Invalidity dossier
US 5774660
World-wide-web server with delayed resource-binding for resource-based load balancing on a distributed resource multi-node network
Current assignee: Resonate Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 10:30:16 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US5774660A (from supplied excerpt only)
Title: "World-wide-web server with delayed resource-binding for resource-based load balancing on a distributed resource multi-node network"
Patent number: US5774660A
Application number: US08/691,006
Inventor(s): Juergen Brendel; Charles J. Kring; Zaide Liu; Christopher C. Marino
Original assignee / current assignee (as listed): Resonate Inc.
Priority date (listed; noted as an assumption, not a legal conclusion): 1996-08-05
Filing date: 1996-08-05
Publication/grant date: 1998-06-30
Anticipated expiration: 2016-08-05
Legal status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5774660](/patent/US5774660)/en
Purpose (plain language, as indicated in the title): The patent concerns a World-Wide-Web server arrangement on a distributed multi-node network that performs resource-based load balancing using delayed resource-binding.
Scope, stated only at the level the excerpt supports: "Resource-based load balancing" indicates that balancing is driven by the resource being requested. "Delayed resource-binding" indicates that binding to a resource is postponed rather than fixed at some earlier point. The excerpt's "prior art keywords" list — address; load balancer; packets; network; client — signals the subject matter touches addressing, load-balancing components, network packets, and client interaction. Classifications include load balancing (e.g., H04L67/1004, H04L67/1014 "based on the content of a request"), replicated servers, avoiding a single path through a load balancer, server-failure reaction, addressing/mapping (H04L61/25), and TCP/IP stack implementation details (H04L69/161, H04L69/163). These classifications are labels, not claim language.
What the excerpt does not establish:
- The text of any claim is not present, so no specific scope, limitations, or claim construction can be stated.
- No description, embodiment, figure content, or specification is included, so how load balancing or delayed resource-binding is implemented is not shown.
- No named prior-art references and no asserted advantages are provided.
- The excerpt flags a "Family has litigation" link and a 1996-11-15 assignment, but per instructions these are not researched or characterized here.
- Some classification entries are truncated mid-string ("...not pr"), so the classification list may be incomplete.
Nothing here is a legal conclusion; dates and status are as listed in the source excerpt.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:01:37 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5774660. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.