiration 2034-01-03. Application number US15/419,718. Status listed as Active.
Purpose: According to the supplied definitions, the disclosure "relates to systems and techniques for generating scores representing the threat reputation and usage of respective IP addresses." The text notes problems with existing approaches: "IP address blacklists and whitelists have to be updated periodically and contain many false positives," and "Traditional methods of classifying an IP address as a threat can mistakenly classify IP addresses of employees and authorized users as threats."
Plain-language scope: The excerpted claim language describes a computer system with processors and storage storing modules that cause the system to: determine an IP address for which a threat score is to be determined; access data sources containing recorded network threat events, including date/time, originating IP address, and/or event type for each event; and determine which data sources include occurrences of that IP address. The excerpt is truncated at this point, so the full set of steps and any claim limitations beyond this passage are not established here.
Classifications listed include H04L63/14 and related subclasses (malicious-traffic detection, traffic logging/anomaly detection, vulnerability analysis, countermeasures), H04L63/02 (firewalls, perimeter networks, VPNs), and H04L63/10 (access control lists).
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the complete claims, full specification, dependent-claim limitations, or the precise algorithms for computing scores. It does not establish the content of any figures, the number of claims, or claim validity. It does not establish litigation, licensing, or the accuracy of the listed legal status or assignee (Google Patents expressly disclaims these as assumptions, not legal conclusions). Security-interest assignments recorded to various agents are noted in the source but are outside the requested scope.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10230746](/patent/US10230746)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:53 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10230746. 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.