US 11533352

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me verify the claim structure and check for any 2026 litigation/docket activity specifically tied to this patent.

Report on US Patent No. 11,533,352

Scope note / search limitations. I searched for this specific number. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket entry naming US 11,533,352, and I could not retrieve the literal claim text of the patent (the claim set was not included in the authoritative text supplied to me, and the public sources returned by search reproduce the abstract but not the numbered claims). Anything below about claim scope that goes beyond the abstract/specification is flagged as inference, not verified claim language. Also note a scheduling discrepancy: the task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while my environment clock reads September 23, 2026; some search results post-date April 26, 2026, so I note where they do.

Bibliographic data (verified against the authoritative patent text)

Abstract (verbatim)

"Techniques for serving a manifest file of an adaptive streaming video include receiving a request for the manifest file from a user device. The video is encoded at different reference bitrates and each encoded reference bitrate is divided into segments to generate video segment files. The manifest file includes an ordered list of universal resource locators (URLs) that reference a set of video segment files encoded at a particular reference bitrate. A source manifest file that indicates the set of video segment files is identified based on the request. An issued manifest file that includes a first URL and a second URL is generated based on the source manifest file. The first URL references a first domain and the second URL references a second domain that is different from the first domain. The issued manifest file is transmitted to the user device as a response to the request."

Context in the DLVR/Adeia family

This patent is a later continuation in the family claiming priority to 2014-10-29. Its siblings include US 9,426,089 (the parent), US 9,800,639 ("Configuring manifest files including redirect uniform resource locators"), and US 11,757,964 (application 16/130,637). The specification (as supplied) describes a network of "infrastructure components" — manifest file handlers, segment file servers, cluster performance managers, service provider managers, performance administrators, DNS authoritative name servers, optional NIF message handlers, segment redirect processors, and library storage servers — and the "primary" (on-demand) and "secondary" (linear) embodiments.

Plain-language overview of the claimed subject matter

Because the literal claim set was not available to me, the following is an overview grounded in the abstract, title, and specification wording, not a quotation of claim language. Treat claim numbers/dependencies as unverified.

The disclosed invention is a way for an intermediary "network of infrastructure components" to intercept a video player's request for a manifest file (e.g., an HLS master or variant playlist), fetch the corresponding "source" manifest from the content owner, and then re-write ("configure") it into an "issued" manifest before returning it to the player. The key structural feature reflected in the abstract and reinforced by the title — direct selection of video segment file servers — is that a single issued manifest can mix references to different domains: some segment URLs point into the intermediary's own segment-file-server domain (so the intermediary directly assigns and measures the servers that deliver those segments), while others point to a different domain (e.g., a third-party infrastructure service provider or CDN). This lets the operator route, measure, and manage delivery across its own servers and external providers, and to do so without installing anything on the user device — it relies on the device's standard adaptive-streaming playback component.

On that reading, the independent claims most likely cover:

1. A method (server-side) of receiving a manifest-file request from a user device; identifying a source manifest file for the requested video (encoded at multiple reference bitrates and segmented); generating an issued manifest based on the source manifest, where the issued manifest contains a first URL referencing a first domain and a second URL referencing a second, different domain; and transmitting the issued manifest to the requesting device.
2. A corresponding system (one or more servers/manifest file handlers configured to perform those steps).
3. Optionally a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause those steps.

The specification additionally supports dependent-level features that are likely recited in dependent claims, including: the host-domain selection being based on performance/utilization data from a performance administrator; cluster-level or node-level assignment of segment file servers (via stable DNS hostname schemes, round-robin/Anycast); embedding a Session ID, and a character string designating the digital service, in the URL paths of the issued manifest; the "second URL character string within a first URL" technique; a hostname authorities file used for authorization; and delivery of either a Master manifest (whose URLs point to variant manifests on the intermediary's manifest-file-handler domain) or a Variant manifest (whose URLs point to segment files). I cannot confirm which of these are actually claimed in 11,533,352 without the claim text.

Litigation / docket check for 11,533,352

• CAFC 2026: No Federal Circuit docket naming US 11,533,352 was found. I cannot rule out a non-indexed or very recent filing, but nothing surfaced.
• District court / PTAB: Searches surfaced Adeia-family litigation, but none of it was confirmed to involve US 11,533,352:
  • Adeia Technologies, Inc., Adeia Guides Inc. and Adeia Media Holdings LLC v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) et al., D. Del. C.A. No. 24-cv-1231. The claim-construction and PTAB exhibits in that case reference the '639, '987, '595, '324 and '705 patents — not '352.
  • PTAB IPRs IPR2026-00051 through IPR2026-00056 (Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia entities), filed Oct 31 – Nov 7, 2025; all terminated February 25, 2026 (dismissed pre-institution after settlement; refunds approved March 11, 2026). Those IPRs target different patents ('705, '428, etc.).
  • Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney, UPC_CFI_199/2025 (Local Division The Hague, claim served Nov–Dec 2024; procedural order Aug 19, 2025) — concerns EP 1969839, not this US patent.
  • DIRECTV declaratory-judgment actions (N.D. Cal. DJ action filed Dec 29, 2025; Adeia's S.D.N.Y. breach-of-contract action filed Jan 12, 2026) — seven Adeia patents at issue, none identified as '352.
• Do not conflate an unrelated hit: a London Gazette entry pairing "11533352 (C3)" with "FIELD UK SERVICES LIMITED" is a UK company number, not this patent. Per the literal-ID rule, I am not treating it as a match.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: title, application number, filing date, priority date, issue date, inventor, and the assignment chain (all drawn from the authoritative patent text and USPTO/Google Patents assignment records).
• Moderate confidence: assignee-of-record nuances and current annuity/expiration status (these change; the "Active" label is Google's assumption disclaimer).
• Low / unverified: the independent-claim overview above. I could not obtain the actual claim language of US 11,533,352 from the sources searched. To confirm the precise independent claims and their count, check the patent's own claims via USPTO Patent Public Search or Patent Center for application 16/173,043, or the granted-claims section of the Google Patents page.
• Negative finding, not proof: the absence of a CAFC 2026 docket for this number means I found none, not that none exists.

I'll search for litigation involving US 11,533,352 specifically.

Let me dig deeper with targeted searches on litigation databases.

Bottom line

I could not identify any litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB, or Federal Circuit — involving U.S. Patent No. 11,533,352. My searches returned no complaint, docket, IPR petition, or appellate proceeding that names this patent. I am reporting a negative finding, not a confirmation that none exists, and I want to be explicit about the limits of that finding (see Section 4).

---

1. What is verified about the patent (from the authoritative full text)

Chain-of-title events recorded on the face of the patent:

• 2018-10-29 — assignment to DLVR, Inc. (inventor Gordon).
• 2025-06-13 — assignment of interest from DLVR, Inc. to Adeia Media Holdings LLC; then conversion to Adeia Media Holdings Inc. (Assignor: Adeia Media Holdings LLC).
• 2025-05-28 — security interest in favor of Bank of America, N.A., as collateral agent, recorded by a long list of Adeia entities (Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Holdings Inc., Adeia Media Holdings Inc., Adeia Media LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., etc.).

Because the '352 patent's priority date is 2014-10-29 and it claims priority from US 14/709,171, any litigation against an earlier-issued family member (e.g., US 9,426,089) would not, by itself, establish that the '352 patent was asserted. I found no case-specific evidence tying the '352 patent's own claim set to any suit.

---

2. Searches I ran and their results

False positives to be aware of (same digit string, unrelated to the patent):

• PubMed PMID 11533352 — American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs, Transfer of drugs and other chemicals into human milk, Pediatrics 2001;108(3):776–89 (appears in multiple citing papers).
• UK Companies House number 11533352 (C3) — Field UK Services Limited, London Gazette issue 900982.
• A bankruptcy creditor identifier 11533352 (Arrowood Indemnity Co.) in In re Fieldwood Energy LLC, Bankr. S.D. Tex. No. 20-33948 (CourtListener dockets 17411371/1204/5 and 17411371/1261/9).
• None of these involve patent litigation.

---

3. Family/party context (relevant, but not proof of '352 litigation)

• The '352 patent's predecessor application US 14/709,171 issued as US 9,426,089 B2 (identified on the patent's own priority record). I have not verified whether the '089 patent or any other member of this DLVR manifest-file family was ever asserted in litigation. I did not find such a case, but I cannot rule it out on the basis of the searches performed.
• Adeia is demonstrably an active patent enforcer in the streaming/media space — e.g., the Adeia v. DISH Network action reported in the press, and the DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.) matter surfaced in a complaint-analysis result. Neither of these searches showed the '352 patent as an asserted patent. Adeia's more commonly reported assertions to date involve media/guidance, DVR/adaptive-bitrate, and semiconductor portfolios, not specifically this manifest-file patent.

---

4. Confidence and limitations — please read this before relying on the negative

My confidence is low-to-moderate that no litigation exists. Reasons:

1. I could not directly query the primary sources you named. I was not able to run a live, patent-number-specific lookup against the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, Docket Navigator, RPX Insight, or the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Those are the authoritative tools for this question, and my inability to reach them is the single largest gap in this analysis.
2. Complaints frequently do not use comma-formatted patent numbers. A search string like "11,533,352" can miss a complaint that cites 11,533,352, 11533352, '352, or "the '352 Patent." My queries covered several of these forms but not exhaustively.
3. The patent is young relative to enforcement. It granted 2022-12-20 and only moved into Adeia's hands in June 2025. A recently acquired patent may simply not yet have been asserted.
4. The security-interest and assignment activity in 2025 is corporate/ financing activity, not litigation. It does mean the patent is likely collateral under a Bank of America credit facility, which is worth noting for any enforcement or licensing diligence.

---

5. Recommended verification steps (to close the gap)

If you need a defensible "no litigation" representation, I would run the following before relying on this memo:

1. Unified Patents litigation caselist — search the patent number without commas: 11533352.
2. PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — full-text search across all district courts for "11,533,352" and "11533352", plus a party search for DLVR, Inc. and Adeia Media Holdings Inc. as plaintiff, with a docket-level review of each hit to confirm the patent is pleaded.
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB Endpoint / P-TACTS) — confirm no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition names the '352 patent as the challenged patent.
4. USITC EDIS — confirm no Section 337 investigation lists the '352 patent.
5. CAFC — search for appeals from any of the above, and for 11,533,352 in briefs/appendices.
6. Adeia SEC filings (10-K/10-Q litigation notes) — Adeia discloses material litigation; a targeted review of its recent periodic reports would show any '352-based assertion. (I did not perform this check.)
7. Confirm the family scope — check whether any of the sibling/continuation patents from the 2014-10-29 priority family (e.g., US 9,426,089) were asserted, since that is a plausible source of confusion in secondary reporting.

No case is reported here because none was found — not because any was found and excluded. If you want, I can attempt a further round of targeted searches (e.g., the litigation portals' public case lists, DLVR/Adeia party names, and PTAB) to try to convert this negative into a documented one.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before writing anything.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 11,533,352 — the USPTO ODP structured record returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM, and my independent web checks (PTAB petition dockets, PTAB E2E, litigation commentary, and the DLVR/Adeia family generally) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent, so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is an untested patent, not a hardened one and not a gutted one. No claim of the '352 patent has ever been construed by the Board, and no § 102/§ 103 record exists at the PTAB. Unlike "the patent has survived two IPRs" (hardened) or "claims 1–5 have been canceled" (troll has no case), the absence of PTAB history means every claim remains presumptively valid in the AIA-trial sense and fully open to a first-challenge — an IPR is still available to you, unencumbered by anyone else's estoppel.

Note on confidence: the ODP absence is my primary evidence and is authoritative as of the most recent ingest. Web search cannot rule out a very recently filed petition that has not yet propagated into ODP or into secondary sources. Treat the "no PTAB activity" conclusion as high-confidence-but-not-absolute, and re-check PTAB E2E before relying on it in a filing. I found no proceeding to describe below, so the per-proceeding template below is intentionally left unfilled rather than fabricated.

---

(Per-proceeding sections — none applicable)

No proceeding number, petitioner, panel, ground, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal exists to report for US 11,533,352. I will not invent one. The following are near-miss false positives I screened out; flagging them so no one else's research memo confuses them with this patent:

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. There is no canceled claim, no sustained claim, no narrowed claim — the entire claim set of US 11,533,352 stands as issued (grant date 2022-12-20). That cuts both ways. The patent has never been pressure-tested by an expert declaration plus prior-art combination, and its claims have never been construed under the Phillips framework by the Board. It is also, per Google Patents' stated assumption, active with an anticipated expiration of 2035-05-11 (a function of the 2015-05-11 non-provisional filing it claims priority from via US 14/709,171), so there is a long runway left for assertion and for a challenge — no § 315(a)(1)/"too late" dynamics, but also no near-term expiry leverage.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate — which is your advantage. Because no IPR/PGR reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. No prior-art ground is foreclosed to a current defendant as a consequence of another party's PTAB run. Concretely: if you are newly served with a complaint, you (or a co-defendant, or a defensive aggregator) can file an IPR against any claim on any § 102/§ 103 ground without worrying about someone else's prior institution or institution denial. Two timing items dominate:

• § 315(b) one-year bar: if you were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '352 patent more than one year ago, you are personally time-barred from filing an IPR (unless joined under § 315(c)). Confirm the service date first — it is decisive.
• § 315(a)(1): do not file a declaratory-judgment action of invalidity before your IPR petition, or you bar yourself.
• PGR is gone: it is only available within 9 months of grant (and for pre-issuance limited situations). Grant was 2022-12-20, so PGR was time-barred after approximately 2023-09-20. IPR (and ex parte reexam, which carries no estoppel) are your vehicles. CBM is unavailable — it sunset on 2020-09-16 and this is not a covered business method patent in any event.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (there is no petitioner at all). No Patent Owner appeal activity (nothing to appeal). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) has visibly attacked this patent — worth noting, because an untested, still-live media-delivery patent owned by a monetization-oriented assignee is exactly the profile aggregators target. On ownership: Google Patents lists the original assignee as DLVR, Inc., currently Adeia Media Holdings Inc., with a 2025-05-28 security-interest grant to Bank of America, N.A. as collateral agent (naming Adeia entities including Adeia Media Holdings Inc.) and a 2025-06-13 conversion/assignment chain (DLVR, Inc. → Adeia Media Holdings LLC → Adeia Media Holdings Inc.). Adeia is a large, active licensing entity whose media-guidance and streaming assets are broadly asserted across the industry, and the lender collateral structure signals the portfolio is treated as a monetization asset. I found no litigation in which the '352 patent is currently asserted, but my searches for enforcement history were not exhaustive and I cannot state litigation status with confidence.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Re-verify the negative directly, today. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and USPTO PatentCenter ("Proceedings" tab) for application 16/173,043 / patent 11,533,352, and run a site:ptacts.uspto.gov search. ODP lag for newly filed petitions can be weeks. Do this before any brief recites "no IPR has been filed."
2. If you are a defendant and were served within the last 12 months, preserve your IPR window now. Commission the prior-art search immediately; the § 315(b) clock, not the merits, is the usual reason a good IPR never gets filed.
3. There is no FWD to cite — do not claim one. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch: (a) the family's own prosecution history (the DLVR/Adeia continuations repeatedly amended around manifest/URL configuration art, and those file-wrapper admissions are usable); (b) printed publications and prior systems in HTTP adaptive streaming predating the 2014-10-29 priority date (HLS/DASH, CDN manifest manipulation, segment-server assignment); and (c) § 112 written-description/enablement theories on the very broad "configure a manifest file" functional language if you are litigating in district court (112 is not available in an IPR).
4. Watch the Adeia campaign, not just this patent. Adeia asserts portfolios, not singletons. Expect sibling patents (9,426,089; 9,509,742; 9,800,639; 10,264,042; 10,084,838; and other continuations) to appear alongside it. A challenge to the '352 patent creates no estoppel anywhere else, but shared-specification art will; budget for a coordinated multi-patent IPR set rather than a single petition.
5. Set a docket watch. Use PatentCenter's proceeding alerts plus a CourtListener docket alert (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211533352%22&type=r) for any complaint naming the '352 patent — the first complaint is what starts everyone's § 315(b) clock and is the earliest reliable trigger for a future PTAB race.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record. Let me pull the USPTO Assignment Center records and cross-reference sources.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent No. 11,533,352 B2

Method and limitation note (read first). I attempted to pull the four recorded events for this patent directly from USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ / https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?searchType=patentNumber&searchText=11533352). I was able to confirm the existence, execution/recording dates, conveyance types, assignors and assignees — these are mirrored on the patent's Google Patents "Legal Events" record — but I could NOT retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record for any of the four entries in this session. I will not invent reel/frame values or correspondent names. Where I lack a record I say so explicitly.

Date/contradiction flags carried forward:

• The task says today is 2026-09-28; the environment clock in most of this analysis read 2026-09-23; the first section was annotated to April 26, 2026. Not reconciled; noted only.
• Anomaly in the chain (new finding): the recorded security interest (2025-05-28) precedes the recorded assignment that first put this patent into the Adeia chain (2025-06-13) — yet the security-interest grantor roster already names "ADEIA MEDIA HOLDINGS INC." This ordering is counter-intuitive and should be checked against the underlying documents (a security agreement dated June 1, 2020 exists in the Adeia/BofA facility — a periodic perfection filing could explain it). Not resolved here.
• Do not propagate the literal typo already flagged: US 2019/0215351 A1 renders the parent as "9,426,689" — it is 9,426,089.

---

Inventors

• Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence that Gordon departed DLVR within 12 months of the 2018-10-29 filing, and no evidence of any post-filing inventor-side assignment, reissue, or inventor declaration disturbance. Sole-inventor portfolios are slightly more exposed to a single-inventor exit, but no such event is recorded on this patent. Marked not present / unverified rather than inferred.
• I could not verify Gordon's role/title at DLVR from the sources retrieved. Unverified.

---

Original assignee

DLVR, Inc. — named as assignee on the recorded 2018-10-29 assignment and as the applicant on the face of the patent.

• Primary line of business: According to the patent's own specification, the "network of infrastructure components" (manifest file handlers, segment file servers, cluster performance managers, service provider managers, performance administrators) is operator-controlled infrastructure for adaptive-streaming video delivery. DLVR, Inc. is the entity whose operations that specification describes — i.e., an adaptive-streaming video delivery/manifest-management company, not a general-purpose holding vehicle.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Cannot verify. No product literature, marketing material, or commercial evidence was retrieved in this session. The specification's detailed operational disclosure is consistent with a commercial service, but consistency is not proof. Unverified — do not state as fact.
• Current status: Cannot verify operating / acquired / dissolved / in bankruptcy. What is verified is the outcome: DLVR, Inc. no longer owns this patent — it assigned it out (recorded 2025-06-13). No bankruptcy filing, Chapter 7/11, or assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors was found in my searches. The absence of a bankruptcy record is a negative finding, not proof of solvency. Flagged as the single largest factual gap in this report.
• Related data point (different patent, but same acquirer): an Adeia chain-of-title statement in a PTAB record shows BRIGHTCOVE INC. → ADEIA MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC at Reel 067609/0435, dated 2024-07-02, with correspondent "75563 Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia), 75 Broad Street Suite 1000, New York, NY 10004-3226." This confirms Adeia was acquiring third-party streaming-video portfolios in 2024 via the Haley Guiliano correspondent. It is NOT a record for the '352 and must not be cited as one.

---

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment Center does have records for this patent (four entries, mirrored on the Google Patents legal-events tab). Reel/frame and correspondent were not retrievable in this session and are marked "not retrieved" — they are not omitted because no record exists.

• 2018-10-29 (executed / recorded 2018-10-29) — Reel not retrieved/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: GORDON, MICHAEL (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: DLVR, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. Cannot flag recurrence for this entry.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment — routine, filed contemporaneously with the application; establishes DLVR as original owner.

• 2025-05-28 (executed date not retrieved / recorded 2025-05-28) — Reel not retrieved/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of security interest / collateral assignment)
  • Assignor (grantor roster as indexed): ADEIA GUIDES INC., ADEIA HOLDINGS INC., ADEIA IMAGING LLC, ADEIA INC. (F/K/A XPERI HOLDING CORPORATION), ADEIA MEDIA HOLDINGS INC., ADEIA MEDIA LLC, ADEIA MEDIA SOLUTIONS INC., ADEIA PUBLISHING INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR BONDING TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC, ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ADEIA SOLUTIONS LLC, ADEIA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Securitization / financing — a collateral-perfection recording under the Adeia credit facility (a Security Agreement dated June 1, 2020 exists per the Adeia/BofA Joinder Agreement). Not an ownership change. This is the event that marks the portfolio as a monetization/collateral asset, not a product asset.

• 2025-06-13 (executed date not retrieved / recorded 2025-06-13) — Reel not retrieved/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: DLVR, Inc.
  • Assignee: Adeia Media Holdings LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. I could not confirm whether the Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia) correspondent — seen on the unrelated Brightcove/Adeia record above — also appears here. If it does, that is a meaningful repeat-correspondent signal; it is currently unverified.
  • Context: Transfer-to-licenser / portfolio acquisition — DLVR exits as owner; a licensing-only Adeia entity takes title.

• 2025-06-13 (executed date not retrieved / recorded 2025-06-13) — Reel not retrieved/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Conversion (entity-form conversion, LLC → corporation)
  • Assignor: Adeia Media Holdings LLC
  • Assignee: Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal reorg only — same-day conversion of the acquiring LLC into a corporation. Not a distinct third-party transfer. Current assignee of record is therefore Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

Net chain: Michael Gordon → DLVR, Inc. → [Bank of America, N.A. security interest] → Adeia Media Holdings LLC → Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Substantive transfers: one. (The LLC→Inc. step is a name/form change, not a new buyer.)

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11533352
    2014 : Priority date claimed
    2015 : Parent filed as US 9426089
    2018 : Filed by DLVR Inc
         : Inventor Gordon assigns to DLVR Inc
    2022 : Patent issued
    2025 : Bank of America security interest recorded
         : DLVR portfolio assigned to Adeia Media Holdings LLC
         : LLC converted to Adeia Media Holdings Inc
    2026 : No litigation found naming this patent

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (qualified).
The motion is real and documented: an operating-type assignee (DLVR, Inc.) moved the asset to a licensing-only "Holdings LLC" (recorded 2025-06-13). The rubric's tells are partially met (name contains "Holdings"; the entity does not ship products embodying the claims; Delaware-organized). However, the "anonymous shell" tells are NOT met: Adeia Media Holdings LLC is a subsidiary of Adeia Inc. (NASDAQ: ADEA), a public company that reports ~13,750 patents/applications worldwide as of 2025-12-31 and states in its own 10-K that it licenses rather than competes in product markets and "ha[s], at times, initiated litigation to enforce our IP rights." So: transfer to a licensing-only entity = present; anonymous mailbox shell = not present. Evidence: recorded assignment 2025-06-13; Adeia Inc. Form 10-K (public filing).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT on the enumerated lists; UNCLEAR against the directories.
Neither DLVR, Inc. nor Adeia Media Holdings LLC/Inc. matches any of the rubric's enumerated entities (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Adeia is a demonstrably active enforcer — Adeia Technologies/Guides/Media Holdings v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company), D. Del. No. 24-cv-1231; Adeia Guides Inc. v. Disney, UPC_CFI_199/2025 (The Hague); Adeia v. DISH Network; DirecTV v. Adeia (N.D. Cal.). But I could not query RPX Insurance or Unified Patents' asserter directories in this session, so "appears on a public NPE/PAE list" is UNVERIFIED. Also note: none of those actions pleads the '352 patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (insufficient records).
I have no correspondent retrieval for any of the four '352 entries. The only correspondent I recovered anywhere in this chain is "75563 Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia), 75 Broad Street Suite 1000, New York, NY 10004-3226," and it appears on a different patent's Adeia record (Brightcove → Adeia, Reel 067609/0435, 2024-07-02). Per your instruction that recurrence is the signal and a single appearance is not a finding, I am not scoring this as present. To close it: pull the four '352 assignment entries' "correspondent" fields from Assignment Center and compare. If Haley Guiliano appears on the 2025-06-13 DLVR→Adeia entry, that converts to a present signal (repeat filing agent across an Adeia acquisition family).

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — UNCLEAR / only partially present.
The chain is short (two recorded steps) but both Adeia steps are same-day (2025-06-13), which is an internal conversion, not a cascade of arms-length buyers through unrelated LLCs. I found no evidence of the classic pattern (multiple sequential assignees sharing a correspondent address, a common principal, or a registered-agent address within 24 months). Evidence: recorded 2025-06-13 entries; security interest 2025-05-28.

5. Pre-litigation transfer (within 6 months before first suit on this patent) — NOT PRESENT (insufficient data).
I found no infringement action naming US 11,533,352 at all (consistent with the Litigation section's negative finding). There is therefore no first suit against which to measure a 6-month window, and I will not manufacture one. Note the timing coincidence that the transfer (2025-06-13) falls inside Adeia's active 2024–2026 enforcement campaign generally — that is portfolio-level timing, not a per-patent pre-litigation transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (no evidence).
No Chapter 7/11, no § 363 sale, and no assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors involving DLVR, Inc. was surfaced. The DLVR→Adeia transfer is recorded as an ordinary assignment of assignors' interest. Negative finding, not proof.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The structural shape (a former video-delivery operator's portfolio moving to a licensing entity that litigates broadly against streaming/entertainment incumbents) is consistent with privateering, and Adeia's media-streaming campaign against Disney/DISH/DIRECTV is the type of assertion privateering describes. But privateering requires evidence that the operating company is asserting through the NPE on its behalf. I found no evidence DLVR still operates, no SEC disclosure, and no Patent Progress/EFF coverage tying DLVR to Adeia's suits. Do not assert this as a finding.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Adeia Media Holdings Inc., a monetization entity — not RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence (one strong signal, several unverified).

The chain terminates at Adeia Media Holdings Inc., an entity that does not practice the claims, derives revenue from licensing, and is an active litigant in the exact technology space (recorded assignment 2025-06-13, DLVR, Inc. → Adeia Media Holdings LLC, then same-day conversion to the Inc. entity) — that is the one strong signal (Signal 1). The second would-be strong signal is not confirmed: I could not verify that Adeia appears on RPX/Unified asserter directories (Signal 2, unclear), and I could not retrieve any reel/frame or correspondent for the four recorded entries, so the repeat-correspondent tell (Signal 3) remains uncharacterized rather than present. There is no litigation on this patent and no bankruptcy, shell-cascade, or defensive-aggregator finding. Netting one strong signal with the rest unverified lands at moderate, not high — and I would upgrade to high the moment two things are confirmed: (a) Haley Guiliano LLP (Adeia) appears as correspondent on the 2025-06-13 DLVR→Adeia recording, and (b) Adeia is listed as a high-frequency plaintiff in a public NPE directory.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ → "Patent Number" search → 11533352 (retrieve reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent for all four entries — the correspondent field is the piece this report is missing). Cross-check https://patents.google.com/patent/US11533352/en (Legal Events) and, for the public-company/licensing-model evidence, Adeia Inc. Form 10-K (fiscal 2025) and the 2025-06-13 assignment recordings themselves.

I'll search for the front-page patent citations and prior-art references for US 11,533,352.

Let me dig into the patent's front-page citations and any prior art from related family IPRs.

Let me try to retrieve the actual front-page citation list from patent databases.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull a clean front-page "(56) References Cited" listing for US 11,533,352. Below is what I can support with the sources actually retrieved, with the limitations stated up front.

---

Prior-art review — US Patent No. 11,533,352 B2

Scope note (read first)

I was not able to retrieve the literal front-page citation list of US 11,533,352. The authoritative patent text supplied to me is truncated (it breaks off mid-sentence in the "[0046]-era" description and contains no "(56) References Cited" block, no claim set), and my searches returned the abstract, description, family, and assignment data — not the '352 face-page references. I therefore cannot say "these are the references cited on the '352 patent" with the confidence you are asking for.

Two consequences:

1. Everything in Part B is a family-level citation list (from the same-priority Chinese counterpart), not the '352 face page.
2. Everything in Part C is prior art I identified as technologically on-point for this claim scope, drawn from searches — not confirmed to be cited on the '352 front page.

I am flagging this rather than presenting a reconstructed citation list as if it were the real thing.

Also noted: the task states today is April 26, 2026, while my environment clock reads September 23, 2026. The prior sections already flagged this; I am not reconciling it here.

---

Part A — What is verified for the '352 patent (cross-reference only)

Per the earlier sections (not repeated): US 11,533,352 B2, appl. 16/173,043, filed 2018-10-29, earliest priority 2014-10-29 (provisional 62/072,265 via 14/709,171 → US 9,426,089), inventor Michael Gordon, original assignee DLVR, Inc., now Adeia Media Holdings Inc. Its effective filing date for §102 purposes is no later than 2014-10-29 — this is the date every §102 analysis below depends on.

Literal-ID caution: one PTAB reference list I encountered contains "9,123,552 B2" (Keeth) — a different patent number, not this patent. I am not treating it as a match.

---

Part B — Citation list actually retrieved (family level, CN counterpart)

The Chinese family member CN 107113454 B (appl. 201580071725.2; filed 2015-10-29; PCT/US2015/058054 → WO2016/069896; same priority chain 62/072,265 / 14/709,171 / 14/925,693; assignee DLVR公司) carries the same abstract as the '352 patent and its search report lists these references:

Caveat: Chinese national-phase search citations are examiner-generated for a different (though same-family) application. They are strong evidence of the family's prior-art landscape, not proof that any of these appears on the '352 US face page.

---

Part C — On-point prior art for this claim scope (search-identified, not confirmed as cited)

The '352 independent claim (as reconstructed from the abstract — flagged as inference in the prior section, since I still do not have the claim text) requires, at a minimum: receiving a manifest request; the video encoded at multiple reference bitrates and segmented; the source manifest comprising an ordered list of URLs referencing a set of segment files at a particular bitrate; identifying the source manifest from the request; generating an issued manifest with a first URL referencing a first domain and a second URL referencing a second, different domain; transmitting the issued manifest.

The "two different domains in one issued manifest" element is the crux. These references are the strongest §102 candidates for it:

Important caveat on the '639/Lewis IPR material: I surfaced an IPR petition quoting Lewis, Marusi, Barraclough, Jain, Guzman, Strasman and Luby. That proceeding concerns a different "'639 Patent" — the petition describes it as "filed on October 28, 2016 … priority … December 22, 2010 … provisional 61/884,709 (2013)," which does not match DLVR's US 9,800,639 (filed 2016-11-28; 2014-10-29 priority). I am therefore not treating that petition's reference set as the '352 prior art; I flag it only as evidence that Lewis/Strasman are real, citable art in this space.

---

Part D — What is NOT §102 prior art against the '352 patent

Do not treat these as anticipating art — they share the '352 patent's priority chain and its 2014-10-29 effective date, so they cannot be §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art against it:

• US 9,426,089 B2 (appl. 14/709,171, filed 2015-05-11) — the parent; the '352 claims priority from it.
• US 9,500,742 B2 (14/925,693) and US 9,800,639 B2 (15/362,217) — same chain.
• US 10,142,386 B2 (15/683,462), US 10,116,720 B2, US 10,084,838 B2, US 11,757,964 B2 (16/130,637), US 11,936,708 B2, US 11,765,219 B2, US 11,075,970 B2, US 10,911,509 B2, US 10,966,049 B2, and the 2018-10-29 siblings (e.g., US 2019/0173931 A1, appl. 16/173,104; US 2019/0215351 A1) — all continuation/divisional members of the same DLVR/Adeia family. Useful for claim-family context and for a possible double-patenting / §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership analysis, but not independent prior art.

The safest statement: these family members cannot be used for a §102 anticipation attack on the '352 claims; at most they raise §101/§112 or obviousness-type double-patenting questions.

---

Part E — Confidence and what you must verify to make this defensible

Confidence levels

• High: the family-level citation list in Part B (CN 107113454 B search report) and the filing/priority/publication dates of the references.
• Moderate: the technological relevance of US 10,652,343 to the two-domain limitation, and of Lewis/Strasman/Pantos to the surrounding elements — these are field-based judgments, not face-page matches.
• Low / unverified — and the central gap: whether any of these are the actual references cited on the '352 face page, and which claims they map to. I do not have the '352 claim text and could not pull its (56) list, so I cannot responsibly state "Reference X anticipates claim 3" as a fact.

To close the gap (steps I could not complete):

1. Pull the (56) References Cited block for appl. 16/173,043 from USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center or the Google Patents "References Cited" section for US11533352 — this is the authoritative list the task asks for.
2. Pull the prosecution file wrapper (IDS submissions, Examiner citations, and any §102/§103 rejections) — the applicant's own IDS is often hundreds of references in this family.
3. Obtain the granted claim set so the §102 element-by-element mapping can be pinned to actual claim numbers instead of the abstract-based reconstruction.
4. Check the EP/CN/PCT counterparts' search reports (e.g., WO2016/069896, EP3219093/EP3219094-lineage) for examiner-cited art, since those often mirror the US citations in this family.
5. Confirm US 10,652,343's §102(a)(2) date math against the '352's 2014-10-29 effective filing date before relying on it.

Bottom line: Based on what I could retrieve, the references most likely to matter for US 11,533,352 are the same-priority family's examiner citations (Part B) plus US 10,652,343 B2 and the Lewis/Strasman manifest-generation art (Part C) as §102 candidates against the reconstructed independent claims. But I could not verify the '352 front-page citation list itself, so treat the specific "which claims" attributions as inference pending the face-page and claim text, not as confirmed §102 mappings.

I'll first try to recover the two things this analysis depends on: the literal claim language of US 11,533,352, and the prior-art references cited on the patent's own face (which the "Prior Art" section you reference would normally contain — notably, that section was not included in the authoritative text supplied to me, whose fetch terminated mid-paragraph in the specification).

Let me obtain the actual claim language and the patent's cited references, since those drive any § 103 analysis.

Obviousness analysis — US 11,533,352 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Date of analysis: April 26, 2026 (per task). Analyst note up front: this is a technical prior-art/§ 103 assessment, not a legal opinion or freedom-to-operate advice.

---

0. Two mandatory scope flags (read before the analysis)

(a) The "Prior Art section of this page" was not included in the material supplied to me. The authoritative text provided in this thread is the Google Patents page for US 11,533,352, and its fetch terminated mid-specification (in the paragraph beginning "the character string 'digserv,' rather than t…"). It contains no "References Cited" list, no Cited-By list, and no Similar-Documents list. I therefore could not "use the results from the Prior Art section" as instructed, because I was never given it. I attempted to reconstruct it; see §2.

(b) Contradiction flag — the earlier-generated sections are now partially outdated. The Patent summary and Litigation summary both state that "the literal claim set was not available to me." That was true for the material supplied in those sections, but in this session I did recover literal fragments of the claims (claims 8, 14, and 15–20, plus the abstract-aligned independent claim text) from the Justia record at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11533352](/patent/11533352)#21. I use those fragments below and label exactly what is verified versus inferred. Nothing in the earlier sections' bibliographic data is contradicted.

---

1. Claim framework used (verified vs. inferred)

Independent-claim count: at least three (claims 1, 8, 15), all sharing the same core inventive concept — a server-side intermediary that rewrites a source manifest into an issued manifest whose segment URLs point into two or more different domains, one of which is a fleet of segment file servers the intermediary directly selects and measures.

---

2. Prior art actually available to me (with provenance)

I recovered a truncated list of examiner-cited U.S. patents from the same Justia record: 8,051,166 (Baumback); 8,145,782 (McGowan); 8,234,350 (Gu); 8,327,013 (McGowan); 8,495,675 (Philpott); 8,539,523 (Philpott); 8,561,102 (Mack); 8,645,504 (McGowan); 8,762,564 (Philpott); 9,197,559 (Cloonan); 9,363,329 (Kolam); 9,426,089 (Gordon); 9,509,742 (Gordon); 9,532,092 (Suryanarayanan); 9,613,042 (Joseph); 9,800,639 (Gordon). The list is cut off mid-list; I could not open the documents themselves in this session and will not attribute disclosures to them. Two important consequences:

• The Gordon references (9,426,089; 9,509,742; 9,800,639) are the applicant's own DLVR family sharing the 2014-10-29 priority (14/709,171 → US 9,426,089). They are not § 102 prior art against claims entitled to that date — see §5.
• The third-party CDN/distribution patents (Baumback, McGowan, Philpott, Gu, Mack, Cloonan, Kolam, Suryanarayanan, Joseph) are, on their face, in the CDN resource-assignment/content-distribution field. I treat them as candidate art only (UNVERIFIED in this session).

Prior art whose content I can ground from retrieved material (all predating the 2014-10-29 priority):

Nothing above is a § 102 anticipation of the '352's claims standing alone (none of them, as disclosed in these excerpts, configures one issued manifest that mixes a provider-operated segment-file-server domain with a third-party infrastructure-service-provider domain). The § 103 case is therefore a combination case, which is what the task asks for.

---

3. Proposed grounds of obviousness

Ground 1 — Lewis in view of Pyle (and, optionally, Strasman/Gabin) → claims 1 and 15 (and their method/media counterparts)

Motivation / rationale (KSR-style):

1. Explicit teaching in the references. Lewis states its own purpose — directing the client to the delivery network "in closest proximity to the client device" — which is exactly the '352's stated problem (performance variability across providers/network paths). Pyle expressly contemplates composing a new manifest "optimized in connection with delivery or presentation" based on the device, form factor, or network conditions. Both point in the same direction as the '352.
2. Same field, known techniques. Both are HTTP adaptive-streaming manifest systems; both manipulate the URL set of a manifest. Combining a manifest-rewriting server (Lewis) with manifest-composition-by-condition (Pyle) is "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results" (KSR).
3. Design need / predictable results. Latency reduction, load spreading, and redundancy across delivery domains are acknowledged objectives in the art; a POSITA would expect success in mixing per-segment URLs across two delivery domains because the HLS/DASH clients in question resolve each URL independently.

Claim 15 falls with claim 1 (same steps as stored instructions).

Ground 2 — Pyle/Lewis in view of Chen + OAI + 3GPP(BaseURL) + Brueck → claim 8 (and dependent claims 9–14, 16–20)

Claim 8's distinguishing limitations are (i) selecting particular video segment file computer servers from a plurality, (ii) a manifest containing both URLs to those selected servers and URLs to an infrastructure service provider, (iii) interspersed according to a determined interspersing pattern, and (iv) the preferred-network-path / current-characteristics / device-characteristics limitations of claims 16–19.

Motivation: (a) load balancing across a provider fleet and a third-party CDN; (b) redundancy/failover (a single provider outage should not stop playback); (c) comparative performance measurement — alternating segments between an in-house fleet and an external provider is the natural way to measure both under identical conditions, which the '352's own specification identifies as the problem in the art ("difficult to monitor in actual use … across multiple service providers"). (d) Predictability: HLS/DASH clients fetch each segment URL independently, so interspersing domains cannot break playback; the result is a predictable aggregation of known techniques.

Ground 3 — Device-characteristic-based server selection (claims 8/18/19) in view of Barraclough '545 and Pyle

Barraclough '545 expressly teaches classifying remote devices and using that classification "in selectively configuring … data to the remote device"; Pyle teaches optimization by device capability, form factor, network conditions and preference. Motivation: tailoring delivery to the requesting device is the stated purpose of both references; one of ordinary skill would apply the same conditional-selection logic to which server serves each segment.

Ground 4 — HLS/DASH baseline (RFC 8216 / 3GPP TS 26.234–26.247) in view of Grounds 1–3 (general knowledge — flagged as such)

HLS master/variant playlists, per-segment .ts URLs, and absolute-or-relative URL resolution are the standard framework within which all of this occurs; the abstract's "ordered list of URLs … at a particular reference bitrate" is simply the HLS variant playlist. Under KSR, "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" — on the recovered record, the '352's contribution looks like the predictable use of manifest rewriting + CDN selection + load balancing.

---

4. What I could NOT verify (and what would sink or save these grounds)

1. The examiner-cited third-party patents (Baumback, McGowan, Philpott, Gu, Mack, Cloonan, Kolam, Suryanarayanan, Joseph) — I retrieved only names/numbers and the list was truncated. If any of them routes per-segment requests across two provider domains (some Amazon/McGowan/Pilpott CDN patents plausibly do), the § 103 case strengthens materially; I could not confirm that here.
2. Full claim 1 text and claims 2–7, 9–13 — the "second domain" language in claim 1 may be narrower than the abstract suggests (e.g., it may require the second domain to be the infrastructure service provider's, or may require a specific interleaving), which would change the mapping. Until the claims are read verbatim, Grounds 1 and 2 are proposed, not established.
3. Claim construction of "determined interspersing pattern" — if construed as a non-routine, dynamically computed distribution (claim 8 arguably imports this via the "current characteristics" and "preferred network path" limitations), the load-balancing art may not reach it, and a POSITA-motivation showing would need to be stronger.
4. Teaching-away risk. The DivX IPR record shows exactly how a patent owner attacks a "rewrite manifest URLs to a closer CDN" rationale: the patent owner argued such modification "adds overhead and complexity … for no intended benefit" (Ex. 2010 ¶¶179–80 in the IPR2020-00647/00648 record, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1533653/...). The '352 owner (now Adeia) would likely run the same play: characterizing dual-domain interspersing as added complexity. A petitioner would need expert testimony that the benefit (measurement, failover, load spreading) was recognized in the art before 2014-10-29.
5. Secondary considerations — none evidenced in the record I have; the 2025 DLVR→Adeia transfer and Bank of America security interest are corporate/financing facts, not objective indicia of non-obviousness.

---

5. Priority-date issue that materially affects the § 103 analysis (and an OTDP flag)

• The '352's anticipated expiration is 2035-05-11 — i.e., 20 years from May 11, 2015, the filing date of parent 14/709,171, not from the '352's own 2018-10-29 filing. That is the signature of a terminal disclaimer tying the '352's term to the parent. Inference (moderate confidence): the '352 was likely subject to an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over one or more of its own siblings (the '089 / '742 / '639 / '964 / '708 continuations sharing this specification), which is itself a § 103-adjacent vulnerability and, if the disclaimer is in place, an admission that the claims are not patentably distinct from the family.
• If any claim limitation is argued to be new matter not supported in the 2014-10-29 priority application, the claims would take an effective filing date of 2018-10-29, which would make the family's own intervening publications (e.g., US 2018/0013809 A1, published 2018-01-11, DLVR, and the issued US 9,661,049 / 9,800,639 family) available as prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). However, this cuts both ways: the recovered text of US 9,661,049 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/c6/cb/60fb5bb6151221/US9661049.pdf, Fig. 5 and ¶ describing URLs 502–524) shows the same mixed-domain issued variant manifest (sfs.b.manifestserver.net mixed with content-provider.service-provider.net), which suggests the feature is in the shared family disclosure — supporting the 2014 priority and simultaneously demonstrating how old the concept is within this family. Also note AIA § 102(b)(2)(C): commonly owned family disclosures are excepted from being prior art, so a § 102(a)(2) attack using DLVR's own publications would likely fail unless common ownership is broken.

---

6. Bottom line and confidence

If you want a defensible § 103 opinion, the minimum inputs are: (1) the verbatim claim set (all 20 claims) from USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center for application 16/173,043; (2) the complete PTO-892 / "References Cited" list from the '352 file wrapper, plus the file-history rejections; (3) the terminal disclaimer (if any) and the sibling claims it disclaims over; and (4) the full text of Pyle, Lewis, Strasman, Guzman, Gabin, Barraclough, Chen, OAI, 3GPP TS 26.247 and Brueck. I can run element-by-element charts against the literal claims once (1) is in hand.

I'll research the term and family details for US 11,533,352 specifically.

Let me try targeted sources for the term-adjustment data and family lineage.

Term, Family, and Expiration Analysis — US Patent No. 11,533,352 B2

Requested scope: PTA, PTE, continuations, divisionals, related family members, projected expiration.
Literal-ID rule applied: every number below is the one actually retrieved; I have not substituted similar patent numbers. Where a digit-string collision occurred (e.g., US 11,329,352, PMID 11533352, UK company no. 11533352, US 9,123,552 (Keeth)), I explicitly exclude it rather than "correct" it.

---

0. Source-access limitation (read this first — it governs the whole answer)

I searched for this specific patent number. The authoritative Google Patents text I was given does not contain the patent's front page — it begins at the Classification/Definitions section. Consequently:

• I could not retrieve the literal "Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by ____ days" line that would give the exact PTA figure.
• I could not execute a live query against USPTO Patent Center / Open Data Portal (ODP) or the Patent Assignment/Public Search interfaces for application 16/173,043. Two of my targeted searches for the PTA figure returned empty result sets ("11533352" patent term adjustment 2035-05-11 expiration → no results; US 11533352 patent term adjustment PTA 16/173,043 → returned the Golden wiki mirror plus unrelated PTA case law, no PTA figure).

So the PTA number below is derived, not read off the patent. I flag it as an inference and give you the exact place to verify it.

---

1. Verified identification (cross-reference only; not repeating prior sections)

Flag resolved. The "Assignment history" section flagged a priority-parent discrepancy and said the US 9,426,089 attribution was "unverified." The authoritative text does hyperlink US14/709,171 → patent/US9426089B2. That flag can now be closed: US 9,426,089 B2 is the parent. The 9,800,639 / 10,084,838 entries are siblings, not the parent — there is no contradiction.

---

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

2.1 The statutory anchor

The 20-year term under § 154(a)(2) runs from the earliest non-provisional U.S. filing date in the priority chain — not from the 2014-10-29 provisional (provisionals are excluded from the term calculation) and not from the '352's own 2018-10-29 filing.

• Parent 14/709,171 filed 2015-05-11
• 2015-05-11 + 20 years = 2035-05-11

That matches the authoritative text's "2035-05-11 — Anticipated expiration" exactly. This is the base statutory expiration, before any PTA.

2.2 What the PTA should be, mechanically

Application 16/173,043 ran from 2018-10-29 to 2022-12-20 ≈ 1,513 days (4 yr 1 mo 21 d) of pendency. PTA for a continuation is computed from the continuation's own filing date (MPEP 2732), so the mechanics are:

• "A" delay (§ 154(b)(1)(A)) — PTO-caused delays (first action, response, after-appeal). Unknown without the file wrapper.
• "B" delay (§ 154(b)(1)(B)) — issuance beyond 3 years from actual filing = 3-year date 2021-10-29; issuance 2022-12-20 exceeds it by ≈ 417 days of raw B-delay.
• "C" delay — none apparent (no interference/secrecy order/appeal indicated).
• Less: overlapping A/B/C periods, and applicant delay under § 154(b)(2)(C) (RCEs, extensions of time, after-final submissions, etc.).

Raw arithmetic therefore suggests a non-zero-but-reducible PTA in the low-to-mid hundreds of days — but this is a paper calculation only. I do not have the RCE history or the applicant-delay deductions.

2.3 Why the displayed expiration suggests zero PTA (or a PTA cut off by disclaimer)

Google Patents' "anticipated expiration" of 2035-05-11 equals the base term to the day. Two readings are possible, and I cannot distinguish them from the material I have:

1. No PTA was granted (applicant delay absorbed the B-delay), or
2. PTA was granted but is capped at zero by operation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(B) — "No patent the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date may be adjusted under this section beyond the expiration date specified in the disclaimer." If the '352 carries a terminal disclaimer over a same-chain reference patent whose term also ends 2035-05-11, the disclaimer date and the natural expiration coincide and any earned PTA is disclaimed away. This is the classic reason a family-member continuation displays a "clean" 20-year date.

Inference (moderate confidence): a terminal disclaimer is the more likely explanation, because the family (9,426,089; 9,509,742; 9,800,639; 10,084,838; 10,142,386; 11,757,964; 11,765,219; 11,936,708; etc.) is a dense continuation set in which ODP rejections and terminal disclaimers are near-routine. This is an inference, not a verified fact.

2.4 Bottom line on PTA

Verify at: USPTO Patent Center → application 16/173,043 → "Patent Term Adjustment" / the issued patent's front page; or the PTA determination form (PTOL-85B / "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due" PTA box) in the file wrapper.

---

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

None, and none available. § 156 extends term only for patents whose commercial marketing or use required regulatory review — i.e., human/animal drugs, medical devices, food additives, color additives (§ 156(a)–(g)). US 11,533,352 claims adaptive-streaming manifest-file configuration and video segment file server selection (CPC H04L65/75, H04N21/2343, H04N21/845). It is ineligible for a § 156 PTE.

• PTE granted: No.
• PTE applied for: No.
• PTE eligibility: Does not apply to this subject matter.

Do not conflate this with the PTE case law that dominated my searches (Merck v. Hi-Tech, Novartis v. Ezra, Aurobindo). Those are Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical matters and are not this patent.

---

4. Continuation and divisional applications

4.1 The '352 as a child

US 11,533,352 B2 is itself a continuation — it is not the root of the family. Per the authoritative text it claims priority from US 14/709,171 (filed 2015-05-11, issued as US 9,426,089 B2). Its own filing is 2018-10-29, which places it after the parent issued, so it is a post-issuance continuation of the parent chain.

4.2 Children of the '352

I found no evidence of a continuation or divisional application claiming benefit of 16/173,043. The authoritative text lists only US 2019/0182302 A1 under "Other versions" — that is the pre-grant publication of the same application, not a separate filing. I cannot rule out a very-recently-filed child that has not propagated, but nothing surfaced.

4.3 Was the '352 a divisional?

No evidence. Nothing in the record characterizes 16/173,043 as a divisional; the stated relationship is a priority claim to 14/709,171 (continuation-style), not a restriction-requirement division.

---

5. Related family members (same DLVR/Adeia manifest-file specification)

All members below share the 2014-10-29 priority chain and the DLVR → Adeia ownership path already documented in the Assignment section. They all carry the same base expiration of 2035-05-11 (20 years from 2015-05-11), subject to their own PTA/disclaimers.

Caveat on the table: rows without an application number are drawn from the earlier-generated sections and from my prior search hits; I could not re-pull a clean Google Patents "Family" table for US11533352 in this session. Treat the application-number pairings as moderate confidence and the sibling list as not exhaustive.

Family members are NOT § 102 prior art against the '352 — they share its 2014-10-29 effective date and (for the DLVR-era members) its common ownership, so § 102(b)(2)(C) excepts them. Their relevance here is term/ODP, not anticipation.

---

6. Projected expiration date

Best single figure: 2035-05-11. That is the date on the authoritative page. The one open variable is whether an express PTA extends it — the patent's front page settles this in one line.

Maintenance-fee checkpoints (3.5 / 7.5 / 11.5 years from grant 2022-12-20), relevant because the term runs only if fees are paid:

The 11.5-year fee is required to keep the patent alive to 2035-05-11.

---

7. An ODP/Cellect consequence worth flagging (analytical, not a finding)

Because every member of the chain shares the same base date (2035-05-11) but members differ in PTA, the family presents the In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023), fact pattern: a member without effective PTA (like the '352, as displayed) expires earlier than a sibling that kept its PTA, and can therefore serve as an obviousness-type double patenting reference against that later-expiring sibling — with no terminal disclaimer available if the reference has already expired (Boehringer). This is a family-level vulnerability hypothesis, not a statement about the '352, and it depends entirely on which siblings actually carry uncut PTA.

---

8. Confidence and what you must verify

Steps I could not complete, and you should run:

1. USPTO Patent Center, application 16/173,043 → front page / PTOL-85B → the literal PTA day count and any terminal disclaimer.
2. Patent Center "Continuity Data" → confirm the immediate parent (14/709,171) and whether any application claims benefit of 16/173,043.
3. Global Dossier / Espacenet for the family table (esp. INPADOC) to complete the sibling list independently of Google Patents.
4. Patent Center "Fees" → confirm the 3.5-year maintenance fee was paid (due 2026-06-20).

---

9. Flags carried forward

1. PTA figure is unverified. The exact day count is the single missing datum; the "2035-05-11" figure is Google's, and I could not retrieve the front-page adjustment line.
2. Terminal-disclaimer inference. If verification shows a disclaimer, the base date stands and no PTA extends it; if it shows a PTA grant without a disclaimer, the true expiration is 2035-05-11 + N days and the Google figure is understated. One line of the front page resolves this.
3. Parent discrepancy — RESOLVED. The authoritative text's patent/US9426089B2 hyperlink confirms 14/709,171 → US 9,426,089 B2. The Assignment section's flag #2 can be closed; the Obviousness section's use of "US 9,426,089 (parent)" is correct.
4. Date discrepancy (carried). Prior sections noted the task date (2026-04-26) vs. environment clock (2026-09-23); the 2026-dated family item (US 12,581,172 B2, 2026-03-17) is not re-verified here.
5. No similar-number substitution. US 11,329,352, US 9,123,552, PMID 11533352, and UK company no. 11533352 were all screened out as non-matches and are not blended into this analysis.