Invalidity dossier
US 6560230
Packet scheduling methods and apparatus
Current assignee: Ericsson AB
Added 9/23/2026, 10:20:48 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US6560230B1
Title: Packet scheduling methods and apparatus
Patent number: US6560230B1 | Application number: US09/316,930
Inventor(s): Renwei Li; Peter Wai-Tong Kwong; Paul Terry; Ronald Leonard Westfall
Original assignee: Redback Networks Inc | Current assignee (per listing, which may be inaccurate): Ericsson AB
Priority date: 1999-02-01 | Filing date: 1999-05-21 | Publication/grant date: 2003-05-06
Legal status (as listed, an assumption and not a legal conclusion): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2019-05-21.
Purpose (plain language): The patent relates to transmitting data over communications networks, including wide area networks (WANs), and more specifically to methods and apparatus for scheduling data packets for transmission over a data link. The scheduling methods and apparatus may be used in systems providing a plurality of differentiated services each offering a different level of Quality of Service ("QoS") over wide area networks, with particular application in Internet Protocol ("IP") networks. The background explains that a WAN may carry many data types with differing requirements—for example, video conferencing needs large bandwidth, short latency, small delay jitter and reasonably small data loss, while e-mail can tolerate lower bandwidth and longer latencies but no data loss.
Scope indicated by listing: Classifications include traffic control in data switching networks, congestion control in relation to timing considerations, store-and-forward and packet switching systems, transfer mode dependent (e.g., ATM) systems, route determination based on requested QoS and on real-time traffic, flow classification (e.g., IntServ), queue scheduling including hierarchical scheduling, and ATM arbitration/scheduling.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6560230](/patent/US6560230)/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the claims, abstract, full description, or any prior-art references. It therefore does not establish the specific claimed scheduling technique, its novelty, validity, infringement, litigation history, or the accuracy of the listed assignee/legal status.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:32 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6560230. 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.