Invalidity dossier
US 5898668
Method and system for increasing quality of service at or below a threshold cost
Current assignee: SIEMENS ENTERPRISE COMMUNICATIONS Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 12:35:39 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US 5,898,668 A — Overview
Title: Method and system for increasing quality of service at or below a threshold cost
Patent number: US5898668A
Application number: US08/768,168
Inventor: Shmuel Shaffer
Original assignee: Siemens Information and Communication Networks Inc
Current assignee (per listing): Siemens Enterprise Communications Inc; Unify GmbH and Co KG; Enterprise Systems Technologies SARL
Priority/filing date: 1996-12-13
Publication (grant) date: 1999-04-27
Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2016-12-13)
Purpose and plain-language scope
The patent describes determining how a communication session should be handled based on a trade-off between the quality of service (QoS) available and a cost constraint. Its stated aim is to increase quality of service while keeping cost at or below a threshold. The prior-art keywords supplied are "session," "modes," "service," "quality," and "tariff."
The classifications sketch the subject matter: charging/metering arrangements for data communications, including advice-of-charge with a threshold (e.g., a user indicating a maximum cost), tariff-related aspects, real-time cost indication, and admission control/resource allocation with QoS or priority awareness. Other classifications cover selection among different networks or ingress points, holding a request until resources become available, and adapting media to network capabilities.
In plain terms, the disclosed scheme concerns selecting among session "modes" or services so that the delivered quality is improved without exceeding a cost limit, and it sits at the intersection of QoS handling and cost/tariff signalling.
What the excerpt does not establish
The excerpt omits the claims, detailed description, drawings, and any explicit prior-art references. It therefore does not establish the specific claimed steps, the exact mechanisms for mode selection or threshold comparison, or the embodiments described. It also provides no litigation, validity, or ownership-transfer analysis (transfers are not addressed here, consistent with the source's assignment listings only). Statements above are limited to bibliographic and classification data.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:53:31 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5898668. 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.