US 6389467

I'll verify the bibliographic data and try to pull the actual claim set (the patent text I was given contains the description but not the numbered claims).

I have claim 1 verbatim. Let me try to pull the full independent-claim set to confirm which claims are independent.

Let me try to retrieve the numbered claim set from a full-text source.

US 6,389,467 B1 — Concise Summary

Note on method: I was asked to search the USPTO database and CAFC 2026 dockets for this exact number. My searches returned the patent's own text and the family/prosecution documents, but my tool budget was exhausted before I could complete a fresh 2026 CAFC docket sweep or retrieve the full numbered claim set (see the uncertainty notes at the end). I did not return results for near-numbers (e.g., US 6,389,473, US 6,381,467, US 6,389,472) — those are different patents and are excluded.

1. Bibliographic data

Inventorship flag (carried over, not a contradiction): the printed patent names only Aviv Eyal, but the recorded 2000‑09‑01 assignment names George Aposporos and Aviv Eyal as assignors, and the family's provisional is described as naming "A. Eyal and G. Asporopos." Interpret the number literally as issued — Eyal alone — while treating the joint-inventorship question as an open record issue (see the Assignment History section).

2. Abstract / stated field

I did not retrieve the verbatim 150‑word USPTO abstract in this session, so I will not quote one. The patent's own opening (authoritative text supplied) states its subject matter as:

"This invention relates to the field of streaming media content search and playback over a network. In particular, the invention relates to a computer system that enables a continuous streaming media playback from a distribution of sites available over a network such as the Internet."

In substance, the disclosure covers: a searchable database of network addresses (URLs) to media resources, each address tagged with classes of information (genre, category, data type/MIME, identity, play‑list membership, ratings); a network server module that matches a user's search criteria to those classes and signals the matching addresses to a user terminal; and a media playback component on the terminal that is programmatically controlled by the server-side module to automatically and sequentially play back the media from multiple, different network sites. Back-end features include programmatic link crawling/verification via a reconfigured web browser component, automated metadata extraction via a media player's API, play‑list generation, and a user rating system.

3. Claim structure — important caveat

Verified verbatim: claim 1 only. The claim text I could retrieve from an authoritative full-text source is:

1. A method for playing back media from a network, the method comprising: receiving a search request from a network enabled device to play back media from multiple sites on the network, the search request specifying one or more search criteria; accessing a memory that includes a plurality of network addresses, the memory associating substantially each address with one or more classes of information, each address accessing a media resource; selecting a plurality of addresses in the memory by comparing the one or more search criteria to one or more classes of information associated with the plurality of network addresses; signaling the selected plurality of addresses to the network enabled device; and causing the network enabled device to access sites located by at least some of the selected addresses and to play back the media resources provided at the accessed sites, including to sequentially play back the media resources provided by at least some of the selected addresses substantially automatically.

Verified from the litigation record: the asserted '467 claims were claim 35 and claim 52 (see the Litigation and Obviousness sections). Claim 35 was characterized as requiring a media player controllable by a separate module. I do not have verbatim text for claims 35 or 52, and I did not retrieve the complete 68‑claim set, so the exact independent/dependent numbering below (other than claim 1) is reconstructed from the patent's own "Summary of the Invention" / embodiment paragraphs, not read off the claim sheet. Treat the group labels as directional, not as claim numbers.

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claims (grouped by disclosed embodiment)

Family note (not a contradiction of the '467): the sibling patents recite near-identical subject matter in different claim formats — e.g., US 6,484,199 claim 1 (method, "in response to termination of playback … automatically initiating playback of another media resource"), US 6,735,628 claim 1 (method with programmatically displayed interfaces and a media‑resource‑identifier set), and US 6,735,628 claims 31–43 (programmatic control through the media player's API, direct control from a remote server module, and a computer‑system claim). These are different patents; don't attribute their claim numbers to the '467.

5. Uncertainty and verification flags

1. Independent claim numbering is not verified beyond claim 1. The 68‑claim set was not retrieved; the group table above is derived from the specification's embodiment paragraphs and the litigation record. To confirm which claims are independent, pull the full claim column from USPTO Patent Center for application 09/563,250 or the printed patent (cols. 21–28, the range the JP/EP search reports cite).
2. Claims 35 and 52 are the only claims I can say were actually asserted (in Friskit v. RealNetworks), and claim 35's "media player controllable by a separate module" limitation is confirmed from the N.D. Cal. order. Claim 52's text is unretrieved — any mapping to it is directional.
3. Abstract — verbatim text not retrieved; the quoted passage above is from the specification's field‑of‑invention paragraph, not the front‑page abstract.
4. CAFC 2026 check not completed. I hit my search cap before running a fresh 2026 docket sweep on this number. Consistently with the prior sections, the known Federal Circuit appeals are 07‑1583 (Friskit v. RealNetworks — '467 claims 35/52 held obvious; affirmed) and 22‑2215 (Bluebonnet v. Pandora — § 101; where the '467 itself was not an asserted patent). I found no 2026 CAFC activity on the '467, but treat that as unchecked-and-clean rather than verified-clean, and confirm at CourtListener/PACER.
5. No PTAB proceeding on this patent (per the PTAB section of this analysis and the USPTO Open Data Portal result); the '467 appears in PTAB materials only as prior art against others' patents.
6. Expiry. Anticipated expiration May 2, 2020; status Expired – Lifetime. Any residual controversy is retrospective (past damages) only.

Primary sources for this summary

• Full‑text gazette record, US 6,389,467 B1, Issue 1258‑2 (claim 1 verbatim; title/assignee/filing/68 claims): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID2/og/html/1258-2/us06389467-20020514.html
• Google Patents record (bibliographic data, legal events, current assignee): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6389467B1](/patent/US6389467B1)/en
• Continuation bibliographic links (family/prosecution): US 6,484,199 — https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5628977/FID2/og/html/1264-3/us06484199-20021119.html ; US 6,735,628 — https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5628977/FID3294/OG/html/1282-2/us06735628-20040511.html

Research summary based on public sources; not legal advice. Claim numbers, abstract text, and docket status should be confirmed against the official USPTO record and the courts of record before being relied upon.

I'll search patent litigation sources for US 6,389,467 specifically.

Now let me dig into the specific cases and check for others.

Important finding — let me verify which patents were actually at issue and look for other cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 ('467)

Sources searched: CourtListener (dockets + opinions), Justia/Justia Dockets, RPX Insight litigation documents, CAFC opinions-orders library, Federal Circuit Blog, and contemporaneous trade press (InfoWorld), plus the case documents surfaced through those. I was not able to successfully retrieve the Unified Patents caselist page (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — the search tool capped out before I could load it, so treat that source as unchecked rather than checked-and-clean.

Below I separate (A) cases where the '467 was actually asserted, (B) cases that only touch the '467 indirectly, and (C) same-numbered-but-different patents to exclude.

A. Cases in which US 6,389,467 was actually asserted

1. Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc. and Listen.com

Appeal — Fed. Cir. No. 2007-1583: Nonprecedential opinion decided January 12, 2009 (Bryson, Linn, Prost, JJ.). AFFIRMED. The panel agreed with Friskit that there was a genuine dispute whether the "direct control" limitation was in the Winamp prior art, but held the claims obvious anyway in view of the IUMA Radio system and the state of the art (Java/JavaScript/ActiveX, exposed media-player APIs). Friskit's secondary-considerations arguments failed for lack of nexus. Status: final and closed — claims 35 and 52 of the '467 stand adjudicated invalid.

Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1871910](/patent/1871910)/friskit-inc-v-realnetworks-inc/ ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4165499](/patent/4165499)/friskit-inc-v-realnetworks-inc/ ; http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/07-1583.pdf ; https://cn.realnetworks.com/press/releases/2007/realnetworks-wins-complete-victory-patent-suit

Flagged discrepancy: the Google Patents family page labels the 3:03-cv-05085 case as "California Eastern District Court," and one prior section of this analysis called it "C.D. Cal. 3:03-cv-05085." The authoritative court order and docket show N.D. Cal., Judge Schwarzer, San Francisco. Also, contemporaneous InfoWorld reporting described the 2003 suit as filed in a Chicago, Illinois court (Friday filing — June 27, 2003 was a Friday), and the later W.D. Tex. order in the Pandora case referred to "the Illinois court['s]" transfer of "a completely unrelated case" to N.D. Cal. I could not verify an N.D. Ill. docket number for the Friskit suit before search capacity ran out. Treat "filed in Chicago, later in N.D. Cal." as unconfirmed; the operative merits record is unambiguously N.D. Cal. C 03-05085 WWS.

2. Friskit v. Microsoft Corporation (referenced, not documented)

Bluebonnet's later Pandora complaint states that "Bluebonnet's predecessor-of-interest, Friskit, Inc. … was involved in a dispute with Microsoft Corporation … resolved by execution of a confidential settlement agreement in 2011." I found no case number, jurisdiction, or filing date for it, and no indication the '467 was one of the asserted patents. Listed here only so you know the Friskit portfolio was asserted at least once more. Unverified.

B. Cases that touch the '467 family but did not assert the '467

3. Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC

⚠️ Critical correction to the prior sections of this analysis. The previously generated material states that the Pandora case asserted "eight Friskit-origin patents including US6389467" and that "the '467 claims were held § 101-invalid." That is contradicted by the court records. Both the N.D. Cal. JOP (Dkt. 149) and the Federal Circuit opinion identify only three patents ('753, '650, '095). A secondary aggregator (PatSnap) does list 6389467 among the "patents at issue" in Fed. Cir. 2022-2215, and Google Patents family-tags 3:21-cv-08294 to the '467 — but those appear to be family-level/aggregation artifacts, not the pleaded claims. Do not tell a counterparty or a court that US 6,389,467 was invalidated in Bluebonnet v. Pandora.

Sources: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2021cv08294/[386959/149](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=386959-0149) ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9489527](/patent/9489527)/bluebonnet-internet-media-services-llc-v-pandora-media-llc/ ; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/03-06-2024-2022-2215-bluebonnet-internet-media-services-llc-v-pandora-media-llc-audio-uploaded/ ; https://www.cadwalader.com/uploads/media/WDTX-6-20-cv-00731-72.pdf

4. The '467 as prior art (not a case against the patent)

The '467 appears in other parties' PTAB filings as an exhibit/prior-art reference, e.g. in Hulu, LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC (IPR2021-00158, Ex. 2007). That is a defensive citation of the patent, not litigation against it. Consistent with the prior section, there is no IPR/PGR/CBM in which US 6,389,467 is the challenged patent.

C. Same-numbered patents to EXCLUDE (not US 6,389,467)

Do not confuse these — they are frequently surfaced by a literal "467" search:

• Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Trividia Health, Inc. (D. Del. 1:24-cv-668-GBW; PTAB IPR2025-00553) — glucose test-strip "467 patent." Not this patent.
• SiOnyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (D. Mass. 1:15-cv-13488-FDS) — image-sensor "467 patent." Not this patent.
• Salazar v. AT&T Mobility / Salazar v. HTC (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00004; 2016 Salazar–HTC trial) — a different '467 patent owned by Salazar (remote-control/set-top-box art), asserted against HTC handsets. Not this patent.

Bottom line

Two (possibly three) matters genuinely involve US 6,389,467:

1. Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc. & Listen.com — N.D. Cal. C 03-05085 WWS, filed June 27, 2003; '467 claims 35 and 52 among the eight asserted claims; SJ of invalidity (§ 103, KSR) granted July 26, 2007; affirmed, Fed. Cir. 2007-1583, Jan. 12, 2009. Closed.
2. Friskit v. Microsoft — 2011 confidential settlement per the Bluebonnet complaint; no docket details found; '467 assertion unconfirmed.
3. (Indirectly) Bluebonnet v. Pandora — the family successor case (W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00731-ADA → N.D. Cal. 3:21-cv-08294-VC; Fed. Cir. 2022-2215) — but the '467 itself was not asserted there.

Because the '467 expired May 2, 2020, and the only claims ever adjudicated (35 and 52) were held invalid for obviousness in 2007/2009, there is no live enforcement posture for this patent as of April 26, 2026.

Residual uncertainty: (a) I could not open the Unified Patents caselist or PACER directly; (b) the Illinois/Chicago filing question for the 2003 Friskit suit is unresolved; (c) if additional Bluebonnet complaints exist against other streaming defendants, I did not reach them — one complaint excerpt I saw (W.D. Tex. docket style) referenced '650/'095/'647 and named the '467 as the parent rather than as an asserted patent, which is consistent with the "not asserted" conclusion above but not conclusive of the full docket.

I'll search for any AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) targeting US 6,389,467, and cross-check the two ptacts.uspto.gov petitions that referenced "Eyal" in the prior section.

Let me search more specifically for any PTAB trial involving this patent or its owner.

Let me confirm the nature of the two ptacts.uspto.gov petitions the prior section flagged (IDs 1549702/1549704), and run a final check for any proceeding where '467 is the challenged patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467

Bottom line up front: There are no AIA trial proceedings on file against U.S. 6,389,467. The canonical structured source ("PTAB proceedings on file" from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns zero IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings naming this patent as the challenged patent, and my independent web searches surfaced none either. I am not reporting any proceeding numbers for '467 because there are none to report — and I will not invent them.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trials against US 6,389,467: 0 (0 active, 0 claims invalidated by PTAB, 0 claims sustained by PTAB, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied). The defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has been hardened by IPR" and not "claims have been canceled by the Board" — it is "the Board never touched this patent." The '467 claims were instead invalidated (obviousness, §103) in district court in Friskit v. RealNetworks and the broader Friskit/Bluebonnet family was invalidated (patent eligibility, §101) in Bluebonnet v. Pandora — but those are Article III outcomes, not AIA trials. A defendant today gets no free claim cancellations from a prior IPR, but also gets no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and can still choose whether to petition.

The only appearances of "6,389,467" in PTAB materials are as PRIOR ART, not as a challenged patent

This distinction matters and is the single most important thing to get right. In the PTAB document record I could retrieve, '467 shows up solely as an asserted prior-art reference (a "system" reference attributed to "Eyal"/Friskit), cited against other people's patents:

In short: '467 is a well-known piece of prior art against other streaming-media patents — it is not, as far as the public record I can retrieve shows, a patent that anyone has ever challenged at the Board.

Caveat I cannot close: I was unable to map the two ptacts.uspto.gov petition IDs (1549702 / 1549704) to their parent proceeding numbers before running out of search steps. I can confirm only that in those documents '467 appears as a prior-art exhibit, and that the patent actually under challenge there has 115+ claims — so it cannot be '467.

Proceedings list

None to report

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM with U.S. 6,389,467 as the challenged patent. Accordingly there is:

• No petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no judge panel to name.
• No claim-level outcome to quote (no canceled claims, no sustained claims from the Board).
• No settlement/termination to describe.
• No PTAB-to-Federal Circuit appeal to docket. (The two Federal Circuit appeals that exist — 07-1583 and 22-2215 — came from district court, not from the Board. See below.)

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no AIA trial ever reached the merits, no claim of '467 has been canceled or confirmed by the PTAB. All 68 claims are UNTESTED at the Board. The patent is nonetheless expired (anticipated expiration 2020-05-02; status "Expired – Lifetime"), so any live controversy is about past damages only. Separately, the validity of the '467/Friskit subject matter has been litigated twice in Article III courts: (i) the claims asserted in Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 3:03-cv-05085) — including '467 claims 35 and 52 — were held invalid for obviousness on summary judgment (2007-07-26), affirmed at Fed. Cir. 2007-1583; and (ii) the asserted Friskit/Bluebonnet portfolio in Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC (N.D. Cal. 3:21-cv-08294) was held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (judgment on the pleadings, 2022-09-07), affirmed at Fed. Cir. 22-2215. Whether '467 itself was among the specific claims adjudicated §101-invalid in the Pandora matter is not something I can confirm — press reporting and the exhibit lists are in tension, so treat that attribution as unverified.

Estoppel landscape. With zero IPRs, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone with respect to '467. No petitioner is barred from raising prior-art grounds, and — conversely — no party benefits from a prior petitioner's work product or from a Board construction. If you are sued on '467 today, your prior-art defenses are wide open, provided you can still get into an AIA trial at all: note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement, and the patent's 2020 expiration makes an IPR of limited practical use (the Board will review an expired patent, but the patent owner cannot amend, and the remedy is retrospective).

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in the '467 PTAB record — consistent with there being no '467 PTAB record. The recurring litigant is not a third-party challenger but the owner-side chain: Friskit → Bluebonnet (NPE). The public "PTAB" noise involving '467 is other litigants using it as prior art, not attacking it. The absence of IPRs is itself unusual for a patent asserted this many times over ~20 years, and the explanation is the one-two punch above: the patent was invalidated in district court before, or instead of, anyone needing to file an IPR, and it then expired in 2020.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite a non-existent IPR. If opposing counsel or a demand letter implies '467 "survived IPRs," that is inaccurate — there were none. If a demand letter relies on '467, the more powerful rebuttals are the district-court invalidities: Friskit v. RealNetworks (obviousness, §103) and Bluebonnet v. Pandora (eligibility, §101), both affirmed on appeal.
2. Verify the negative directly, don't rely on my summary. Confirm no AIA trial exists via USPTO PTAB E2E (https://e2e.uspto.gov) and USPTO Patent Center (application 09/563,250), and cross-check Docket Alarm/PTAB and CourtListener. If a very recent petition exists that the ODP ingest and my searches missed, it will appear there first.
3. If you are a defendant evaluating an IPR: the mechanics still work against an expired patent, but check the § 315(b) clock (one year from service of the complaint) and weigh that the cheap, already-proven path to invalidity is the § 101 / § 103 district-court record, not a fresh Board trial.
4. If you are acting for the patent owner (Bluebonnet): assess whether the asserted claims you intend to enforce overlap the claims already held invalid (or the family subject matter held ineligible) — that is the real exposure, not IPR estoppel.

Sources / grounding

• Structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) — reports no AIA trial proceedings; used as the canonical list per task instructions.
• PTAB document record showing '467 only as prior art: Hulu LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP LLC, IPR2021-00158, Exhibit 2007 (Docket Alarm, 2021-03-12) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00158/Hulu_LLC_v._SITO_Mobile_R%26D_IP_LLC/
• ptacts.uspto.gov petition docs 1549702 / 1549704 (cited as prior art; challenged patent has 115+ claims) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/
• Fed. Cir. 2007-1583 (Friskit v. RealNetworks) — https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/07-1583.pdf
• Friskit v. RealNetworks SJ of invalidity (N.D. Cal. 3:03-cv-05085) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[1871910](/patent/1871910)/friskit-inc-v-realnetworks-inc/
• Bluebonnet v. Pandora §101 invalidity / Fed. Cir. 22-2215 — N.D. Cal. 3:21-cv-08294 (see prior sections of this analysis for the sourced chronology).
• Generic PTAB decision repository (nothing on-point to cite for '467): USPTO PTAB Decisions — https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-decisions

Research summary based on public sources; not legal advice. No proceeding numbers were fabricated; where the record was silent, I have said so.

One flag on the input prompt: the "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the ODP API returns no AIA trials, and that block should control. My findings are consistent with it. But note the earlier-generated section of this analysis asserted that "PTAB petitions at ptacts.uspto.gov (1549702, 1549704) reference 'Eyal.'" Those are petition/document IDs, not proceeding numbers, and they concern a different, 115+-claim patent in which '467 is merely prior art. That is not a contradiction of the ODP result, but it is easily misread as "there are IPRs on '467," which would be wrong.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6,389,467, focusing on reel/frame numbers, correspondents, and the ownership chain.

I found key reel/frame references in the Bluebonnet complaint. Let me dig into the specific reel/frame records and correspondents.

I hit my tool-call limit mid-research, so I'm reporting what I could actually verify and flagging the gaps explicitly rather than filling them in. The most important primary hit is a reel/frame citation taken from Bluebonnet's own complaint, which is the strongest available anchor for the chain.

Inventors

⚠️ Record discrepancy — do not auto-correct. The issued patent lists only Aviv Eyal. However:

• The recorded Assignment of Assignors' Interest (2000‑09‑01, Google Patents legal events) names assignors APOSPOROS, GEORGE and EYAL, AVIV — i.e., two assignors.
• The provisional (60/177,786) is described elsewhere in the family (US 6,519,648) as naming "A. Eyal and G. Asporopos" as inventors.
• Bluebonnet's WDTX complaint states the patents "was invented by George Aposporos and Aviv Eyal."
• George Aposporos — former Amazon.com VP of business development, Friskit co-founder/chairman & CEO, resident of Maryland, and later Bluebonnet's corporate representative — does not appear as a named inventor on the '467 patent itself, yet assigned rights to Friskit in 2000 and took two security interests in the patent (below).

So the assignment record treats the invention as joint; the printed patent does not. That divergence is itself notable and is a fair target for a chain-of-title / inventorship question.

Pattern notes (inventor side): Eyal's Microsoft tenure ends Dec. 31, 1999, one month before the Jan. 24, 2000 provisional — which is exactly why RealNetworks moved to dismiss on the theory that Microsoft owned the invention. The court denied that motion (holding Eyal's Microsoft agreement was an agreement to assign, not an assignment, and Microsoft never claimed ownership). A confidential 2011 Microsoft–Friskit settlement is referenced in Bluebonnet's later complaint. This is an ownership-cloud pattern, not a fire-sale pattern: the founders did not depart en masse — the co-founder stayed and financed the company.

Original assignee

Friskit, Inc., San Francisco, Calif.

• Product shipped? Yes, early. Friskit launched its streaming-music service ("Friskit.com") by no later than June 2000, reaching ~100,000 beta users; a thin-client playback interface auto-deployed on the user's device with server-side playlist generation. So the assignee did once operate a product that maps onto the claims.
• Primary line of business: streaming-media search/personalization/playback, positioned as a consumer service; later repositioned as a technology-licensing company (its own 2003 press statement: it "changed its business strategy from a consumer service to a technology licensing model").
• Current status: Defunct / ceased operating. Press and pleadings describe Friskit as "now‑defunct" and state Bluebonnet assumed the IP "after the startup ceased operating."

Marking admission (material): Bluebonnet's complaint pleads that neither Bluebonnet nor Friskit ever made, offered for sale, or sold any "patented article" after issuance of the '467 on May 14, 2002. That is a party admission that the producing business ended before the '467 issued — i.e., any operating-company status attaches to the pre-issuance era only.

Assignment timeline

All entries below are drawn from Google Patents' legal-events block for US 6,389,467 and from Bluebonnet's WDTX complaint ¶18, which cites recorded USPTO documents by reel/frame. Execution dates were not separately retrieved; the dates shown are the recorded/event dates.

• 2000‑09‑01 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: George Aposporos and Aviv Eyal (individuals)
  • Assignee: Friskit, Inc. (San Francisco)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: formation/startup assignment — inventors assign to their newly formed company.

• 2001‑10‑29 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Friskit, Inc.
  • Assignee: George Aposporos (individual)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: securitization — Friskit pledges the patent to its own co-founder/chairman as collateral.

• 2003‑12‑24 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Friskit, Inc.
  • Assignee: George Aposporos (individual)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: second securitization — a second pledge to the same insider, recorded the same year Friskit sued RealNetworks.

• 2017‑02‑09 (recorded) — Reel 041217 / Frame 0628

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Friskit, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. (This reel/frame is the one the later corrective filing expressly identifies as the prior, erroneous recording — see next entry. If the same correspondent appears on both 2017 reels, that is the repeat-correspondent tell; I could not confirm it.)
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter / portfolio sale to a licensing-only LLC.

• 2017‑02‑10 (recorded) — Reel 041675 / Frame 0788 (inferred — see caveat)

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment ("to correct the incorrect patent no. 6271741 previously recorded at Reel 041217, Frame 0628")
  • Assignor: Friskit, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: clean-up of the 2017‑02‑09 record; recorded one day later.

Caveat on the 041675/0788 ↔ corrective mapping. The complaint cites both "Reel 041675, Frame 0788 et seq." and "Reel 041217, Frame 0628 et seq." as documents establishing Bluebonnet's entitlement (its Exhibits 11 and 12). Google Patents ties the corrective filing back to 041217/0628. Since 041217 < 041675, the natural reading is: 041217/0628 = the original Feb‑9 assignment; 041675/0788 = the Feb‑10 corrective. I have marked that mapping as inferred — confirm on the Assignment Center abstract before quoting it. What is not inferred: both reel/frame pairs exist, both are Friskit→Bluebonnet, and both are cited in the pleading.

What I could not retrieve: reel/frame numbers for the 2000, 2001, and 2003 recordings, and the correspondent of record on any entry. The Assignment Center abstract page (not the Google Patents mirror) is where those live. I did not fabricate them.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6389467
    2000 : Assigned to Friskit Inc
         : Utility filed 02 May
    2001 : Security agreement to Aposporos
    2003 : Second security agreement to Aposporos
    2017 : Assigned to Bluebonnet Internet Media Services
         : Corrective assignment next day
    2020 : Bluebonnet sues Pandora Media
         : Patent expires 02 May

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent moves from Friskit, Inc. (a startup that shipped Friskit.com) to Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC — recorded 2017‑02‑09 / 2017‑02‑10 at Reel 041217/0628 and Reel 041675/0788. Bluebonnet is not "IP/Holdings" by name, but the substantive tells are on the record: it is described in the pleadings and by outside commentators as a non‑practicing entity, it is a Texas LLC with "little‑to‑no online presence," and — decisively — Bluebonnet's own complaint admits it never made, offered for sale, or sold any patented article. Name alone isn't the finding; the product-absence admission is.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (with caveat).
Bluebonnet does not match the enumerated classic roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN/Mosaid‑Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg). But it is surfaced by the aggregator directories the task directs me to: it appears as a tracked litigant in RPX's litigation-document index (the WDTX complaint PDF is hosted on insight.rpxcorp.com) and in Unified Patents' litigation listings (portal.unifiedpatents.com). Caveat: this is a single-campaign asserter (one defendant, Pandora), not a high-volume serial filer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / insufficient data.
I could not retrieve the correspondent of record on any of the five recordings, so I cannot test recurrence. This is the single highest-value gap: the four Friskit-era and 2017 recordings share the same assignor, so a single recording attorney across them would be a textbook tell. Verify on the Assignment Center abstract. (Litigation counsel of record in the Pandora suit — listed on UniCourt as Brian A. Carpenter, George T. Scott, Paul Sung Cha, Brian Boerman, Quentin A. Roberts, Robert R. Brunelli, Walter J. Scott Jr. — are litigation counsel, not assignment correspondents; do not conflate the two.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
No chain of chained LLCs. The only sub-24‑month clustering is the 2017‑02‑09 assignment + 2017‑02‑10 corrective — that is a record correction, not a cascade. The two Aposporos security agreements (2001, 2003) are a securitization pattern, spaced ~26 months apart, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The Friskit→Bluebonnet transfer was recorded 2017‑02‑09/10; Bluebonnet's first suit naming this patent (Pandora) was filed August 2020 — a gap of roughly 3.5 years, well outside the 6‑month window. (The 2003 RealNetworks suit was Friskit's own, five years before the Bluebonnet transfer.) So the chain was not arranged immediately to enable assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — UNCLEAR.
No Chapter 7/11 record found. Friskit is described as "ceased operating"/"now-defunct," and Bluebonnet acquired the assets "after the startup ceased operating" — an out-of-court wind-down/asset disposition rather than a documented bankruptcy sale. Because the reason for the disposition isn't in the record I retrieved, I mark this unclear, not present.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Classic privateering requires an ongoing operating company using an NPE as a proxy against competitors while keeping its own hands clean. Here the apparent operating company (Friskit) is defunct before the transfer, and Bluebonnet asserts on its own behalf. The Friskit-era assertion (2003, vs. RealNetworks/Listen.com) was Friskit suing directly, not via a proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Bluebonnet, an asserting entity. No neutralization.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two signals are independently grounded in the record rather than in naming: (i) a shell-entity/asset-stripping transfer — the patent moves on 2017‑02‑09/10 (Reel 041217/0628 and Reel 041675/0788) from the product-era assignee Friskit, Inc. to Bluebonnet Internet Media Services, LLC, which admits in its own complaint that neither it nor Friskit ever made, offered for sale, or sold a patented article; and (ii) a known asserter in the chain, with Bluebonnet tracked as a non‑practicing litigant in both the RPX and Unified Patents litigation directories and described as an NPE by the court's observers. Those two strong signals, plus the securitization-style pledges of the patent to insider George Aposporos in 2001 and 2003, comfortably clear the "2+ strong signals" bar. The chain shows no defensive-aggregator termination and no pre-litigation-rush timing, both of which are consistent with a straightforward asset-sale-then-assert model rather than a purpose-built litigation vehicle.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 6389467; the mirrored index is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Query the abstract for Reel 041217 Frame 0628 and Reel 041675 Frame 0788 to capture the correspondent of record and the executed-vs-recorded dates, and to pull reel/frame for the 2000‑09‑01, 2001‑10‑29, and 2003‑12‑24 entries, none of which I was able to retrieve.

Confidence: high on the existence, parties, and dates of all five recorded events (Google Patents legal events + Bluebonnet's own pleading ¶18). High on the two 2017 reel/frame pairs; medium on which of the two is the corrective. Low/none on correspondents, on the Friskit-era reel/frames, and on the true reason for Friskit's cessation — all flagged above rather than guessed.

I'll research the actual prior-art citations on the face of US 6,389,467. Let me pull the patent's own citation list and cross-check against USPTO sources.

I need the actual citation table. Let me pull it from Justia and Google Patents directly.

I hit the tool-call cap mid-retrieval, so I'm reporting what I could actually verify and flagging exactly what I could not get. The single most important thing to get right here is stated first.

Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 B1 — US 6,389,467 / "Eyal"

0. Bottom line up front — a critical gap I will not paper over

I was not able to retrieve the patent's own "(56) References Cited" table — i.e., the list of patent citations printed on the face of US 6,389,467. I therefore cannot truthfully provide "each patent citation for 6389467" with the per-reference citation, date, description, and § 102 claim mapping you asked for.

What I did confirm:

• The literal ID 6389467 resolves to US 6,389,467 B1 (Aviv Eyal, Friskit, Inc.; appl. 09/563,250; filed 2000-05-02; issued 2002-05-14; priority to provisional 60/177,786 of 2000-01-24; 68 claims). This matches the authoritative full text supplied to me and the USPTO Official Gazette record. It is not US 6,389,472, US 6,389,473, US 6,381,467 B1, or US 6,484,199 — all of which surfaced in searches and are different patents that I have excluded.
• Every search result that looked like a citation table in fact belonged to a citing document, not to the '467's own face. A snippet showing "Patent Citations (44)" was rendered on the page for US 2004/0030681 A1 (a later application citing the '467), not on the '467's own page. Do not attribute "44 citations" to the '467 — that count is unverified for this patent.

Why this matters: as explained in § 3 below, the references cited on the face of the '467 were not the art that killed it in court. So a face-citation list, even if I had it, would understate the real prior-art picture. I give you the art that actually matters, clearly labeled as to source.

To close the gap (authoritative sources):

• Patent PDF front page ("(56) References Cited"): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US6389467.pdf
• USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) → application 09/563,250 → "References Cited" / examiner citations
• Google Patents → https://patents.google.com/patent/US6389467B1/en → the "Patent Citations" block (distinct from "Cited By")

1. What I could verify about how the '467's citations relate to other documents

These are documents found in the search record that cite or cross-cite the '467. They are citing documents, not prior art against the '467, and must not be classified as § 102 references:

Do-not-conflate warning (per your literal-ID rule): searches for "467" repeatedly surfaced different patents: US 6,389,472 (Elswick/Hughes — filtering data received by a computer system), US 6,389,473 (Carmel et al.), US 6,381,467 B1 (Hill et al.), and the Salazar '467 (set-top-box art, E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00004), plus the Roche/Trividia and SiOnyx "467" patents. None is US 6,389,467. I have excluded all of them.

2. The prior art that was actually applied against the '467 (§ 103 record)

Because the face citations were not retrievable — and because they are not the operative art anyway — here is the prior art that the district court and Federal Circuit actually relied on to invalidate the asserted '467 claims. This is, substantively, the most relevant prior art for US 6,389,467.

Procedural anchor: Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc., N.D. Cal. C 03-05085 WWS (Judge Schwarzer), SJ of invalidity filed July 26, 2007 (claims of the '467, '199, '648, '275, '628); affirmed, Fed. Cir. 2007-1583, 306 F. App'x 610 (2009), under KSR. The asserted '467 claims were claims 35 and 52.

Candidates I could NOT verify as being on the '467's face (flag as unverified, do not cite as "cited by '467"):

• US 6,647,389 B1 — "Search engine to verify streaming audio sources," 3Com Corp. (listed under former assignee 3Com / Cufer Asset), priority 1999-08-30, granted 2003-11-11. Its subject matter (programmatically verifying streaming-audio sources) maps directly onto the '467's verification claims (Summary Groups 16–18). Its 1999 filing predates the '467 priority, so it would be § 102(e) art if properly evidenced — but I could not confirm it appears on the '467's citation list or that it discloses the claims.
• WO 01/53963 A1 — "System and method for the distribution and sharing of media assets between media player devices," priority 2000-01-24. Caution: its priority date is the same day as the '467's provisional — so it is not prior art to the '467; it surfaced only as a "similar document" in a third-party validity report.

3. § 102 mapping — with an honesty caveat you should not skip

Caveat: the '467's invalidity was decided under § 103(a) (obviousness, KSR), not § 102. Neither the district court nor the Federal Circuit made an anticipation finding on the '467. So the "§ 102" column below is my analytical assessment of single-reference disclosure, not a holding. Where a combination was required, I say so.

The combination that actually invalidated the '467: IUMA Radio + M3U playlists (alternatively Winamp + mp3.com/IUMA.com), as applied under KSR, with the CAFC holding that server-side control of a client media player was a "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."* So if you need a § 103 case, it is already litigated and affirmed; if you need a § 102 case against claim 1, IUMA Radio is the reference to develop — but no tribunal has so held.

4. Corrections to the earlier sections of this analysis

1. "Patent Citations (44)" — this count belongs to a citing application's page (US 2004/0030681 A1), not to US 6,389,467. Do not repeat it as the '467's citation count. (Consistent with the earlier Obviousness section, which already flagged that the '467's own (56) block was never retrieved.)
2. The '467's face citations ≠ its invalidating art. The art that defeated the claims was non-patent system art (IUMA Radio, mp3.com, Winamp, M3U, RealPlayer) that does not appear in a patent "(56)" list. Any analysis built only on face citations will miss the dispositive references.
3. Family continuations are not prior art to the '467 — '199, '648, '275, '628, and US 7,281,034 all share the 2000-01-24 priority. Do not list them as § 102 references.

5. Explicit uncertainties (nothing guessed)

1. I did not retrieve the '467's "(56) References Cited" list. This is the direct answer to your request and I could not supply it. Every reference in § 2 is either (a) court-recorded invalidating art or (b) explicitly flagged as unverified as to whether it appears on the patent's face.
2. The "44" citation count is unverified for this patent and appears to belong to a different document.
3. Exact public-use dates for mp3.com (1997–1998), Winamp (1997), and the M3U format (1996–1997) are given as "generally reported — verify" and should be pinned before being used in any § 102(b) public-use chart. Only the RealNetworks October 1995 API announcement date is taken from the Federal Circuit opinion.
4. US 6,647,389's status as '467-cited art is unconfirmed — treat as a lead, not a finding.
5. Claim-number granularity: only claim 1 is verbatim in my hands; the asserted '467 claims were 35 and 52, but I do not have their verbatim text. Any claim-number mapping beyond claim 1 is inferred.
6. Search limit reached: I exhausted tool calls before opening the Google Patents citation block, USPTO Patent Public Search, or the patent PDF front page. The negative results above are "not retrieved," not "confirmed absent."

Sources

• Authoritative '467 full text (supplied): https://patents.google.com/patent/US6389467B1/en
• USPTO Official Gazette, US 6,389,467 (68 claims; provisional 60/177,786): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID2/og/html/1258-2/us06389467-20020514.html
• CAFC 07-1583 (Friskit v. RealNetworks), 306 F. App'x 610: http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/07-1583.pdf
• D. Ct. SJ order (N.D. Cal. C 03-05085): https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/[1871910](/patent/1871910).pdf
• Continuation relationship ('199 → '467): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5628977/FID2/og/html/1264-3/us06484199-20021119.html ; https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5628977/FID3294/OG/html/1282-2/us06735628-20040511.html
• Third-party validity report listing US 6,647,389 B1 (3Com) and WO 01/53963 A1: http://s3.amazonaws.com/report.limestoneip.com/VM0sqTc_Pnv77Zt4XwwW-7.full.html
• Examiner EAST search history citing "US-6389467-$" as searched art: https://archive.org/download/gov.uspto.patents.application.[10021875](/patent/10021875)/…
• Friskit's 2003 assertion of the '467 (filing dates control, not grant dates): https://www.theregister.com/2003/07/02/friskit_alleges_real_networks/

Technical/legal research analysis based on public records; not legal advice. No reference, date, or claim mapping was fabricated; where the record was not retrieved, I have said so explicitly.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art record for the '467 — both the references cited on the patent's face and the art the courts actually relied on. Let me pull those.

Let me pull the actual cited references on the '467's face and the corresponding PCT/EP search-report art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 B1 ("Eyal")

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre‑AIA)

Date note: the system header on this task says today is 2026‑09‑28, while the task line says April 26, 2026. I have not attempted to reconcile them; nothing in this analysis turns on the difference.

0. Preliminary: what "the Prior Art section of this page" actually contains

Strict honesty up front, because this matters for citation discipline:

• The patent text supplied to me does not contain a labeled "Prior Art" section. There is no "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" / "Non‑Patent Citations" block in the page text provided, and I did not retrieve the '467's own front‑page citation list in this session. Google Patents renders that block on the family pages (e.g., the continuation US 9,779,095 B2 prints a long "(56) References Cited" list beginning with Thompson 3,568,156 A, Rosenbaum 4,384,329 A, etc.), but I am not going to attribute that list to the '467's face without confirmation.
• What the supplied text does contain that functions as prior‑art admission is the Background/Definitions portion: "Users locate streaming media on the Internet by manually selecting links… Users sometimes select through a chain of links…"; "Some services provide media search engine capabilities…"; and "links displayed to users of current search engines are not subject to a determination of the quality or availability of the media…" That is the admitted state of the art and it is citable as an admission.
• I have therefore grounded the analysis on the patent's own admissions plus the prior‑art record actually adjudicated for this patent, which is the strongest and most usable § 103 record that exists for the '467: the Friskit v. RealNetworks invalidity record.

Do‑not‑conflate warning (per your instruction on literal IDs). My searches surfaced near‑number patents that are different patents: US 6,389,473 (Carmel et al., listed in a VideoShare v. Google W.D. Tex. prior‑art disclosure) and US 6,381,467 B1 (Hill et al., appearing in an unrelated claim chart) and US 6,389,472. None of these is US 6,389,467 (Eyal). I have excluded all of them.

1. Governing standard and the procedural posture

• The application was filed May 2, 2000 (priority Jan. 24, 2000), so pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs. Graham factors apply.
• The controlling merits determination for this patent: **N.D. Cal., Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc., No. C 03‑05085, Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Judge William W. Schwarzer), filed July 26, 2007** — holding the asserted claims of five Friskit patents (the '467, '199, '648, '275, '628) invalid for obviousness. The order confirms the complaint was filed June 27, 2003 (resolving an open item from the earlier section).
• Affirmed: Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2007‑1583, 306 F. App'x 610 (nonprecedential). The Federal Circuit expressly applied KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): "[t]he 'predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions' is likely to be within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art."

Level of ordinary skill (proposed). A bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–4 years' experience in Internet/networked software — specifically HTML/JavaScript/plug‑in browser development and digital media player clients (RealPlayer/Winamp class). This is the PHOSITA used by the district court's analysis (it credited expert testimony from both sides on exactly these technologies).

2. The prior art references relied on (the "scope and content of the prior art")

Corroborating signal that this subject matter became the state of the art. The '467 itself is now cited by petitioners as prior art against later patents — e.g., it appears as Exhibit 1005 ("Eyal") in the petitions at ptacts.uspto.gov (1549702/1549704), and is listed in Hulu LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC, IPR2021‑00158, Ex. 2007 as "U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 and systems by the original assignee Friskit, Inc."

3. Element‑by‑element: claim 1 (the verbatim independent claim)

Claim 1 recites: (i) receiving a multi‑site search request with criteria; (ii) accessing a memory of addresses, each associated with one or more classes of information, each addressing a media resource; (iii) selecting a plurality of addresses by comparing criteria to the classes; (iv) signaling them to the device; and (v) causing the device to access the sites and sequentially play back substantially automatically.

Result: claim 1 is obvious over IUMA Radio in view of M3U playlists (and, alternatively, Winamp+mp3.com/IUMA.com). IUMA Radio alone supplies the server‑side memory, selection, signaling, and automatic sequential playback; M3U supplies the address‑list/ordered‑playlist data structure. Motivation: both solve the same problem (hands‑free, ordered, multi‑address streaming playback) in the same field — the classic KSR combination.

4. The "programmatic control / direct control" claims (the asserted '467 claim 35 line)

This is where Friskit actually fought, and where it lost. Friskit's asserted '467 claim 35 was characterized in the record as requiring a media player controllable by a separate module (network server/search module) that provides media resource locators. The Federal Circuit found:

"IUMA Radio exhibited 'programmatic control.' That is, the server module transmitted a program consisting of Javascript and HTML code, which caused a local browser window to open and controlled the embedded media player."

and, even if not literally present:

"…it would have been trivial for one of ordinary skill in the art, starting with the prior art devices, to develop the control mechanisms described in the claims… server control was plainly the alternative to the client‑server model… the benefits of network control of local processes and the methods for implementing such control were well known."

Motivation to combine, in KSR terms, is over‑determined here:

1. Finite, identified, predictable solutions. The district court found each Friskit claim simply picked one of three control points — network server module, search module, or media player module — "to control the client in ways analogous to the prior art." KSR at 1742 (finite number of identified, predictable solutions + reasonable expectation of success ⇒ obvious).
2. Design need / market pressure. Consumer demand for on‑demand/continuous streaming music; the shift from dial‑up to cable/DSL; and the licensing of digital content — all recited by the CAFC as the conditions under which the claims became obvious.
3. Known technique applied to a similar device. API‑exposed player control was the intended purpose of Real's 1995 API disclosure — Express motivation, arguably teaching.
4. No technical incompatibility. The CAFC rejected teaching‑away because Friskit's evidence went to business/market forces, not technical infeasibility (Orthopedic Equip. Co.).

5. Mapping the remaining independent‑claim groups to art (per the prior section's Groups 2–24)

6. Secondary considerations — considered and rejected

The CAFC addressed all three proffered indicia and found no overcoming weight:

• Commercial success — no nexus; Friskit "failed to show that the success of those products was attributable to… programmatic control."
• Copying — "limited probative value in the absence of evidence of failed development efforts," and no proof the copied technology fell within the claims.
• Long‑felt need / teaching away — Friskit's evidence went to copyright risk, dial‑up bandwidth, and compatibility marketing — i.e., economic/commercial factors, not a technological incompatibility. Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013.

Net: no secondary consideration rebuts the prima facie case.

7. Bottom line and residual uncertainties

Bottom line. On the adjudicated record, the independent claims of the '467 — the search‑and‑play method (claim 1), the multi‑address/continuous‑playback systems, and the programmatic/direct‑control claims (including asserted claim 35) — are obvious under § 103(a) over IUMA Radio in view of one or more of mp3.com/IUMA.com, Winamp (+mini‑browser), M3U playlists, and the RealPlayer API/Java/JavaScript/ActiveX art, as applied under KSR. The motivation is strongest on the control‑mechanism claims (finite, identified, predictable solutions) and on the search‑and‑play claims (identical function, same field, explicit market pressure). Claim 1 in particular is close to anticipated by IUMA Radio + M3U alone; the courts disposed of the family on § 103 rather than § 102, so I present it as obviousness.

Uncertainties I will not paper over.

1. Claim‑number granularity. Only claim 1 is verbatim in my hands. The asserted '467 claim was 35 (per the district court/CAFC discussion), but I do not have its verbatim text. The grouping in the earlier section is reconstructed from the Summary of the Invention, not from the 68‑claim set.
2. Which claims were reached. The 2007 SJ order invalidated claims across five patents; the excerpted record shows claim‑specific treatment of the '275, '648, and '628, and references '467 claim 35. I cannot state that all 68 claims of the '467 were individually adjudicated.
3. The 2022 § 101 ruling is a different invalidity theory. Bluebonnet v. Pandora (N.D. Cal. 3:21‑cv‑08294, JOP 9/7/2022, aff'd Fed. Cir. 22‑2215) held the asserted claims invalid under § 101, not § 103. Do not merge the two theories; for an obviousness defense the 2007 RealNetworks § 103 record is the operative one.
4. Cited‑references list. The '467's own "(56) References Cited" block was not in the supplied page text and I did not retrieve it. Any reference I name from the family's citation list (e.g., the Hey collaborative‑filtering patents) is indicative only.
5. Docket‑folder discrepancy. The RealNetworks SJ order is archived under gov.uscourts.cand.175168, whereas the earlier section cited folder gov.uscourts.cand.15671. These are different archive paths; the underlying case is C 03‑05085 / 3:03‑cv‑05085. Flagging the inconsistency rather than picking one.

Sources

• '467 text: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6389467B1](/patent/US6389467B1)/en
• CAFC 07‑1583 opinion: http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/07-1583.pdf ; 306 F. App'x 610: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[209377](/patent/209377)/friskit-inc-v-real-networks-inc/
• District court SJ order: https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.175168/gov.uscourts.cand.175168.157.17.pdf ; mirrored https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/[1871910](/patent/1871910).pdf ; https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/friskit.pdf
• '467 as prior art: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549704/download-documents (Eyal = Ex. 1005); https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2021-00158/.../Exhibit_2007

Technical/legal research analysis based on public records; not legal advice.