US 10257319

Here's a concise summary of US patent 10257319:

US Patent: 10257319

• Title: System providing faster and more efficient data communication
• Assignee: Bright Data Ltd (Current Assignee)
• Inventors: Derry Shribman, Ofer Vilenski
• Filing Date: 2018-04-20
• Issue Date: 2019-04-09
• Abstract: The patent describes a system to increase network communication speed for users and reduce network congestion for content owners and ISPs. It uses network elements including an acceleration server, clients, agents, and peers. Communication requests from applications are intercepted by a client on the same machine. The client sends the server's IP address to the acceleration server, which returns a list of suitable agents. The request is then sent to these agents. One or more agents respond with a list of peers that have previously cached some or all of the requested content (after validating the data). The client then downloads the data from these peers in parts and in parallel, thereby accelerating web transfers, alleviating congestion by fetching from multiple sources, and offloading data transfers from web servers to nearby peers.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The full patent text does not contain the claims section. Therefore, I cannot provide a plain-language overview of each independent claim with certainty.

However, the abstract and summary sections provide an overview of the invention itself, which typically aligns with the broadest independent claims:

• System Claim (based on Summary): A system for accelerating data communication is claimed. This system includes:

  • At least one client communication device that initiates data requests to obtain data from a data server.
  • At least one agent communication device assigned to the data server. This agent receives data requests from the client, and tracks which client communication devices have received responses from its assigned data server.
  • At least one peer communication device that stores portions of data received in response to client requests. These data portions can be transmitted to a client device upon request.
  • At least one acceleration server responsible for assigning agent communication devices to data servers and providing this assignment information to the client communication devices.

• Communication Device Claim (based on Summary): A communication device within a network is claimed, comprising:

  • A memory.
  • A processor configured by the memory to perform specific steps, including:
    • Originating a data request for data from a data server.
    • Being assigned to a data server (acting as an "assigned data server").
    • Receiving a data request from another device in the network and tracking which client devices have received responses from the assigned data server.
    • Storing portions of data received in response to the originated data request, such that these portions can be transmitted to a requesting communication device.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

The provided information indicates litigation activity related to US10257319. Specifically, there are multiple "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" entries. Given the current date of April 26, 2026, and the entry dates, it is highly likely these cases are still active or have had recent activity in 2026.

• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case: 23-2414)
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case: 23-2145)
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case: 23-2442)
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case: 23-2443)

US Patent 10257319 has been involved in the following litigation:

District Court Cases:

• Plaintiff(s): Bright Data, Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.)
  • Defendant(s): Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB (collectively, Oxylabs)
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-00395-JRG
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was active as of November 5, 2021.
  • Outcome/Status: A jury verdict form was filed on November 5, 2021, indicating that Bright Data asserted claims 1 and 26 of the '319 patent. The jury was instructed to determine if Oxylabs infringed and if the claims were invalid.
• Plaintiff(s): Bright Data, Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.)
  • Defendant(s): Oxylabs
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-00396
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but the case was "Stayed and administratively closed."
  • Outcome/Status: Stayed and administratively closed.

PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Cases:

• IPR2021-01492
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
• IPR2022-00861
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
• IPR2022-00915
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
• IPR2022-00135
  • Outcome/Status: Final Written Decision
• IPR2023-00038
  • Outcome/Status: Procedural Termination
• IPR2022-01109
  • Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
• IPR2020-01266
  • Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Cases:

• Case Number: 23-2414
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation
• Case Number: 23-2145
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation
• Case Number: 23-2442
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation
• Case Number: 23-2443
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation

U.S. Supreme Court Cases:

• There is a record of a US case filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considered "Critical" and is associated with litigation.
  • Case Number: 25-779
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently indicates no AIA trial proceedings for US patent 10257319. However, a review of Google Patents for US10257319, which often includes more up-to-date litigation data, reveals a number of PTAB proceedings. These include IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00915, IPR2022-00135, IPR2023-00038, IPR2022-01109, and IPR2020-01266, indicating active and resolved challenges to the patent.

Proceedings overview

There are seven AIA trial proceedings on file for US10257319. As of the current date, four have resulted in Final Written Decisions, one was procedurally terminated, and two were not instituted due to procedural reasons. The detailed outcomes for the FWDs will determine the bottom-line defensive posture. It appears there's a history of discretionary denials under General Plastic and Fintiv, with a Director review vacating some denials and remanding for further proceedings.

IPR2022-00861 — Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and Coretech LT, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The institution decision is dated October 19, 2022. The initial filing date for the petition would precede this.
• Status: Final Written Decision (however, the initial decision to deny institution was vacated and remanded by Director Review). The entry in Google Patents lists "Final Written Decision."
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims of US10257319 based on obviousness grounds under Crowds, Border, and MorpMix. The petition was described as "substantially identical" to IPR2021-01492, raising the same grounds of invalidity, prior art, supporting evidence, and claims challenged.
• Institution decision: Initially, the Board denied institution on July 25, 2022, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha. However, on August 23, 2022, Director Vidal issued a precedential sua sponte Director review decision, vacating the PTAB panel's Decision Denying Institution and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Director clarified that when a follow-on petition has substantial overlap with an original petition denied on discretionary grounds, General Plastic Factors 1-3 weigh against discretionary denial. The Board determined that Petitioner's invalidity grounds presented compelling unpatentability challenges.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information notes a "Final Written Decision" status on Google Patents. However, the snippets from the institution phase indicate that institution was initially denied and then remanded. Without the FWD document, the specific verdict at the claim level cannot be determined from the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Appeal: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Defensive value: The initial discretionary denial and subsequent reversal by Director Review highlight the complex procedural landscape surrounding serial petitions. The Director's decision to remand for further proceedings, noting "compelling unpatentability challenges," suggests the claims faced a strong invalidity challenge on the merits. Without the FWD, the ultimate outcome for the claims remains unknown, but the patent owner had to overcome a substantive challenge after the Director's intervention.

IPR2021-01492 — [Petitioner not explicitly named, but related to Code200, UAB] v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The snippets indicate this IPR was active prior to IPR2022-00861, which referenced the "NetNut IPR [1492 IPR]". The institution decision for IPR2022-00861 was October 19, 2022.
• Status: Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition in IPR2022-00861 was described as "substantially identical" to IPR2021-01492, containing the same grounds, prior art, supporting evidence, and challenging the same claims of the '319 patent. Therefore, it also likely challenged claims under § 102 / § 103 using prior art such as Crowds, Border, and MorpMix.
• Institution decision: The snippets indicate that IPR2022-00861 intended to seek joinder with IPR2021-01492. The decision for IPR2022-00861 refers to a "1492 Decision" issued on July 25, 2022, which appears to be the institution decision or related to it. Without direct access to the institution decision for IPR2021-01492, specifics are limited.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Google Patents lists "Final Written Decision." Without the FWD document, the specific verdict at the claim level cannot be determined from the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Appeal: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Defensive value: This was an earlier-filed IPR that served as a blueprint for later petitions. The fact that it reached a Final Written Decision suggests the claims were thoroughly adjudicated. The outcome of the FWD is crucial for understanding the patent's strength.

IPR2022-00915 — Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: June 23, 2022, is the date of Major Data UAB's Reply in Support of Motion for Joinder. The petition filing date would be earlier.
• Status: Final Written Decision (according to Google Patents). The petition was described as a "substantial copy" of the petition filed by NetNut (likely IPR2021-01492), raising the same grounds of invalidity, prior art, supporting evidence, and challenging the same claims.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenges to the '319 patent, mirroring IPR2021-01492. This implies challenges under § 102 / § 103 using similar prior art.
• Institution decision: Major Data UAB filed a motion for joinder to an already-instituted petition (likely IPR2021-01492). The patent owner argued against joinder, but the petitioner asserted that the petition was "demonstrably meritorious". Without the explicit institution decision, the outcome for this specific IPR is not fully clear from the snippets, but the status "Final Written Decision" suggests it was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Google Patents lists "Final Written Decision." Without the FWD document, the specific verdict at the claim level cannot be determined from the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Appeal: Not indicated in the provided snippets.
• Defensive value: This IPR appears to be a follow-on or joinder attempt to an earlier successful institution (or at least a petition that reached FWD). Its status as having a Final Written Decision implies a full merits review, making its outcome important for the patent's validity.

IPR2022-00135 — [Petitioner not explicitly named] v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Precedes the "Final Written Decision" status on Google Patents.
• Status: Final Written Decision (according to Google Patents).
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named.
• Petition grounds: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Institution decision: Not specified in the provided snippets.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Google Patents lists "Final Written Decision." Without the FWD document, the specific verdict at the claim level cannot be determined from the provided snippets.
• Settlement / termination: Not indicated.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: The existence of a Final Written Decision means a substantive ruling on claim validity occurred. The specific claims challenged and their outcomes are critical.

IPR2023-00038 — [Petitioner not explicitly named] v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Precedes the "Procedural Termination" status.
• Status: Procedural Termination (according to Google Patents).
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not specified.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No FWD was issued due to procedural termination.
• Settlement / termination: Procedural Termination. This often indicates a settlement or other agreement between the parties before a full FWD is issued.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: Claims challenged in this IPR were not adjudicated on the merits by the PTAB due to the procedural termination. This means there's no estoppel on the claims or grounds raised for this specific petitioner if the termination was due to settlement without a final judgment.

IPR2022-01109 — [Petitioner not explicitly named] v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Precedes the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status.
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (according to Google Patents).
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not Instituted - Procedural. This means the PTAB declined to initiate a trial for procedural reasons, potentially under Fintiv or General Plastic rules, or other administrative issues.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No FWD was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: The claims were not subjected to a full IPR trial. A "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision might imply that the petitioner could have brought a stronger or earlier petition, or that the petition ran afoul of discretionary denial rules. This does not necessarily strengthen the patent, but it means the validity of the challenged claims was not formally determined by the PTAB in this proceeding.

IPR2020-01266 — [Petitioner not explicitly named, but referenced as same petitioner as IPR2022-00861] v. Bright Data Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: July 14, 2020.
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (according to Google Patents). The Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Fintiv, Inc..
• Judge panel: Not explicitly named in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, but it was filed by the same petitioner as IPR2022-00861.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on December 23, 2020, under Fintiv rules, which address parallel district court litigation. The denial was discretionary and not on the merits.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No FWD was issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not indicated.
• Defensive value: This early IPR was denied institution based on discretionary grounds (Fintiv). This means the merits of the patentability challenge were not considered. For future challengers, this indicates a need to carefully consider parallel litigation and Fintiv factors when filing an IPR against this patent. The claims were not invalidated in this proceeding.

Strategic summary

Given the information, it is difficult to determine precisely which claims of US10257319 are now CANCELED versus SUSTAINED, as the Final Written Decisions for IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-00135 are not fully detailed in the provided snippets. However, the fact that these proceedings reached a "Final Written Decision" stage indicates a full adjudication on the merits. For IPR2022-00861, the Director's intervention after an initial discretionary denial suggests that the Board found "compelling unpatentability challenges" once the General Plastic factors were properly applied, increasing the likelihood of claims being challenged or invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex due to the procedural denials. For IPR2020-01266 and IPR2022-01109, which were "Not Instituted - Procedural" (one specifically under Fintiv), estoppel under § 315(e)(2) may not apply to the specific grounds raised because a trial was never instituted. However, the exact scope of estoppel depends on whether a "final written decision" was issued on a claim. For IPR2023-00038, which was "Procedural Termination," the terms of termination would dictate estoppel. If it settled before a final judgment on patentability, then estoppel might not apply broadly. For the four IPRs that reached a Final Written Decision, estoppel would apply to the petitioner and its privies for any claims and grounds adjudicated in those decisions. A defendant not in privity with these petitioners might still be able to raise the same prior art grounds.

A clear pattern signal is the use of serial petitions, specifically by Code200, UAB, which filed IPR2020-01266 and IPR2022-00861 (which was "substantially identical" to IPR2021-01492). The patent owner, Bright Data Ltd., has encountered multiple challenges, including discretionary denials that were later overturned by Director review, highlighting persistent efforts to invalidate the patent. Unified Patents is noted as a source for litigation data, but not explicitly as a petitioner in these specific PTAB cases from the provided snippets.

Recommended next steps

To fully understand the defensive posture, it is critical to obtain and review the Final Written Decisions for IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-00135. These documents will detail which specific claims, if any, were cancelled or sustained. Without these FWDs, the status of individual claims remains uncertain.

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent today, the following steps are recommended:

1. Obtain and analyze FWDs: Search the USPTO PTAB E2E system for the "Final Written Decision" for IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-00135.
   • The Decision Denying Institution for IPR2022-00861 and IPR2022-00862, Paper 17 (July 25, 2022), and the subsequent Director Review decision, Paper 18 (August 23, 2022), are critical to understand the procedural history. These documents can be found on P-TACTS.
2. Claim Mapping: Map the asserted claims in any demand letter or complaint against the outcomes in the FWDs. If any asserted claims were cancelled, this forms a strong basis for dismissal or a motion for sanctions.
3. Prior Art Analysis: Review the prior art references cited in the petitions (e.g., Crowds, Border, and MorpMix in IPR2022-00861) to determine if there are grounds for a new IPR, especially if not in privity with prior petitioners. The procedural denials for IPR2020-01266 and IPR2022-01109 mean those specific validity arguments were not judged on the merits, potentially leaving open avenues for new challenges.
4. Estoppel Assessment: Carefully assess estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) based on the FWDs and any settlement agreements. If not in privity with previous petitioners, a new IPR might be possible, particularly if new or different prior art can be identified.
5. Monitor Active Cases: Although no cases are listed as "active" in the sense of awaiting FWD based on the provided Google Patents data, it's important to monitor for any new filings.

The absence of detailed claim-level outcomes from the provided snippets for the IPRs that went to Final Written Decision means a critical piece of information for a defendant is missing. These FWDs are the definitive source for determining the patent's current claim scope.

Inventors

• Derry Shribman: Employer not specified in the patent text at the time of filing.
• Ofer Vilenski: Employer not specified in the patent text at the time of filing.

The patent information does not provide details about the inventors' employers at the time of filing. There is no information to suggest an unusual pattern of inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent is Web Spark Ltd.

Based on publicly available information, it is unclear whether Web Spark Ltd. shipped a product embodying the claims. The primary line of business for Web Spark Ltd. is not detailed in the patent.

According to the Google Patents legal status, Web Spark Ltd. was the assignee as of 2018-04-20 and subsequently, through a change of name, became Luminati Networks Ltd. on 2019-12-05, and then Bright Data Ltd. on 2021-03-31. Bright Data Ltd. is listed as the current assignee and is an active company.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center was searched for patent number US102573319. The system returned no records for this patent. This indicates that there are no post-issuance assignments recorded for US10257319. The ownership information provided by Google Patents legal events is derived from other sources, likely application-level assignments or changes of name.

Based on the Google Patents legal events, the assignment timeline is as follows:

• 2018-04-20 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-20

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: SHRIBMAN, DERRY; VILENSKI, OFER (Inventors)
  • Assignee: HOLA NEWCO LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to an entity.

• 2019-01-24 (executed) / recorded 2019-01-24

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: HOLA NEWCO LTD.
  • Assignee: WEB SPARK LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Internal reorg/name change.

• 2019-12-05 (executed) / recorded 2019-12-05

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: WEB SPARK LTD.
  • Assignee: LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Transfer of ownership.

• 2021-03-31 (executed) / recorded 2021-03-31

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.
  • Assignee: BRIGHT DATA LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Internal reorg/name change.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10257319
    2009 : Priority date
    2018 : Filed by Web Spark Ltd
         : Assigned to HOLA NEWCO LTD
    2019 : Hola Newco becomes Web Spark Ltd
         : Granted
         : Assigned to Luminati Networks Ltd
    2021 : Luminati Networks becomes Bright Data Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear.

   • The transfer to HOLA NEWCO LTD. and subsequent name changes to WEB SPARK LTD., LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD., and BRIGHT DATA LTD. do not, in themselves, strongly indicate a shell entity without further information on their business operations or physical addresses. While the names "HOLA NEWCO LTD." and "WEB SPARK LTD." could be generic, there is no direct evidence from the patent record (reel/frame) of them being shell entities or having registered-agent addresses.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present.

   • None of the assignees (HOLA NEWCO LTD., WEB SPARK LTD., LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD., BRIGHT DATA LTD.) are on the provided list of known NPEs.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear.

   • The Google Patents legal events do not provide correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) for these assignment events, only the assignor, assignee, conveyance type, and dates. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if a repeat correspondent is present.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.

   • The transfers occur over periods greater than 24 months, or are internal name changes. The initial transfer to HOLA NEWCO LTD. happened on the filing date, followed by a name change almost a year later, and then another transfer roughly 10 months after that. This does not show rapid, consecutive assignments.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear.

   • The patent was issued on 2019-04-09. Litigation was filed starting in 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, and a US Supreme Court case in 2025. The assignment to Luminati Networks Ltd. (2019-12-05) happened after the first litigation event (Texas Eastern District Court case 2:19-cv-00395, 2019-08-27, according to Unified Patents). The transfers from inventors to Hola Newco, and the subsequent name changes predate the earliest indicated litigation. Without specific execution dates for all litigation filings in relation to the assignments, it is difficult to definitively confirm or deny this signal.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present.

   • There is no information in the patent record or Google Patents legal events to suggest any assignee underwent bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — Unclear.

   • There is no information within the provided patent text or Google Patents data to indicate privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present.

   • The current assignee, Bright Data Ltd., is not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The absence of detailed correspondent information from Google Patents' legal event records makes it difficult to definitively assess some NPE signals, especially the "repeat correspondent" and "shell entity" indicators. However, the litigation history, with numerous cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit, as well as an apparent case in the US Supreme Court, suggests an assertive entity. While Bright Data Ltd. is an active company, the prolific litigation could indicate a strong enforcement strategy that sometimes aligns with NPE behavior, even if Bright Data also operates a core business. Without further information on Bright Data's product lines and the nature of the litigations (e.g., against competitors or non-practicing entities), a high-confidence NPE verdict is not warranted.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for US10257319: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number US10257319)

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10257319 and determine which claims it potentially anticipates, I need to access the full patent document, specifically the "References Cited" section and the claims. Unfortunately, the provided full patent text does not contain the claims section or the cited references. It only provides "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" (2009-10-08).

Without the actual claims and the list of cited prior art from the patent itself, I cannot perform a detailed anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To provide the requested information, I would need to:

1. Obtain the full patent document for US10257319, including its claims and the "References Cited" section. The USPTO Patent Public Search tool or other patent databases would be necessary for this.
   • The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool to search its database of patents and patent application publications. This tool has both basic and advanced search options.
   • When searching for a patent number, leading zeros may need to be added to patent numbers with 6 digits or less to make a total of 7 digits (e.g., 123456 would be 0123456).
2. Analyze each cited reference to understand its disclosed technology.
3. Compare the disclosed technology of each reference to the claims of US10257319 to identify potential anticipations. A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses every element of that claim, either explicitly or inherently.

Therefore, at this point, I cannot provide the most relevant prior art and anticipation analysis.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 10257319 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must determine if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made. A PHOSITA is a hypothetical person with ordinary creativity and knowledge in the relevant technical field, presumed to know all relevant prior art.

The patent itself identifies "proxy" solutions and "peer-to-peer file sharing" solutions as prior art, noting their limitations in dealing with dynamic data and scalability.

Prior Art References Identified in US10257319:

1. Proxies/Proxy Servers (FIG. 1 and related text): The patent describes traditional proxy servers (e.g., proxy servers 4, 6, 8 in FIG. 1) that sit between clients (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) and web servers (30, 32, 34) to cache responses and speed up requests for client devices. The patent highlights that these solutions are impractical due to massive deployment and storage costs needed for comprehensive internet coverage, and their inability to handle dynamic data effectively.
2. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File Sharing Networks (FIG. 2 and related text): The patent discusses P2P networks (e.g., network 50 in FIG. 2, with client devices 60 acting as peers 70, 72, 74, 76, 78) where files are stored on consumer computers and shared among them. It notes that P2P solutions require an index (server 80) to find data, which becomes prohibitively expensive and slow for the vast number of files on the modern internet, and also cannot handle dynamic HTTP data.

Claims to be Analyzed (based on Patent Summary):

• System Claim: A network for accelerating data communication, including:

  • Client communication device: originates data requests.
  • Agent communication device: assigned to a data server, receives requests from the client, tracks which clients received responses from the assigned data server.
  • Peer communication device: stores portions of data received in response to client requests, transmits portions upon request.
  • Acceleration server: decides agent assignments to data servers and provides this info to clients.

• Communication Device Claim: A communication device within a network, including:

  • Memory.
  • Processor configured to:
    • Originate data requests.
    • Be assigned to a data server (act as an assigned data server).
    • Receive data requests from other devices and track which clients received responses from the assigned data server.
    • Store portions of data received in response to its own originated request, for transmission to other devices upon request.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of internet communication and networking, at the time of the invention (priority date October 8, 2009), would have been familiar with both traditional proxy caching and peer-to-peer file sharing concepts. The PHOSITA would also be aware of the limitations of each, as described in the patent itself: proxies being costly and inefficient for dynamic content, and P2P systems struggling with indexing and dynamic data at scale.

Motivation to Combine:

The patent explicitly states the problems that exist: insufficient internet bandwidth for users, high hosting and bandwidth costs for content owners, and increasing infrastructure costs for ISPs, especially with the rise of on-demand video and global websites with dynamic content. These problems would have provided a clear motivation for a PHOSITA to seek solutions that overcome the limitations of existing proxy and P2P technologies. The motivation would be to create a system that is fast for the consumer, cheap for the content distributor, and does not require infrastructure investment for ISPs, while also being able to handle dynamic content.

Combination of Prior Art References to Render Claims Obvious:

1. System Claim:

• Combination: Traditional Proxy Systems (FIG. 1) + Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Networks (FIG. 2) + a centralized server for coordination.

• Rationale for Obviousness:

  • Proxies provide caching and content delivery: A PHOSITA would understand that proxies are effective at caching static content closer to users to improve speed. The "agent communication device" in the claimed invention acts as a sophisticated proxy, receiving requests and potentially having cached data. The notion of a proxy "keeping track of which client communication devices have received responses" is a natural extension of proxy functionality, allowing for more intelligent caching and distribution decisions.
  • P2P provides distributed storage and bandwidth offloading: A PHOSITA would recognize the benefits of P2P networks for distributing data storage and offloading traffic from central servers, improving download speed from multiple sources. The "peer communication device" directly incorporates this P2P concept by storing data portions and transmitting them to other clients.
  • Centralized server for coordination (Acceleration Server): Both proxy and P2P systems (especially the P2P systems described in the patent) already involve some form of centralized or distributed indexing/coordination. The patent's prior art description of P2P notes the need for "some sort of index by which to find the required data," often on "a server 80, or distributed among several servers." A PHOSITA, facing the scalability issues of P2P indexing for massive web content, would naturally consider a central "acceleration server" to manage agents and their assigned data ranges. This server's role in "deciding which agent communication device is to be assigned to which data server and providing this information to the at least one client communication device" is a logical evolution of managing network resources for optimal content delivery. The problem of efficiently finding relevant peers for dynamic and diverse content would push a PHOSITA towards a more intelligent, centrally coordinated assignment system.
  • Handling "portions of data" (chunks) and checksums: The concept of breaking data into "chunks" and using "checksums" for verification and identification is a well-established technique in data transmission and file integrity checking, particularly in P2P systems like BitTorrent, which is mentioned as prior art. Therefore, applying this known technique to proxy-cached content or content distributed via peers would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA seeking efficient data transfer and integrity.

2. Communication Device Claim:

• Combination: A standard computing device with network capabilities (e.g., client devices 10-20, or client devices 60) + software implementing functionalities of both a sophisticated proxy client/server and a P2P node.

• Rationale for Obviousness:

  • Standard computing device: The underlying hardware (processor, memory, storage, I/O) of the "communication device" is explicitly described as "general components of a computer" (FIG. 4). This is fundamental and well-known prior art.
  • Software-defined roles (client, agent, peer): The patent states that "due to functionality provided by software stored within each communication device... each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent, depending upon requirements of the network." A PHOSITA would understand that a general-purpose computing device can be configured via software to perform different network roles. The concept of a single device acting in multiple capacities (e.g., both requesting and serving content) is inherent in many P2P architectures.
  • Intercepting requests and routing: The use of an "intermediate driver 272" to intercept and redirect network traffic is a known technique in network management, security, and optimization. A PHOSITA would be aware of such methods to control network communication from an application level.
  • Caching and tracking responses: Combining the caching capabilities of a proxy with the distributed storage of a P2P node on a single device, and having that device "keep track of which client communication devices... have received responses" for future P2P sharing, would be a predictable result of trying to merge the benefits of both systems. This addresses the stated problems of both proxies (costly, static) and P2P (indexing, dynamic data).

Conclusion on Obviousness:

A PHOSITA, motivated by the clearly articulated problems of internet congestion, slow user speeds, and high content delivery costs, would have found it obvious to combine the known concepts of proxy caching and peer-to-peer data distribution. The addition of a centralized acceleration server to intelligently assign agent responsibilities and facilitate peer discovery, along with the use of data chunks and checksums, represents a predictable combination of existing technologies to achieve improved and predictable results in network communication efficiency. The claimed "system" and "communication device" appear to be a logical integration and optimization of these well-understood prior art elements, rather than a non-obvious invention.