Invalidity dossier

US 5857190

Event logging system and method for logging events in a network system

Current assignee: Adeia Technologies Inc

Added 9/20/2026, 5:19:06 AM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US5857190A

Title: Event logging system and method for logging events in a network system

Patent number / application: US5857190A; Application US08/675,463

Inventor: Matt Brown

Original assignee: Microsoft Corp (assignment recorded 1996-10-15 from inventor Brown). Current assignee listed as Adeia Technologies Inc (Google's listing notes assignees may be inaccurate).

Dates: Priority/filing 1996-06-27; granted/publication 1999-01-05; anticipated expiration 2016-06-27. Status: Expired – Lifetime.

Purpose: The patent addresses logging events in an interactive entertainment network system (ITV). Stated reasons for logging include monitoring system operation, detecting system errors, and deriving statistical data such as viewer usage and shopping patterns. A stated need is an event logging system for the interactive television environment that offers global, centralized logging at the headend, allows logging facilities to be relocated within the headend without disrupting logging, and handles a very large number and high frequency of events from many television units.

Plain-language scope (per the supplied text): A headend (22) is connected via a distribution network to user interface units (26), e.g., set-top boxes controlling TVs. Each unit has a processor running a log application program interface (log API) that decides whether an event is loggable, using event filter criteria in shared memory. An event configuration manager at the headend configures those criteria over the network, using a protocol such as SNMP. A logging service at the headend is preferably a callable object; log APIs call and bind to it via remote procedure calls (RPC), with COM-based implementation mentioned. Multiple databases (preferably ODBC-compliant, such as SQL servers) store event information, some at the headend and some remote (e.g., a merchant's database); a service string store correlates event kinds to databases, and a database management application routes event information. A method for logging events is also described, with FIGS. 1–6.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5857190](/patent/US5857190)/en

What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full claims, complete specification, drawings, or prosecution history; therefore the precise legal scope of the claims cannot be determined from it. It does not verify current assignee accuracy, validity, enforceability, or prior art. Classifications and legal-status entries are Google's listings, described as assumptions, not legal conclusions.

Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:49 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5857190. 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.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

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.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

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.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.