Invalidity dossier

US 5958015

Network session wall passively listening to communication session, with use of access rules, stops further communication between network devices by emulating messages to the devices

Current assignee: Abirnet Ltd

Added 9/21/2026, 9:24:33 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: US 5,958,015

Title: Network session wall passively listening to communication session, with use of access rules, stops further communication between network devices by emulating messages to the devices

Patent number / application: US 5,958,015 A; application US08/739,518

Inventor: Ziv Dascalu

Assignee of record (as listed): Original — Abirnet Ltd; current — Abirnet Ltd / CA Software Israel Ltd

Key dates: Filed 1996-10-29; priority 1996-10-29; granted and published 1999-09-28; anticipated expiration 2016-10-29; status "Expired – Lifetime"

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5958015/en

Purpose. The patent concerns local and wide area networks in which computers and other devices communicate using protocols, where a "session" is a conversation between a client that initiates it and a server that accepts. The invention monitors and controls such communications, restricting specific clients' access to specific servers for specific protocols or data content. It is positioned as an alternative to firewalls, which must sit inline, are limited by network-segment topology, and degrade throughput as a "network bottleneck."

Plain-language scope. A "session wall" device — network adapter, memory, processor, and a communication session control system — is attached to the network and passively listens: it receives communications not addressed to it without interfering with their transmission to the intended destination. It reads a portion of each communication and compares that data against stored access rules (network information plus a table of server groups, client groups, and rules between them, which may define logical and mathematical combinations). If a communication is not allowed, the session wall sends a message to at least one party — to a client, an emulated server message, session-ended or blocked notice; to a server, an emulated client message or a data string discouraging further responses. If an appropriate message fails, it issues a succession of protocol-conforming messages, limited by a timer, to avoid blocking the network indefinitely. Multiple cooperating session-wall devices may act as backups on one segment.

What the excerpt does not establish: the full claim set, complete description, drawing contents, detailed-embodiment specifics, and any legal conclusions about validity or enforceability.

Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:30 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5958015. 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.