US 12075116

US patent 12075116 has the following details:

• Title: Method, system and apparatus for multimedia content delivery to cable TV and satellite operators
• Assignee: Egla Corp
• Inventors: Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon
• Filing Date: October 4, 2021 (Application No. US17/493,490)
• Issue Date: August 27, 2024
• Abstract: Systems, methods, and computer-readable media for delivering multimedia content from the cloud to cable operators are disclosed. A device located at the cable headend or implemented in the cloud can receive a request for at least one media stream for playback on a broadcast media channel. Content corresponding to a plurality of multimedia files in the media stream can be obtained from the internet or a cloud based service. The content can be used to generate the multimedia files in a format that is compatible with the cable operator. The multimedia files can be used to assemble the at least one media stream which can be provided to the cable operator for broadcast on the broadcast media channel.

Independent Claim Overview:

Claim 1 (Method of providing a media stream):
This claim describes a method performed by a computing system that includes a caching unit and at least one multicasting server. The method involves several steps:

1. Request Reception: The caching unit receives a request from a multicasting server for a media stream to be played on a broadcast channel, and this request specifies a desired format.
2. Content Acquisition: The caching unit obtains content for multiple multimedia items from the internet or cloud services. This content is initially in a first format and includes audio files and screen captures for video components. A key part of obtaining video content is rendering a webpage using a browser and then generating screen captures of that rendered webpage using a "headless rendering engine."
3. Multimedia Item Generation: The caching unit then generates the multimedia items in the requested format. For each item, it assembles the video using the captured screens, combines these screen captures with the audio file, and saves the resulting multimedia item.
4. Media Stream Provision: The system then provides the assembled media stream (formatted as requested, using the saved multimedia items) to a content provider for broadcasting.
5. Dynamic Update: The method also includes detecting if there's a change on the original website for any of the multimedia items already saved. If a change is detected, new screen captures are retrieved from the website for that specific item, and the multimedia item is reassembled to create an updated version.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number US12075116 did not return any results as of the current date, April 26, 2026. Therefore, there is no public record of litigation concerning this patent in the CAFC for 2026 at this time.The user asked for a summary of US patent 12075116 and to check CAFC 2026 dockets. I have already extracted the patent information from the provided text and summarized the independent claim. I also performed a search for "US patent 12075116 litigation CAFC 2026 dockets" and "US patent 12075116 litigation".

The search results for CAFC dockets for 2026 show general patent cases but none specifically mention US patent 12075116. Therefore, I can confidently state that no CAFC 2026 dockets were found for this specific patent number.

I have all the necessary information to provide a complete answer.

US patent 12075116 (US12075116B2) is titled "Method, system and apparatus for multimedia content delivery to cable TV and satellite operators." It was invented by Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon and is currently assigned to Egla Corp. The application was filed on October 4, 2021, and the patent was granted and published on August 27, 2024.

Abstract:
The patent discloses systems, methods, and computer-readable media for delivering multimedia content from a cloud-based system to cable operators. A device, which can be located at a cable headend or implemented in the cloud, receives a request for a media stream to be played on a broadcast media channel. Content for a plurality of multimedia files in the media stream is obtained from the internet or a cloud service. This content is then used to generate the multimedia files in a format compatible with the cable operator. Finally, the multimedia files are assembled into the media stream and provided to the content provider for broadcast.

Plain-language Overview of Independent Claim 1:
Claim 1 describes a method for a computing system, which includes a caching unit and at least one multicasting server, to deliver media content. The method proceeds as follows:

1. Request for Media Stream: The caching unit receives a request from the multicasting server for a media stream to be played on a broadcast channel, and this request specifies the desired format for the stream.
2. Content Acquisition from Internet: The caching unit obtains the necessary content from the internet for multiple multimedia items. This process involves:
   • Retrieving an audio file for each multimedia item.
   • Retrieving a series of screen captures for the video component of each multimedia item. This is specifically done by rendering a webpage using a browser and then capturing images of that rendered page using a "headless rendering engine."
3. Multimedia Item Generation: The caching unit then generates the individual multimedia items in the format requested by the content provider. For each item, it assembles the video component using the captured screen images, combines these screen images with the audio file, and saves the complete multimedia item within the caching unit.
4. Media Stream Delivery: The system then compiles the saved multimedia items into a complete media stream in the requested format and delivers this stream to the content provider for broadcasting on the specified channel.
5. Content Updates: The method also includes a mechanism for keeping content current. If the system detects a change on the original website from which a multimedia item's content was sourced, it retrieves new screen captures from that website for the affected multimedia item and reassembles it to create an updated version.

As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number US12075116 did not yield any specific litigation results.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 12075116.

Found a lead. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and parties.

Let me verify the full case list and whether the '116 patent also appears in the Florida action.

Litigation Involving US Patent 12,075,116

Bottom line: There is one known federal lawsuit asserting US 12,075,116, plus a closely related family of cases that do not (on the operative counts I could verify) assert the '116 patent. No appellate (CAFC) activity exists.

1. Case asserting the '116 patent

Statutory/technical identifiers as printed in the sources: The docket is styled as 1:26-cv-01044. Note that EGLA's own blog renders the patent as both "12,075,116" and "12075116" — I am reporting these literally rather than normalizing them.

Grounding:

• Case page (Ex Parte AI Lab): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/1:26-cv-01044/egla-corp-v-stingray-group-inc — filed 04/22/26, cause of action "Patent Infringement," status "Open," "Pending Judge Assignment."
• Justia docket browse (W.D. Tex., NOS 830): EGLA CORP v. STINGRAY GROUP INC. f/k/a STINGRAY DIGITAL GROUP, INC et al, "as 1:2026cv01044," defendants Stingray Group, Stingray Music USA, Mood Media LLC.
• Complaint PDF (Count I – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,116, against all defendants): https://eglacorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ECF-1-EGLA-v-Stingray-Complaint.pdf — ¶61 asserts "at least claims 1 and 18."
• Claim-chart analysis: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/1:26-cv-01044/doc/analysis/1
• The patent's own Google Patents header lists this case ("US case filed in Texas Western District Court" → .../Texas Western District Court/case/1:26-cv-01044) and a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" link.

2. Related litigation (does NOT appear to assert the '116 patent)

These are the same parties and patent family, so a defendant-facing analysis should track them, but the operative counts I verified rest on the parent patents '074, '002, and '441 — not the '116 patent.

(a) Edwin A. Hernandez and EGLA Corp. v. Stingray Group, Inc. et al. — S.D. Fla., No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR (sometimes docketed -EA)

• Filed March 3, 2024 (originally pro se by Dr. Hernandez; later amended three times, with counsel Gray Robinson and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell; later Shutts & Bowen / Rob Drolet).
• Defendants: Stingray Group, Inc. (f/k/a Stingray Digital Group, Inc.), Stingray Music USA, Inc., Mood Media LLC, AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Millicom International Services, LLC, Blue Stream Communications, LLC.
• Counts III–V assert infringement of US 10,123,074; US 10,524,002; US 11,140,441 — the '116 patent's parents (the '116 patent issued Aug. 27, 2024, after this suit was filed). Counts I–II are DTSA/FUTSA trade-secret claims; Count VI breach of contract (Mood Media); Counts VII–IX unjust enrichment, fraud, FDUPTA.
• Key rulings: R&R of Magistrate Judge Edwin A. Torres (ECF 197, Mar. 4, 2025) and order adopting it (Mar. 28, 2025) — motion to dismiss granted in part/denied in part; Count VIII (fraud) dismissed without prejudice; Markman hearing sua sponte cancelled Mar. 12, 2025; Mood Media's summary-judgment motion denied (order Mar. 30, 2025).
• Status: patent counts stayed pending IPR resolution; trade-secret and contractual claims proceeding. I could not confirm whether a later amended complaint added the '116 patent — treat that as unverified.
• Sources: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_24-cv-21226/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_24-cv-21226-1.pdf ; https://edwinhernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/DE-197-Report-and-Recommendation-on-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

(b) Auxiliary discovery — D. Kan., No. 25-mc-00216-JAR-TJJ (Hernandez v. Stingray Group, Inc., ancillary to the S.D. Fla. action). Subpoena to non-party National Content & Technology Cooperative; motion to quash granted April 3, 2026. Not a '116 case.

(c) Canadian counter-suit — Stingray Group v. Edwin Hernandez / Egla, Québec Superior Court (filed ~August 2026). Reported defamation / abuse-of-process action seeking roughly C$15M + C$1M punitive damages, premised on Hernandez's patent-theft allegations in the two U.S. suits. Related reputational litigation, not a '116 patent proceeding.
Source: https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/2026-08-21/stingray-poursuit-un-entrepreneur-de-floride-pour-atteinte-a-la-reputation.php

3. PTAB / administrative proceedings touching the family (not the '116 patent)

• IPR2025-00349, IPR2025-00350, IPR2025-00351 — Petitioners Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc., filed December 20, 2024, challenging US 10,123,074, US 10,524,002, US 11,140,441.
• Final Written Decisions in favor of Patent Owner (May 28–29, 2026): all 21 claims of the '074 patent upheld; claims 10–26 of the '441 patent upheld; a decision on the '002 patent awaited. ~28 prior-art references asserted.
• Sources: https://eglacorp.com/2026/06/02/patent-trial-and-appeals-board-uphelds-patent-claims-in-the-mevia-portfolio/ ; https://edwinhernandez.com/2026/06/02/ipr-success-for-mevia-patents/
• No AIA trial has been filed against US 12,075,116 — consistent with the previously generated PTAB section.

4. Appeal status

No CAFC appeal involving US 12,075,116 was found. The W.D. Tex. case is at the pleading/venue stage; the Florida case is partially stayed. Any Federal Circuit activity would arise only later (e.g., appeal of the IPR FWDs on '074/'002/'441, or a judgment in either district case).

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with prior generated sections

The earlier "Timeline/Ownership" and "NPE / troll-pattern signals – Verdict" sections stated that "no litigation has been identified" and the prior CAFC search stated no litigation for this patent. That is now incorrect as of this analysis: active patent-infringement litigation on the '116 patent exists in W.D. Tex. (1:26-cv-01044, filed 04/22/2026), listed in the patent's own Google Patents litigation links. The earlier statement was accurate only in the narrow sense that (a) no CAFC docket exists yet and (b) the USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded assignment. This also means the "pre-litigation transfer" NPE signal should be re-examined: the plaintiff EGLA Corp. is both the original assignee and the operating-company asserter (a practicing-entity enforcement posture, per its own product statements), so the classic NPE-transfer signatures remain absent even with litigation present.

Caveat on completeness: dockets update continuously. I verified the W.D. Tex. docket and docket-browse listing, the complaint text, and EGLA's own filings; I could not exhaustively query PACER or the Unified Patents caselist for every co-pending or ancillary matter (e.g., any separate Mood Media-only filing or a declaratory-judgment action by Stingray), so treat the list above as the known set rather than a guaranteed exhaustive one.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US patent 12075116. This indicates that the patent has not yet been challenged in an AIA trial at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this means the patent's claims are untested in this forum, and all prior art grounds remain available for potential PTAB challenges.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-30, no claims of US patent 12075116 have been canceled, sustained, or otherwise adjudicated in an AIA trial proceeding. All claims of the patent, specifically claims 1-14, remain untested by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no AIA trials have been initiated or concluded, there are no prior art grounds that would be barred under § 315(e)(2) for a potential petitioner (or their privies). This provides maximum flexibility for a defendant considering a PTAB challenge.

There are no observable patterns of challenges, multiple petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, given the absence of any PTAB activity.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US patent 12075116, the absence of PTAB activity suggests that a robust prior art search and a well-crafted IPR petition could be a viable defensive strategy. The patent's claims have not been subjected to PTAB scrutiny, meaning no claims have been "hardened" by surviving such challenges. The full range of prior art arguments remains available for an IPR.

Inventors

• Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon: Employer not determinable from the patent text.

Original assignee

The original assignee is Egla Corp. The patent does not explicitly state that Egla Corp. ships a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business, as inferred from the patent's content, appears to be related to multimedia content delivery systems, particularly "cloud-based delivery (Mediamplify cloud) with the cable-based mechanism". Their current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not determinable from the provided patent text.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database for US patent 12075116 did not return any recorded assignments as of the current date, May 30, 2026. This indicates that the ownership of the patent remains with the original assignee, Egla Corp, as listed on the issued patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12075116
    2021 : Filed by Egla Corp
    2024 : Issued to Egla Corp

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There are no recorded assignments of this patent.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments of this patent to any known asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent, and no litigation has been identified.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent.
7. Privateering — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US patent 12075116 in the USPTO Assignment Center. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if any NPE or troll-pattern signals are present. The ownership remains with the original assignee, Egla Corp.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US12075116

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12075116, I will examine the patent's own citations from the USPTO database. Prior art is information publicly available before the effective filing date of a patent application, used by examiners to assess novelty and non-obviousness.

Unfortunately, I cannot directly access the USPTO database to pull the full list of citations for US patent 12075116 and then perform a detailed analysis of each. My search capabilities are limited to public web searches and do not include real-time, direct database queries of proprietary systems like the USPTO's internal prior art databases that examiners use.

However, based on the general information provided in the patent text about the "Mediaplug" system, which involves cloud-based multimedia content delivery to cable/satellite operators, real-time encoding/transcoding, screen capture for video components, and metadata insertion, highly relevant prior art would likely focus on:

• Cloud-based content delivery networks (CDNs): Systems for distributing multimedia files to various devices, especially those predating the priority date of December 22, 2014.
• Video encoding and transcoding technologies: Methods and systems for converting video and audio into different formats, including MPEG Transport Streams, with considerations for bit rates and compatibility with set-top boxes.
• Live streaming protocols: Such as HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and RTSP, and their use in broadcasting.
• Dynamic content generation and insertion into video streams: This would include technologies for creating customized user interfaces, incorporating screen captures from websites into video, and inserting metadata (like subtitles or program information) into MPEG Transport Streams.
• Fault-tolerant media delivery systems: Architectures that ensure continuous and uninterrupted operation, including mechanisms for playing pre-recorded content upon failure detection and redundant multicasting units.
• Virtualization in media infrastructure: The use of virtual machines for hosting media processing and delivery components.

To perform a thorough prior art analysis as requested, one would typically:

1. Obtain the official "References Cited" section from the USPTO file wrapper for US12075116. This list, compiled by the patent examiner and the applicant, represents the closest known prior art considered during prosecution.
2. Analyze each cited patent or publication:
   • Full Citation: Record the patent number, publication number, or other identifying information.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Determine the earliest effective date for prior art purposes.
   • Brief Description: Summarize the core inventive concept of the prior art reference.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Map specific elements or combinations of elements from the prior art reference to the claims of US12075116, particularly independent Claim 1, to identify if any claim is fully anticipated. This would involve a detailed claim-by-claim analysis to see if every limitation of a claim is present in a single prior art reference.

Without direct access to the USPTO's "References Cited" section for US12075116, I cannot provide a specific list of the most relevant prior art and their detailed analysis as requested.

I cannot perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis of US patent 12075116 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the information provided.

The provided patent text includes a "Prior art keywords" section listing general terms such as "multimedia," "caching unit," "media stream," "screen captures," and "video." It also lists a "Prior art date" of 2014-12-22, which corresponds to the patent's priority date. However, this information does not constitute a list of specific prior art references (e.g., other patents, scientific publications, industry standards) that can be combined and analyzed to determine obviousness.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art documents are required to:

1. Identify the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Assess whether the differences would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, considering secondary indicia of obviousness.

Without specific prior art references, I cannot identify combinations of prior art that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain the motivation for combining them.