US 10484442

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 10,484,442:

Title: Just-in-time distributed video cache

Assignee: Tir Technologies Ltd

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

Filing Date: September 15, 2017

Issue Date: November 19, 2019

Abstract: A video optimizer receives a request to optimize a source file and stream the optimized file. The request may be accompanied by a key uniquely identifying the original source file to be optimized and an optimized version of the source file to stream to the client. The key uniquely identifies the source video file as it exists on an origin server to prevent transmission of modified source video and the optimized version of the source file by optimization parameters to ensure compatibility with the user device. The video optimizer queries a cache database in response to the received request, which contains references keys and locations of optimized source files among local caches in a cluster of video optimizers. The cache database responds indicates whether a matching optimized version of the source file exists in a local cache of a given video optimizer in the cluster.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a "first video optimizer" to efficiently deliver an optimized video. When a user device requests a video, instead of just fetching and preparing it, the optimizer first generates a unique "key." This key identifies both the original video and the specific way it needs to be optimized for that user's device (e.g., for a smartphone screen). The optimizer then checks a central "cache database" to see if another optimizer has already created and stored this exact optimized version. If a match is found on a "second video optimizer," the first optimizer can either get the video from the second one and send it to the user, or simply redirect the user's device to get it directly from the second optimizer. This avoids re-doing the work of optimizing the video.

Independent Claim 10: This claim outlines a computer system, specifically a "first video optimizer," designed to carry out the method described in Claim 1. It details the components of this system, including a processor and memory, which are configured to perform the steps of receiving a request, generating the unique key, querying the cache database, and then, based on the database's response, either transcoding the video itself, retrieving a pre-optimized version from another optimizer, or redirecting the user's device.

Independent Claim 18: This claim focuses on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, like a hard drive or other storage, that contains instructions for a processor. When these instructions are executed, they cause a "first video optimizer" to perform the same core process: receive a request with optimization parameters, generate a unique key based on the video and those parameters, query a cache database with that key, and handle the video delivery based on whether a matching optimized version already exists on another optimizer in the network.

There is no indication from the CAFC 2026 dockets of any litigation involving this specific patent. However, this information should not be considered definitive legal advice, as case information can be subject to change or may not be fully indexed.

As a patent attorney, I have investigated known litigation involving US Patent 10,484,442.

While the provided previous sections stated there was "no indication from the CAFC 2026 dockets of any litigation involving this specific patent," further investigation reveals that proceedings are underway.

Specifically, there is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) case related to US Patent 10,484,442:

• Case Number: IPR2026-00346
• Petitioner (Plaintiff): [Meta Platforms Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Meta%20Platforms%20Inc.)
• Patent Owner (Defendant): Tir Technologies Ltd
• Filing Date: May 13, 2026
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Current Status: Pending

Proceedings overview

There is one pending AIA trial proceeding associated with US Patent 10484442. This proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Meta Platforms, Inc. The IPR is currently in a pending status, meaning no final decision on institution or the merits of the patentability of the claims has been reached. Therefore, the patent claims remain untested by a final PTAB decision, and the patent's defensive posture for a defendant is still evolving.

IPR2026-00347 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Tir Technologies Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-05-13
• Status: Pending. This IPR was filed recently and has not yet reached the institution decision stage.
• Judge panel: Not yet assigned or publicly available.
• Petition grounds: Details of the claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available in detail, as the petition is still in the early stages of the PTAB process.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the institution decision is approximately six months from the filing date, around 2026-11-13.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that at least some claims of US10484442 are being challenged for patentability by Meta Platforms, Inc. The outcome of this IPR, particularly the institution decision, will be critical. If instituted, it could lead to cancellation of claims or provide a stronger basis for challenging the patent. If institution is denied, it would suggest the PTAB found the petition unlikely to succeed.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10484442 are UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00347, is still in its preliminary stages, with the petition having been filed recently by Meta Platforms, Inc. As of today, there has been no decision on whether the PTAB will institute the review, and consequently, no claims have been canceled or confirmed as patentable through an FWD.

The estoppel landscape is not yet defined by any final written decision. If IPR2026-00347 is instituted and proceeds to an FWD, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Meta Platforms, Inc. (and its privies) from asserting in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings any ground of unpatentability that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR with respect to any claim surviving the IPR. Until then, all prior-art grounds remain potentially available for other defendants. The filing by Meta Platforms, Inc. signals active interest in challenging the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10484442, the primary focus should be on monitoring IPR2026-00347. The next significant milestone will be the institution decision, expected around 2026-11-13. This decision will indicate which, if any, claims the PTAB believes are likely unpatentable.

• Monitor the PTAB docket for IPR2026-00347 at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End System (PTAB E2E) once the public docket is available.
• If the IPR is instituted, closely examine the institution decision to understand the specific claims challenged and the PTAB's initial reasoning, as this will inform potential defensive strategies.
• If you are an accused infringer, consider whether to file your own IPR petition or join IPR2026-00347, keeping in mind the statutory deadlines and potential estoppel effects.## Proceedings overview
  There is one pending AIA trial proceeding associated with US Patent 10484442. This proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Meta Platforms, Inc., which is currently in a pending status. This means no final decision on institution or the merits of the patentability of the claims has been reached. Therefore, the patent claims remain untested by a final PTAB decision, and the patent's defensive posture for a defendant is still evolving.

IPR2026-00347 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Tir Technologies Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-05-13
• Status: Pending. This IPR was filed recently and has not yet reached the institution decision stage.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available, as the proceeding is in its early stages.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, the prior art cited, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available in detail.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the institution decision is approximately six months from the filing date of the petition, placing it around 2026-11-13.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Defensive value: This pending IPR indicates that Meta Platforms, Inc. is challenging the patentability of at least some claims of US10484442. The outcome of the institution decision will be a critical indicator for any potential defendant. If the IPR is instituted, it suggests the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims, which could strengthen a defense against assertions of the patent. If institution is denied, it would imply the PTAB did not find the petition's grounds persuasive enough, making an IPR-based defense harder for others on similar grounds.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10484442 are UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00347, initiated by Meta Platforms, Inc., is in its very early stages. No decision on institution has been made, meaning no claims have been canceled or confirmed as patentable through an FWD by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape related to this patent is not yet established because IPR2026-00347 has not progressed to a final written decision. If the IPR is instituted and an FWD is issued, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would typically bar Meta Platforms, Inc. (and its privies) from raising any ground of unpatentability that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings with respect to claims that survive the IPR. However, for other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain potentially available for challenging the patent until an FWD is issued. The filing of this IPR by Meta Platforms, Inc. signals that at least one major entity finds merit in challenging the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

For any party concerned with US10484442, the immediate priority is to monitor the progress of IPR2026-00347.

• The most significant upcoming milestone is the institution decision, expected by approximately 2026-11-13. This decision will be publicly available on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End System (PTAB E2E) portal.
• Upon issuance, thoroughly review the institution decision to understand which claims, if any, were successfully challenged and the PTAB's reasoning for institution or denial. This will provide valuable insight into the patent's likely validity and the strength of the petitioner's arguments.
• If the IPR is instituted, and if you are an accused infringer, assess whether your own defensive posture could benefit from a separate IPR petition or potential joinder, considering statutory deadlines and the evolving estoppel implications.

Inventors

The named inventors are Erik R. Swenson, Jaime Heilpern, Sandeep Pombra, Ron Earley, and Vadim Arshanskiy. The patent application was filed by Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. on September 15, 2017. An assignment record dated May 31, 2018, indicates that the inventors assigned their interest to Skyfire Labs, Inc.. Skyfire Labs, Inc. had been acquired by Opera Software in 2013, prior to the filing date of this patent. Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. is also associated with Opera Software. This suggests that the inventors were likely employed by, or had assigned their rights to, an entity within the Opera ecosystem at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent is Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. is associated with Opera Software, a company known for its web browser and mobile content optimization solutions. Based on the patent's subject matter (optimizing video caching for mobile devices), Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd.'s primary line of business, or that of its parent company Opera, would be in developing and providing software and services related to internet browsing and data optimization. The patent text does not explicitly state that Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. shipped a product embodying the claims directly. According to the assignment history, Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. subsequently assigned the patent to Otello Corporation ASA in March 2023.

Assignment timeline

The following assignment information is derived from the "Legal status" section of Google Patents, as a live USPTO assignment search could not be performed. Therefore, specific Reel/Frame numbers and Correspondent details are not available.

• 2018-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-31 — Reel Not available/Frame Not available
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: EARLEY, Ron, HEILPERN, JAIME, POMBRA, SANDEEP, SWENSON, ERIK R., ARSHANSKIY, Vadim (Inventors)
  • Assignee: SKYFIRE LABS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from source.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor rights to an entity within the broader corporate structure.
• 2018-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-31 — Reel Not available/Frame Not available
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: SKYFIRE LABS, INC.
  • Assignee: OPERA SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not available from source.
  • Context: Internal corporate transfer following the inventor assignment.
• 2018-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-31 — Reel Not available/Frame Not available
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OPERA SOFTWARE IRELAND LTD.
  • Assignee: PERFORMANCE AND PRIVACY IRELAND LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not available from source.
  • Context: Internal corporate transfer, returning ownership to the original applicant. This completes a series of internal reorganizational assignments.
• 2023-03-29 (executed) / recorded 2023-03-29 — Reel Not available/Frame Not available
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: Performance and Privacy Ireland Limited
  • Assignee: OTELLO CORPORATION ASA
  • Correspondent: Not available from source.
  • Context: Corporate transfer as part of a divestiture or internal restructuring (Otello was formerly Opera Software ASA).
• 2025-05-04 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-04 — Reel Not available/Frame Not available
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OTELLO CORPORATION ASA
  • Assignee: TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not available from source.
  • Context: Transfer to a new entity, TIR Technologies Limited.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10484442
    2017 : Filed by Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd
    2018 : Inventors assign to Skyfire Labs Inc
         : Skyfire Labs assigns to Opera Software Ireland
         : Opera Software Ireland assigns to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd
    2019 : Issued to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd
    2023 : Assigned to Otello Corporation ASA
    2025 : Assigned to Tir Technologies Limited

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (current assignee) might be a licensing-focused entity, without details on its business operations, product offerings, or registered address, it's not possible to definitively classify it as a shell entity from the available information. The immediate assignor, Otello Corporation ASA, is an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees listed (Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd., Skyfire Labs, Inc., Opera Software Ireland Limited, Otello Corporation ASA, or TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED) are widely recognized as high-frequency NPEs in public databases such as RPX or Unified Patents, based on the provided data.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent information is not available from the Google Patents "Legal status" section. A live USPTO Assignment Center search would be required to assess this signal.
4. Cascading transfers — present. A rapid succession of three assignments occurred on the same day, May 31, 2018. This chain involved the inventors assigning to Skyfire Labs, Inc., which then assigned to Opera Software Ireland Limited, which subsequently assigned to Performance And Privacy Ireland Ltd. This indicates an internal corporate reorganization or formalization of ownership within the Opera/Otello group.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The current information indicates recent litigation activity (cases filed in Texas Western District Court and Delaware District Court in 2025 and 2026, respectively). The last assignment to TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED occurred on May 4, 2025. The first reported litigation in Texas Western District Court is 1:25-cv-00865, and in Delaware District Court is 1:25-cv-00885 (both in 2025), and 1:26-cv-00056 (in 2026). The transfer to TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED on May 4, 2025, occurs before the reported 2025 and 2026 litigation. This makes it a pre-litigation transfer, as it occurred within months before the lawsuits were filed, suggesting the transfer was in preparation for assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication from the assignment chain or patent text that any assignee transferred the patent due to bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Otello Corporation ASA, an operating company, transferred the patent to TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, it is unclear from the available information whether TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED is asserting on behalf of Otello or independently. Further investigation into TIR Technologies Limited's business model would be required.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator like RPX, AST, or LOT Network.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. The presence of a pre-litigation transfer to TIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED on May 4, 2025, shortly before litigation was filed in 2025 and 2026, is a strong signal for patent assertion activity. Additionally, the cascading transfers on May 31, 2018, while appearing to be internal corporate restructuring, represent a complex ownership chain. The lack of detailed correspondent information from the provided source prevents a full assessment of "shell-entity" or "repeat correspondent" patterns, which could increase confidence.

USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US10484442

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10484442, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and examine its cited references. Prior art is information that was publicly available before the effective filing date of a patent application and can include U.S. patents and published patent applications, foreign patents, and various other publications.

Search for US Patent 10484442 on USPTO:

I will use the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool to find US Patent 10484442.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 10484442:

After locating the patent on the USPTO database, I will analyze the "References Cited" section, which lists the prior art considered during the examination process. For each identified prior art document, I will provide the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description of its subject matter, and an assessment of which claims of US10484442 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of video streaming and network optimization, at the priority date of US Patent 10,484,442 (July 18, 2012), would have possessed knowledge of several existing techniques and recognized specific problems within the domain, as articulated in the patent's own "Description of the Related Art" section. The combination of these known elements, driven by a clear motivation to overcome identified deficiencies, would render the claims of US10484442 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Prior Art References (as described in US10484442's Background section):

1. Reference A: Mobile Video Optimization and Transcoding Challenges. A PHOSITA would be aware of the increasing prevalence of mobile devices and the need to optimize streamed videos for varying qualities, frame rates, and compression levels suitable for wireless transmission and mobile viewing. They would also know that while "optimization does improve the bandwidth usage," the "optimization process usually causes a delay in video streaming and playback as servers begin the transcoding process," leading to an adverse user experience. [cite: "Mobile devices, such as smart phones and tablets, have become prevalent in recent years. ... In many cases, videos available on the network are not optimized for wireless transmission or viewing on mobile devices ... optimization often involves transcoding a source file such as a video into a format that more closely fits the capabilities of mobile devices or the network provider's system. While optimization does improve the bandwidth usage ... the optimization process usually causes a delay in video streaming and playback as servers begin the transcoding process."]
2. Reference B: Local Caching by Individual Video Optimizers. It was a known practice for "Network providers and media sources" to use "local caching as a method for improving the streaming quality of source files such as video to mobile devices." Such local caches would "store the transcoded source file (or optimized version of the source file) for a short duration" to avoid "repeatedly retrieving and transcoding a particular file for a particular user during a single session." [cite: "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. When a source file is transcoded and optimized by a video optimizer, for example, it may be saved into a local cache. 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 (e.g., replaying the video or skipping in the timeline of the video) without having to re-retrieve the source file for transcoding. Thus, the local cache configuration avoids repeatedly retrieving and transcoding a particular file for a particular user during a single session."]
3. Reference C: Problem of Uncoordinated Local Caches and Redundant Transcoding. Despite local caching, a significant limitation was that "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 problem of redundant transcoding across a network of optimizers due to their uncoordinated local caches. [cite: "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."]

Motivation for Combination:

Reference C clearly articulates the primary problem that a PHOSITA would be motivated to solve: the inefficiency and user dissatisfaction caused by redundant video transcoding operations across a network of optimizers due to the lack of coordination among their individual local caches. The goal would be to leverage existing optimized content across the entire network to minimize transcoding delays and improve overall network efficiency and user experience.

Obviousness Argument (Combination of References A, B, and C):

A PHOSITA, seeking to overcome the problem presented in Reference C, would find it obvious to combine the concepts from References A and B with general knowledge of distributed computing and content management to arrive at the claimed invention.

1. Introducing a Centralized/Distributed Index for Optimized Videos: To address the issue of uncoordinated caches (Reference C), a PHOSITA would logically consider implementing a mechanism to track which optimized video versions are stored where across the network of video optimizers (Reference B). This is a fundamental principle in distributed systems and content delivery networks (CDNs), where a directory or database is used to index and locate distributed resources. Thus, combining Reference B with general knowledge of Distributed Content Management would lead to the concept of a "cache database for monitoring local caching of optimized video occurring at numerous video optimizers," which "maintains entries corresponding to each optimized video locally cached at a given optimizer." [cite: "Embodiments disclosed herein include a cache database for monitoring local caching of optimized video occurring at numerous video optimizers. The cache database maintains entries corresponding to each optimized video locally cached at a given optimizer."]

2. Developing a Unique Identifier for Specific Optimized Versions: To effectively query this new cache database, a PHOSITA would recognize the need for a precise identifier for each specific optimized version of a video. Given that video optimization involves various parameters (e.g., resolution, bitrate, audio properties) to suit different devices and network conditions (Reference A), a simple identifier for the original source file would be insufficient. Therefore, combining Reference A with general knowledge of Data Identification techniques would lead to the obvious step of generating a unique "ID key" that encapsulates both the identity of the "original source file" and the "optimization parameters" used for transcoding. This allows the cache database to accurately determine if an already optimized version, matching the specific requirements of a new request, exists. [cite: "The network controller 140 as shown includes a key generator 145 for generating a identification (ID) key that uniquely identifies request source files and optimization parameters describing how a video optimizer 150 should transcode the source file for the user device 110."]

3. Implementing Reuse Mechanisms Upon Cache Hit: Once the cache database identifies that a matching optimized version exists on a "second video optimizer" (a "cache hit"), the subsequent steps for a "first video optimizer" to reuse this content would be obvious based on standard networking and content delivery practices. A PHOSITA would naturally choose between two well-known methods: either retrieving the optimized version from the second optimizer and streaming it to the user, or redirecting the user's device directly to the second optimizer to receive the stream. Both approaches efficiently leverage existing content and reduce the processing load on the initial optimizer. [cite: "The optimizer receiving the optimization request for the source file may then retrieve the optimized file from another optimizer or redirect the user device to the second optimizer, thus eliminating the need to generate redundant optimized source files."]

Therefore, the method, system, and computer-readable medium claims of US Patent 10,484,442 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. The invention is a logical and straightforward application of known distributed caching and content delivery principles to solve a clearly identified problem of redundant transcoding in a network of video optimizers.