US 6564380

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation activity.

USPTO / CAFC Search Report — US Patent No. 6564380

Identifier verified literally: 6564380 (US6564380B1). Sources: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6564380](/patent/US6564380)/en), Espacenet (https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?...NR=[6564380B1](/patent/6564380B1)...). No similar-number results substituted.

1. Bibliographic data

Assignment chain (per Google Patents reassignment records):

• 2003-03-21 — assigned to Pixelworld Networks, Inc. (from Murphy)
• 2007-06-07 / 2007-07-24 — assigned to Landis Software Storage, LLC / L.L.C.
• 2015-10-28 — assigned to S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC (via merger with Landis Software Storage L.L.C.)
• "Current Assignee" field lists S Aqua Semiconductor LLC (Google notes this may be inaccurate and is not a legal conclusion).

2. Abstract (as granted)

An Internet-based video feed management system controls, manages, and administers commercial distribution of live video feeds from on-site video cameras and other sources to production companies at other locations. It uses a network of local video-propagation servers in different localities receiving feeds from source locations, plus a master authorization server that receives and grants requests via Internet from requesting parties. The master server issues an access code and establishes a unique publishing point for the requested feed from the handling propagation server. Feeds may be delivered live or stored/cached and re-transmitted later. The master server has a master feed list and pricing table for computing billings to requesting parties and payments to feed sources; the feed list is updated by feed listings input to the propagation servers. For live feeds from different camera types, a requesting party may remotely control the camera over the Internet via a universal control panel GUI in the browser issuing command codes corresponding to the camera type. The system can automatically generate video Web pages hosted on the master server and linked to clients' Web sites, using selectable display templates and uploaded client identification graphics.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

The granted patent contains five claims total: two independent (claims 1 and 3) and three dependent (claims 2, 4, 5). Note that the granted claim set is materially narrower than the "Summary of the Invention," which describes broader video-feed-management and billing/pricing aspects that do not appear as independent claims. (Source: Espacenet claim text for US6564380 B1.)

Claim 1 — "Video feed remote control system" (independent).
A system combining: (a) video feeds from on-site cameras of different predetermined camera types; (b) video-camera-computers controlling the cameras, Internet-connected and individually IP-addressable; (c) at least one video-propagation server receiving the feeds over the Internet; (d) a master authorization server receiving access requests over the Internet and granting access to a requested feed; and (e) a universal control panel GUI on the requesting party's browser-enabled computer for controlling any of the different camera types. Critically, on granting access the master server gives the requester (i) the camera-type identification and (ii) the IP address of the camera's computer, so the requester can send type-appropriate control signals directly to that IP address. The claim then requires that the universal GUI and a plurality of control panel GUI files reside on the requester's browser-enabled computer, each GUI file corresponding to a respective camera type and issuing that type's set of command codes. (So the type-mapping logic is client-side in this claim.)

Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1). Covers the alternative, server-side conversion architecture: the universal GUI is a browser-based GUI file on the requester's computer; the video-propagation server provides the link from the requester's computer to the camera computers; and a command-code conversion module at the propagation server converts universal command codes into camera-type-specific command codes.

Claim 3 — "Automated video Web page generating system" (independent).
A system with: (a) video feeds from respective sources; (b) at least one video-propagation server receiving the feeds and transmitting a requested feed over the Internet; (c) a master authorization server receiving a request to use a feed in a requested display presentation format in conjunction with a video Web page to be linked to the requesting party's Web site; and (d) a video Web page generation module on the master server that automatically generates the video Web page in the requested format and links it to the client's Web site. The claim further requires the master server to include means for selecting a display template from a plurality of stored templates and for uploading the requester's identification graphics for incorporation into the selected template.

Claim 4 (dependent on claim 3). Narrows to video Web page advertising: the templates include a selection of ad display templates for use with the client company's identification graphics and any requested video feed.

Claim 5 (dependent on claim 3). Narrows to live events programming for a video production company, hosted by the master authorization server and linked to the production company's Web site.

4. Litigation / CAFC 2026 check

I searched for CAFC 2026 scheduled-argument calendars, Federal Circuit updates, PTAB hearing schedules, and district-court dockets referencing this patent or its assignees (Pixelworld Networks, Landis Software Storage, S. Aqua Semiconductor).

Result: I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, oral-argument listing, PTAB proceeding, or active district-court complaint tied to US 6564380. The only "6564380" hits retrieved were:

• US6564380B1 itself (Google Patents, Espacenet, uspto.report);
• an unrelated Japanese patent JP 6564380 B2 (a prostate-cancer compound filing — a coincidence of numbering, not the US patent);
• a stray "6564380" string inside a PTAB IPR exhibit (filing-history document), which is not a litigation reference to this patent.

Uncertainty note: I could not verify any litigation history for this patent through the searches performed. This is consistent with the patent being expired as of 2020-01-24 (20 years from the 2000-01-24 filing), which makes new 2026 infringement actions unlikely (though a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal from an older suit is not impossible and cannot be ruled out from the available search results). I do not have authoritative confirmation of any such appeal, so I am not asserting one exists. For a definitive check, the USPTO PatentCenter "Events" tab for application 09/490,628, the PTAB API, and the CAFC PACER/CM-ECF docket system should be queried directly.

Sources cited:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US6564380/en
• https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?DB=&ND=15&locale=en_IE&FT=D&date=20030513&CC=US&NR=6564380B1&KC=B1&tree=false
• https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?locale=en_IE&CC=US&II=16&date=20030513&NR=6564380B1&ND=13&KC=B1
• https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6564380
• https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf (no 6564380 entry)

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6564380. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Let me search for the known assignees, which are frequent patent litigants.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent No. 6,564,380

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US Patent No. 6,564,380. Despite running multiple targeted searches (including for the patent number itself, for infringement cases, and for the patent's known assignees), I could not identify any district court case, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding asserting or challenging this specific patent.

What I searched and what I found

Important caveats and disambiguation

1. I could not directly load the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or PACER/CAFC dockets in this session, so this is not an exhaustive docket-level verification. My conclusion rests on web-search coverage of litigation and the patent's own record. You should confirm against Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, and PACER directly before relying on a "no litigation" conclusion.

2. Do not confuse this patent with similarly numbered ones. My searches surfaced several unrelated "438" patents that are not US 6,564,380:

   • JP 6564380 B2 — Japanese patent for prostate-cancer compounds (chemistry).
   • The '438 patent discussed in CyWee Group v. Samsung (N.D. Cal., Case No. 2:17-cv-00140) and the GEA438 reference in a Provisur IPR are different patents entirely.
   • US 6,564,380 appears in these records only as a cited/information-disclosure reference, not as an asserted patent.

3. Procedural/ownership facts from the patent record (Google Patents, US6564380B1), which bear on litigation risk but are not themselves litigation:

   • Priority date: 1999-01-26; filed 2000-01-24; granted 2003-05-13.
   • Original assignee: Pixelworld Networks Inc; inventor Greg Murphy.
   • Ownership transfers: Landis Software Storage LLC / L.L.C. (2007) → S. Aqua Semiconductor LLC (2015, via merger).
   • Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2020-01-24.

Assessment

The patent expired in January 2020, and its chain of title ran through IP-holding/monetization entities (Landis Software Storage, then S. Aqua Semiconductor). Although those entities are the type that occasionally assert patents, I found no record of any suit, and I cannot state with high confidence whether any litigation ever existed — the paid docketing databases I'd normally use to confirm a negative (Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, PACER) were not fully accessible here.

Recommended next step: Query Unified Patents (patent profile for 6564380), Docket Alarm, and PACER (search "6564380" in the patent field) to confirm the negative before relying on it.

If you'd like, I can run additional searches against specific likely defendants or the two currently/formerly associated entities to try to surface any case.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 6,564,380: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and targeted web searches for this patent number plus assignee/inventor names (S. Aqua Semiconductor, Pixelworld Networks, Greg Murphy) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC appeal — only false positives on other patents (see "Search hygiene" below). Status breakdown is therefore: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "hardened by two IPRs" and not "claims 1–5 canceled" — it is unusual in a stronger way: the patent is untested at the PTAB and, per the face of the Google Patents record, expired as of 2020-01-24. That expiration, not any PTAB outcome, is the dominant defensive fact.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical list is empty and my searches produced nothing, I am not creating per-proceeding subsections. I will not invent proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions. What follows instead documents (a) what I searched and what came back, and (b) the substantive posture that follows from an empty PTAB docket.

Search hygiene / false positives flagged (so the next analyst doesn't chase them):

• US 8,441,438 (CyWee Group Ltd.) — this is a different patent (3D pointing device / six-axis motion sensor), and dominates any query containing "438" + PTAB. CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE USA, Inc., IPR2018-01258, and related Google/LGE IPRs are not about US 6,564,380. The Fed. Cir. decision is public at https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CyWee-Group-Ltd.-v.-ZTE-USA-Inc.-opinion-below.pdf.
• JP 6564380 B2 — a Japanese patent on prostate-cancer compounds (https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6564380B2). Different jurisdiction, different subject matter.
• U.S. App. No. PCT/US2000/001645 / WO2000044169A1 / AU2735300A — these are the international counterparts of this patent (listed in the ODP block as priority filings), not proceedings.
• The only genuine hits on "6564380" in the PTAB record are prior-art citation mentions inside third-party petitions (e.g., Google's IPR2024-00233 exhibit quoting a file history that cites '380). A citation in someone else's exhibit is not a proceeding against this patent.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status: entirely UNTESTED. No claim of US 6,564,380 has been canceled, confirmed, or even evaluated in an AIA trial. There is no FWD, no Board claim construction, no institution decision — so there are no "surviving claims" to list as narrowed-by-IPR, and no claim numbers to quote because none were adjudicated. (I also note the claim text itself was truncated in the source corpus I was given — it cuts off mid-sentence in the "Remote Control via Internet" section before the claims — so I have not independently verified the claim count and will not state claim numbers.)

Estoppel landscape: none attaches. This is the key practitioner point. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by an IPR that is instituted and carried to a final written decision (and CBM/PGR have parallel provisions). Where no petition was ever filed — or where institution was denied — no estoppel arises, and the earlier SAS/partial-institution refinements are irrelevant. Practically: a defendant today faces zero IPR estoppel. Every § 102/§ 103 ground and every reference — including art a petitioner "reasonably could have raised" — remains available in district court or the ITC, subject only to the ordinary rules (and, if a civil action was filed first, the § 315(a)(1) bar on later-filed IPRs).

Pattern signals: (i) no repeat-petitioner pattern exists, because there is no petitioner at all; (ii) no patent-owner appellate behavior to assess — no Aqua Products-type motion-to-amend fight, no Rule 36 affirmances, no CAFC docket; (iii) no defensive aggregator in the chain. The ownership history is a classic monetization trail: Pixelworld Networks, Inc. (original assignee, 2003) → Landis Software Storage, LLC / L.L.C. (2007) → S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC (2015, by merger). The absence of a Unified Patents–style preemptive challenge on a 1999-priority media-delivery patent that has sat in a known NPE's portfolio for a decade is itself a signal — most likely because the patent's remaining life was too short to justify the cost of a petition.

The real posture — expiration, not PTAB. Per the ODP/Google Patents record: priority 1999-01-26, filed 2000-01-24, granted 2003-05-13, "Anticipated expiration" 2020-01-24 (20 years from the 2000-01-24 non-provisional filing; no PTA evident). Status is "Expired – Lifetime." Two consequences matter more than any IPR:

1. No prospective relief. The patent cannot be infringed after 2020-01-24, so there is nothing to enjoin and no ongoing royalty base. Any assertion today is necessarily a past-damages claim.
2. § 286 may bar recovery outright. Damages run back only six years from the complaint. As of today (2026-09-27), that window opens 2020-09-27 — eight months after the patent expired. Unless a complaint was filed earlier (e.g., in 2020 or before, preserving a pre-expiration window), a newly filed suit appears to have no actionable period of infringement left to recover for. This is a threshold, potentially case-dispositive defense — and it costs nothing to raise, unlike an IPR petition.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not plan an IPR budget first. With the patent expired and no PTAB history, a petition would buy no estoppel-clearing benefit and no prospective relief. IPR of an expired patent is legally available (the Board has instituted on expired patents), but the return is essentially zero for a defendant unless a live past-damages theory makes claim cancellation outcome-determinative.
2. Verify the docket, not just the PTAB. Confirm via USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) and PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) that (a) no reissue, reexamination, or inter partes reexamination exists, and (b) expiration was for failure to pay maintenance fees and no petition to revive/accept late payment is pending. Also confirm the chain of title (Pixelworld → Landis → S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC) — assignment records are at https://assignment.uspto.gov.
3. Pull the enforcement history. S. Aqua Semiconductor is an established assertion vehicle; the highest-value next search is a docket sweep (CourtListener RECAP, https://www.courtlistener.com; Docket Alarm; Lex Machina) for all cases asserting 6,564,380, with filing dates. That single data point determines whether the § 286 argument above is a complete bar or whether a pre-2020 complaint preserved a damages window.
4. If a demand letter arrives citing 6,564,380:
   • Demand the asserted claim numbers and the accused products/dates of first infringement. If the accused conduct all post-dates 2020-01-24, the patent simply does not reach it.
   • Assert § 286 as the lead defense if suit is filed now without a prior complaint.
   • Note that because no AIA trial ever occurred, no estoppel constrains your invalidity case — you may raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, and you may also pursue § 101 (the claims are directed to video-feed distribution and billing, squarely within the Alice/Bilski line) free of any IPR-estoppel argument by the patent owner.
5. If active proceedings do materialize later (i.e., a recently filed petition appears at PTAB E2E or in a § 315(b) window), the standard milestones apply: institution decision within 6 months of the petition's filing, and a statutory 1-year deadline from institution to the FWD — plus any § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to exploit — but there is something better. Use the empty PTAB docket to defeat any estoppel narrative the patent owner may imply ("this patent has been validated"), and lead with expiration plus § 286 before spending a dollar on validity.

Confidence notes: I have high confidence in the "no AIA trial proceedings" finding (structured ODP block + searches) and in the expiration date as recorded by Google Patents. I have lower confidence on the absence of district court enforcement history for this patent and on the exact claim count; both should be verified against PTAB E2E, PatentCenter, and a litigation docket service before being relied on in a filing.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6564380, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me search for specific assignment record details and the entities in the chain.

I was unable to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame and correspondent fields within this session (direct queries to assignmentcenter.uspto.gov and the legacy assignment.uspto.gov index did not return record-level data through the search tooling available, and I hit the step limit before exhausting alternative routes). I will not invent reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. Everything below rests on the assignment events documented on the patent's Google Patents legal-events record plus public reporting on the original assignee. Where a required field is unavailable, I say so explicitly.

Inventors

• Greg Murphy — sole named inventor (US), also the named inventor on the priority provisional (US 60/117,439, "System and method for sending live video on the internet," filed 1999-01-26).
  • Employer at filing: PixelWorld Networks, Inc., where Murphy served as founder / President & CEO. Public reporting identifies PixelWorld as "'Aiea-based" (Hawaii), founded 1998 by CEO Greg Murphy, "a distributor of online video" with "patent-pending technology for the distribution of live and on-demand video" (Honolulu Advertiser, 2001-06-16: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jun/16/bz/bz04a.html). So the inventor was an officer/founder of the original assignee, not a rank-and-file employee.
  • Departure pattern: I found no evidence of the inventor departing before the 2003 assignment. On the contrary, Murphy is the assignor on two separate recorded transfers to PixelWorld (2003-03-21 and again 2007-06-12) and is still described as PixelWorld's CEO in 2001 reporting. The tell here is the opposite of an inventor walk-out: it is a late-recorded, twice-repeated inventor→company assignment, i.e., chain-of-title clean-up rather than exodus. (No reel/frame retrievable for either recording.)

Original assignee

• PixelWorld Networks, Inc. (also styled "Pixelworld Networks Inc" / "PIXELWORLD NETWORK, INC" on the WO publication). Issued patent lists Pixelworld Networks Inc; the WO counterpart (WO 2000044169 A1) lists "PIXELWORLD NETWORK INC [US]."
• Line of business: An operating online-video distributor. It shipped/commercialized services embodying the concept — notably MarriageLive.com (live and on-demand webcasts of hotel weddings with password-protected viewing; partnership with Sheraton Waikiki, Ritz-Carlton Maui, Royal Hawaiian) and SurfingLive Direct (Duke's Waikiki, Honolua Surf Co.). See Honolulu Advertiser 2001-06-16 and Hawaii Business ("Wedding bands & BROADBANDS," https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wedding+bands+%26+BROADBANDS.-a072892159). This is a product-bearing operating company, not a licensing shell.
• Current status: Operating history ended; current corporate status not confirmed. Reporting places a 2001 joint venture with Steeplechase Media Inc. (headed by E! founder Larry Namer). I did not find a bankruptcy filing, dissolution record, or an acquisition announcement for PixelWorld in the sources retrieved. The 2007 transfers of the patent to Landis Software Storage LLC are consistent with the operating company winding down around/after 2007, but I cannot confirm the cause (asset sale vs. assignment as collateral). Treat "dissolved/acquired" as unconfirmed rather than asserted.

Assignment timeline

Recorded events appearing on the Google Patents legal-events record for US 6564380 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6564380/en). Reel/frame and correspondent-of-record could not be retrieved this session — those fields are left explicitly unresolved rather than guessed.

• 2003-03-21 (recording date; execution date shown as same) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Murphy, Greg
  • Assignee: PixelWorld Networks, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Late confirmation of the inventor's original assignment to his own company — recorded ~3.2 years after the Jan 2000 filing and ~2 months before grant, i.e., a chain-of-title clean-up rather than a contemporaneous employment assignment.

• 2007-06-07 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PixelWorld Networks, Inc.
  • Assignee: Landis Software Storage, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer of the patent out of the operating company to a holding entity — first attempt / first recording of the exit from PixelWorld.

• 2007-06-12 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Murphy, Greg
  • Assignee: PixelWorld Networks Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: A second, later-recorded inventor→PixelWorld confirmation that post-dates the June 7 sale to Landis on the record — a logical-ordering anomaly indicating a due-diligence re-record (the link from Murphy had to be perfected for the buyer's title record).

• 2007-07-24 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PixelWorld Networks, Inc.
  • Assignee: Landis Software Storage L.L.C. (note the second ".L.L.C." spelling)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Re-recording/correction of the June 7 conveyances to Landis, under a corrected assignee spelling. The pair of near-identical June-7 and Jul-24 Landis transfers is the classic signature of a defective first recording followed by correction — consistent with an M&A / portfolio transaction closing out of PixelWorld.

• 2015-10-28 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Landis Software Storage L.L.C.
  • Assignee: S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / entity-succession by merger — the patent leaves the intermediate holder (Landis) and lands at S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC.

Flag — contradiction with the prior generated section: None material. The prior section listed the same five events; this pass adds the duplicate 2007-06-07 and 2007-07-24 Landis recordings and the ordering anomaly of the 2007-06-12 Murphy→PixelWorld re-record, which were not called out before. Both sections agree the patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2020-01-24).

Because no reel/frame numbers were retrievable, the timeline should be re-verified field-by-field at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 6564380) before being relied on for any standing/title purpose.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6564380
    1999 : Provisional filed by Greg Murphy
    2000 : Non-provisional filed by Pixelworld
    2003 : Patent issued to Pixelworld Networks
         : Murphy assigns to Pixelworld
    2007 : Pixelworld assigns to Landis Storage
         : Murphy re-confirms grant to Pixelworld
         : Landis transfer re-recorded with correction
    2015 : Landis merged into S Aqua Semiconductor
    2020 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (moderate). The patent moved from a product-shipping operating company (PixelWorld, per the Honolulu Advertiser / Hawaii Business reporting on MarriageLive.com and SurfingLive Direct) to Landis Software Storage, LLC/L.L.C. (2007-06-07 and 2007-07-24) and ultimately to S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC (2015-10-28). Both terminal holders carry holding/portfolio-style names and I found no products in commerce for either. Caveat: I could not retrieve the recorded addresses or confirm registered-agent–service addresses, so the "shell" call rests on the operating→holding transfer pattern, not on address evidence; the "LLC name alone" inference is not being relied on.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear / not established. The current assignee, S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC, appeared in a GreyB market report as a semiconductor patent seller (i.e., a patent monetization/market participant). However, I found no S. Aqua Semiconductor, Landis Software Storage, or PixelWorld entry on the RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff lists, and no Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Pendrell linkage. This is a weak signal, not a confirmed "known asserter" hit.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data unavailable). The single most diagnostic field for this analysis — the correspondent of record on each recording — could not be retrieved this session. Without it I cannot say whether one attorney/firm recorded the 2007 Pixelworld→Landis transfer(s) and the 2015 Landis→S. Aqua merger. This is the key gap to close; the repeated/mis-spelled Landis recordings (June 7 vs. July 24, 2007) are exactly the kind of entries a single repeat-player correspondent would have filed.

4. Cascading transfers — not present as defined. Transfers are spread over 2003 → 2007 → 2015, i.e., roughly 4 and 8 years apart, not the "<24 months through chained LLCs" pattern. The 2007 cluster (Jun 7, Jun 12, Jul 24) is a title clean-up within a single transaction, not a cascade of distinct shell sales.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement suit naming US 6564380 (consistent with my earlier litigation section), so there is no suit within 6 months of any assignment to anchor this signal. Absent a suit, I cannot map a litigation-driven transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — unclear / unconfirmed. PixelWorld's corporate end-state is unverified; the 2007 exit is consistent with a wind-down or distressed asset sale but I found no Chapter 7/11 record tying the transfer to insolvency proceedings. Not asserted.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE assertion-on-behalf pattern found; no SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure surfaced (PixelWorld was private).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. It terminates at a monetization-style holder (S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC via merger from Landis Software Storage L.L.C., 2015-10-28), so the patent has not been neutralized defensively.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence (one strong-ish signal plus one weak signal; the confirming correspondent/reel data is missing).

Justification: the patent left a product-shipping operating company (PixelWorld Networks, whose MarriageLive.com / SurfingLive Direct services embody the claimed live-video distribution) and passed first to Landis Software Storage, LLC (2007-06-07, re-recorded 2007-07-24) and then, by merger, to S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC (2015-10-28) — two non-operating holding entities, the latter appearing in a GreyB market listing as a patent seller. That operating→holding transfer-to-asserter pattern is the driving signal; it is held to moderate rather than high confidence because the reel/frame and correspondent fields were not retrievable, and because no assertion/litigation was ever found to corroborate an active monetization campaign (the patent expired 2020-01-24).

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 6564380): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy USPTO Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6564380/en
• Unified Patents / RPX asserter directories (to confirm the negative on signals 2 and 5): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ and https://www.rpxcorp.com/

Bottom line for the reviewer: the title chain is reconstructable in entity-and-date terms (five recorded events, 2003→2015, ending at S. Aqua Semiconductor, LLC), but the reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record could not be pulled in this session and must be captured directly from the Assignment Center — those are precisely the fields needed to move signal 3 from "unclear" to "present/absent" and to upgrade or downgrade the verdict.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 6564380. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me retrieve the full citation list and details for each reference.

Let me gather details on the key references and confirm the remaining cited documents.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 6564380 B1

Patent under analysis: US 6,564,380 B1 ("System and method for sending live video on the internet"), inventor Greg Murphy, original assignee Pixelworld Networks, Inc., appl. 09/490,628 filed 2000‑01‑24, granted 2003‑05‑13, priority US provisional 60/117,439 filed 1999‑01‑26 (PCT/US2000/001645; WO 2000044169 A1). Identifier interpreted literally as 6564380; the unrelated Japanese patent JP 6564380 B2 (prostate‑cancer compounds) surfaced in search and is expressly excluded, as are the unrelated "GEA438"/CyWee '438 references.

0. Sourcing note and a material gap — please read first

The authoritative Google Patents text supplied for this patent is a body‑text extraction that omits the front‑page citation tables ("Patent Citations," "Cited By," "Foreign Patent Documents," "Other References"). I therefore rebuilt the citation list from the EPO's companion record, which is the same search-report data filed in the U.S. case:

Espacenet, "List of all citations: US6564380 (B1) — 2003‑05‑13," 10 documents cited.
https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=US&NR=[6564380B1](/patent/6564380B1)&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=13&date=20030513&DB=&locale=en_IE

Two honesty flags:

1. Espacenet reports 10 cited documents, split into "Patents cited in the search report" (items 1–8) and "Patents cited by the applicant" (items 9–10). I retrieved items 1–9 in full but could not recover item 10 — the listing truncated it. Item 10 is unverified and must be pulled from the actual PTO‑892/SB‑08 in PatentCenter before this analysis is treated as complete.
2. Espacenet shows no X/Y/A relevance categories for the U.S. search report (U.S. examiners use Form PTO‑892, which does not categorize). Any statement below about which claims a reference touches is my own § 102 element mapping, not the examiner's — I could not access the examiner's reasons for allowance or the original office actions in this session.

Also note: the "≈658 citing documents" that Espacenet lists for this patent are forward citations (later patents citing '380). They are not prior art to '380 and are not analyzed here.

1. Legal framework (this is a pre‑AIA patent)

Application 09/490,628 was filed 2000‑01‑24, so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern. Two different critical dates matter, and the distinction is dispositive for several references:

Consequence: because nearly the entire citation set is § 102(e) art, each reference is potentially swear‑behindable under Rule 131 — it is competent to anticipate, but the applicant could in principle remove it as prior art by proving an earlier invention date. US 5,619,247 is the one reference that is § 102(b) art and therefore not removable.

Anticipation standard reminder: a reference anticipates a claim under § 102 only if it discloses every element as arranged in the claim. Most of what follows is materiality / obviousness analysis rather than true anticipation.

2. The citation table

Recall from the previously generated sections that the granted patent has five claims: independent claims 1 and 3, dependents 2 (server‑side code conversion), 4 (ad templates) and 5 (live‑events programming) — the claim set is materially narrower than the Summary of the Invention. That matters here: several cited references map onto disclosed-but-unclaimed subject matter (feed lists, pricing tables, billing/payment), which they cannot anticipate because no claim covers it.

Note on item 9's assignee/filing detail: I confirmed the title, "Burns et al.," and the 1999‑11‑23 grant date from the record but did not independently verify the assignee or the underlying application filing date in this session; verify in PatentCenter before relying on the § 102(e) date.

3. Reference‑by‑reference detail

3.1 US 5,619,247 — Russo / Smart VCR (item 1, the only § 102(b) reference)

"Stored program pay‑per‑view," granted 1997‑04‑08, priority 1995‑02‑24, CPC G06Q20/145 / H04N21/2543. Describes storing a program and enabling pay‑per‑view access with subscriber authorization and billing.

• Potential § 102 read against '380: touches only the authorization‑and‑billing concepts that appear in the '380 specification/Summary (access codes, pricing, payment to sources) but that were not carried into the granted claims. It does not disclose on‑site cameras of differing types, IP‑addressable camera computers, a propagation server, a master authorization server granting Internet access to a live feed, or a universal control‑panel GUI. No granted claim is anticipated.
• Why it matters anyway: it is the only citation that is not swear‑behindable, so it is the most robust § 102/§ 103 anchor for the commercial‑model disclosure, and it constrains any broadening of the disclosure that might be attempted in a continuation or reissue.

3.2 US 5,956,716 — Kenner/Gruber / InterVU (item 2)

"System and method for delivery of video data over a computer network," granted 1999‑09‑21, priority 1995‑06‑07. InterVU was a commercial streaming‑video delivery network; the patent describes storing video on network servers and delivering requested video to users over the network.

• Potential § 102 read: most directly material to claim 1 elements (b) and (c) (network‑connected video servers that receive/transmit requested video) and claim 3 element (b) (at least one video‑propagation server transmitting a requested feed over the Internet). It does not disclose the master authorization server's access‑code/publishing‑point grant, and it does not disclose the camera‑type‑specific universal GUI of claim 1(e) or the template‑based web‑page generator of claim 3(d). Likely § 103 rather than § 102 art for claims 1 and 3; not anticipatory of claims 2, 4, 5.
• Cross‑reference: the '380 specification itself names INTERVU Network, Inc. as the co‑vendor of the "Screening Room™" video‑asset‑management system — i.e., the applicant knew this family of art. That is a § 102(a)/§ 103 "known to the applicant" point the examiner could press.

3.3 US 5,991,801 — Rebec / Trans Video Electronics (item 3)

"Global digital video news distribution system," granted 1999‑11‑23, priority 1993‑04‑16 (CPC H04N2007/145 among others — i.e., video‑communication/distribution).

• Potential § 102 read: relevant to the globally distributed, geographically sited server topology of claim 1(c)/(d) and to the claim‑3(a) "feeds obtained from respective sources" element. It is not directed to browser‑based camera control or type‑specific command codes, and it lacks the master‑authorization/publishing‑point structure. Not anticipatory; § 103 material for the distribution spine of claims 1 and 3.

3.4 US 6,072,982 — Haddad (item 4)

"Interactive audiovisual distribution system," granted 2000‑06‑06, priority 1994‑08‑02, CPC H04N7/17318 / H04N7/17336 (VOD/interactive TV).

• Potential § 102 read: maps to the "video‑on‑demand / stored feed / per‑request accounting" disclosure that appears in the '380 specification and Summary but is not claimed. No granted claim read.

3.5 US 6,115,035 — Compton/Walter / MediaOne + US West (item 5)

"System and method for automated audio/video archive and distribution," granted 2000‑09‑05, priority 1997‑07‑21, CPC H04N21/21, H04N21/23, H04N21/6125.

• Potential § 102 read: closest cited art to the "store/cache a live feed at the local server and re‑transmit later" sentence in claim 1's specification support (and to the local‑PoP video‑data‑storage disclosure in FIG. 3). Because the granted claims do not separately claim archival/re‑transmission (claim 1 is directed to the remote‑control GUI elements), this is § 103 material for the storage aspect only.

3.6 US 6,133,941 — Ono / Canon (item 6) — the most material cited reference

Granted 2000‑10‑17; U.S. appl. 08/956,552 filed 1997‑10‑23; JP priority 1996‑10‑25. Title in full: "Camera control system, apparatus, and method which includes a camera control server that receives camera control requests from clients and issues control authority and wait times for control of camera to clients." https://patents.google.com/patent/US6133941

What it discloses (from the printed specification):

• A camera control server (11) with a camera control unit (11b), a control‑authority management unit (11c) arbitrating between multiple camera control clients (101, 101a, 101b) over "a LAN, WAN, Internet, or the like" (network 12).

• A camera (11a) whose "pan and tilt angles, zoom ratio, and the like can be controlled by external commands," with a plurality of cameras connectable to one camera control server.

• Browser‑based client control: the client WWW browser loads web‑page data containing an <embed src="camera1.wvp" …> tag/hyperlink pointing to the camera server, downloads the data file, and a camera‑controller module plus picture‑display module establishes connection to the camera control server.

• A graphical control panel (scroll bars 301/302/303 for pan, tilt, zoom) with indices showing commanded vs. present camera parameters.

• Server registration/authentication of clients (connection request accepted/rejected; control‑right assignment, waiting queue, priority levels in a registered table).

• § 102 read against claim 1: discloses elements (a)‑in‑part (cameras at sites, remotely controllable), (b) in part (camera‑connected computer/server on a network), (c)/(d) functionally (a server receiving requests over the Internet), and (e) in part (a browser‑resident camera‑control GUI). It does not disclose: cameras "of a predetermined different video camera types," the master authorization server / propagation server division of labor, the master server's act of returning the camera‑type ID and the camera computer's IP address to the requester, or the plurality of control‑panel GUI files each mapped to a camera type and emitting that type's command‑code set. Under the all‑elements rule, claim 1 is not anticipated; Ono is the natural § 103 primary reference for claim 1 and for claim 2's "conversion module" concept (Ono's camera control unit (11b) sits between the network message format and the camera's native command set, i.e., a functional analogue of the claim‑2 propagation‑server conversion module).

• § 102 read against claim 3: nothing relevant (no web‑page generation, no templates, no uploaded identification graphics). Not anticipatory.

3.7 US 6,157,377 — Shah‑Nazaroff/Goldschmidt / Intel (item 7)

"Method and apparatus for purchasing upgraded media features for programming transmissions," granted 2000‑12‑05, priority 1998‑10‑30.

• Potential § 102 read: relevant only to the pricing/upgrade‑purchase disclosure (FIG. 6 Pricing Table, tiered "Use Rights") that the '380 Summary describes but does not claim. No granted claim read.

3.8 US 6,160,544 — Hayashi/Okunaka / Tokyo Broadcasting + NTT Electronics (item 8)

"Digital video distribution system," granted 2000‑12‑12, priority 1997‑05‑12, CPC including H04N21/2187 (live/real‑time video distribution).

• Potential § 102 read: bears on claim 1(c) and claim 3(b) (network distribution of digital video to requesting viewers), and is the second‑closest general‑distribution reference after US 5,956,716. Silent on camera‑type code conversion and on automated template‑based web‑page generation. Not anticipatory; § 103 material.

3.9 US 5,991,306 — Burns et al. (item 9, applicant‑cited)

"Pull based, intelligent caching system and method for delivering data over a network," granted 1999‑11‑23.

• Potential § 102 read: the "pull‑based caching at intermediate servers" teaching maps to the '380 FIG. 3 video data storage 350 and to the specification's statement that a live feed "can be stored or cached… from which it can be re‑transmitted later upon request." Again, this is not an element of any granted claim; it is § 103 background on the caching/publishing infrastructure. It also indicates applicant awareness of cache‑pull architectures, which weakens any argument that the PoP caching design was unexpected.

4. Bottom line

1. No cited reference anticipates any of claims 1–5. Each of the five claims includes at least one element absent from every listed reference — principally, for claim 1, the combination of (i) cameras of predetermined different types, (ii) a master authorization server that returns the camera‑type identification and the camera computer's IP address together with access, and (iii) type‑specific control‑panel GUI files or a propagation‑server conversion module; and, for claim 3, the template‑selection plus identification‑graphics‑upload plus automated web‑page‑generation module.
2. The most relevant cited prior art is US 6,133,941 (Ono / Canon, filed 1997‑10‑23, JP priority 1996‑10‑25). It is the only citation directed at browser‑mediated remote control of a network camera with a server arbitrating control, for multiple clients and multiple cameras. It is a strong § 103 primary reference against claim 1 (and a close functional analogue for claim 2's conversion module), but it lacks the camera‑type‑abstraction and master‑authorization teachings.
3. US 5,956,716 (InterVU), US 5,991,801 (Trans Video Electronics) and US 6,160,544 (Tokyo Broadcasting/NTT) form the distribution‑architecture cluster relevant to claim 1(c)/(d) and claim 3(b); US 6,115,035 and US 5,991,306 are the caching/archival cluster relevant to the specification's store‑and‑re‑transmit disclosure.
4. US 5,619,247, US 6,072,982 and US 6,157,377 map to subject matter (pricing tables, billing/payment statements, VOD entitlement) that appears in the '380 Summary of the Invention but that the applicant chose not to claim in the granted claim set. They cannot anticipate a claim that does not exist; they matter as evidence that these features were known, and US 5,619,247 uniquely blocks any attempt to capture that subject matter now (§ 102(b), not swear‑behindable).
5. Dates drive the analysis. Only US 5,619,247 is § 102(b) art on either candidate critical date. The other eight are § 102(e) art — competent, but theoretically removable by a Rule 131 showing of earlier invention.

5. What must still be verified before this is treated as complete

• Citation item 10 — not retrieved (see § 0). Pull the PTO‑892/SB‑08 from USPTO PatentCenter, application 09/490,628, "Events"/"Documents" tab, and the PCT ISR in PCT/US2000/001645 / WO 2000044169 A1, which will list the same references plus any foreign search‑report additions.
• Google Patents front‑page tables ("Patent Citations," "Foreign Patent Documents," "Other References," "Cited By") for US6564380 — absent from the authoritative text supplied, so I could not confirm whether any non‑patent literature (e.g., a printed publication on streaming/CDN architecture) was cited; the '380 specification itself names Sensormatic's Speed Dome Ultra™ and RV2216 switcher, Eyecast.com, Perception Robotics, Broadcast.com, MAX.i.c.Live's 3600 System, Microsoft's Windows Media Management/Rights Management systems, and the Excalibur/INTERVU "Screening Room™" system — any of which could have been submitted as § 102(a)/(b) art.
• Examiner's relevance characterizations — U.S. search reports are uncategorized, so § 102 vs. § 103 treatment of each reference can only be confirmed from the office actions in the file wrapper, not from the citation list.

Sources: https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=US&NR=6564380B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=13&date=20030513&DB=&locale=en_IE ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6564380/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6133941 ; https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?locale=en_IE&CC=US&date=20030513&NR=6564380B1&ND=14&KC=B1 ; https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&NR=6564380B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=13&date=20030513&DB=&locale=en_IE

I'll pull the actual prior-art record for this patent before building the §103 combinations.

Good — I have the search-report citations. Let me pull the full cited-documents list and the details of the two most load-bearing references (Canon's Ono camera-control patent and Intervu's Kenner/Gruber video-delivery patent).

Let me close two gaps: the applicant-cited reference and the non-patent prior art named in the Background (Perception Robotics / MAX.i.c.Live / Eyecast).

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,564,380 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / cross-reference discipline. This analysis builds on the previously generated sections rather than repeating them. Two housekeeping flags first:

1. Contradiction between prior sections (flagged). The "Patent summary" section asserts the granted set is five claims (2 independent — cl. 1 and cl. 3 — and 3 dependent) with claim text drawn from Espacenet. The later "PTAB challenges → Strategic summary" section expressly declined to state a claim count because "the claim text itself was truncated in the source corpus." Those two positions cannot both be operative. I rely on the five-claim structure (the more specific, source-cited account) and note that independent verification against the granted printed claim set is warranted before any filing.
2. Date discrepancy (flagged). The task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the session clock reads 2026-09-27. Nothing in this § 103 analysis turns on the difference.

Governing law. Application 09/490,628 was filed 2000-01-24, so the pre-AIA version of § 102/§ 103 applies, and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), governs the obviousness inquiry. All references discussed below were filed before the 1999-01-26 priority date and are therefore available as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) even where they published later (a point that matters because several key references issued in 1999–2000).

1. Prior-art record actually on the face of this patent

A. References cited by the Examiner / search report (Espacenet "List of all citations" for US6564380 B1, https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=US&NR=[6564380B1](/patent/6564380B1)&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=13&date=20030513&DB=&locale=en_IE):

B. Admitted prior art in the patent's own Background. These are applicant admissions and require no independent date proof:

• Perception Robotics, Inc. (Evanston, Ill.) — "a system for viewing a live video feed from the field via Internet and remotely controlling the camera through a Web page menu of camera control parameters." (US6564380, Background.)
• Sensormatic Electronics Corp. — security cameras controlled by software controllers over an Internet TCP/IP connection.
• Eyecast.com — uploading security-camera feeds via Internet to a Web server.
• MAX.i.c.Live (Dallas) "3600 System" — access to multiple live video feed sources simultaneously via Internet for off-site video processing.
• Broadcast.com — hosting streaming media programs for client companies on its Web site.
• Excalibur / INTERVU "Screening Room™" — video logging, searching, re-purposing, distribution and publishing capabilities.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA here is a software/network engineer (or small team) with ~2–3 years of experience building TCP/IP client-server media applications and browser front-ends as of early 1999 — comfortable with HTTP, streaming codecs (ASF/RealVideo/QuickTime), IP addressing, caching proxies, and CGI/HTML page generation. All nine references are analogous art: same field of endeavor (networked video capture, delivery, and control) or reasonably pertinent to the problem the patent addresses (remote camera control, video distribution economics).

2. Ground 1 — Claim 1 (and claim 2) obvious over Ono + Perception Robotics + Kenner + Burns

Element mapping

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

• Known problem, known solution (KSR rationales (C)/(D)). Ono solves authorization for a scarce camera among many remote clients; Perception solves bringing that control into a browser. Combining a known browser-GUI control front-end (Perception) with known network camera-control-server plumbing (Ono) is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way — with predictable results.
• Market forces / design incentive (KSR rationale (F)). The patent's own Background documents the demand: thousands of new production companies needing cheap live content, and cable/Telco bandwidth arriving with no content to fill it. Kenner states the same commercial driver ("remote users communicate with large mainframe servers… the provider must insure that hardware and software… is capable of the very high storage and transmission rates required"). Cost pressure to substitute a browser + IP-addressed camera controller for a dispatched camera crew is a classic design incentive.
• "If it works, use it" (KSR rationale (E)). Routing the control path directly to the camera controller's IP address (rather than through a human operator) is the natural, obvious path once Kenner has established that the index manager already resolves a request to a destination IP address.
• Interchangeability of the intermediary. Kenner's PIM/DSI/SRU and Burns's POP/cache/CMS are alternative, well-understood implementations of the same "regional server receiving content and serving it to authorized requesters" function; a POSITA would select one according to network topology and cost, not invention.

Claim 2 (server-side conversion module)

Claim 2 is the same architecture with the type-mapping relocated from the client to the propagation server. Relocation of a mapping function across a client/server boundary is a simple substitution of one known element for another (KSR rationale (B)) with no change in the function performed. Strong secondary evidence of obviousness comes from the patent's own text: it discloses the alternative in the same breath as the preferred embodiment ("In an alternative embodiment… a conversion module is maintained with the video-propagation server"), and it already admits that on-site controllers convert "standard Manchester text code form" into camera-recognized signals, and that hardware Custom Interface Modules (CIMs) perform exactly such a conversion. A software conversion table at the server is the obvious corollary. Motivation: single-point maintenance, avoiding client-side downloads/updates (which the patent concedes must be re-downloaded), and the server already sits on the control path.

3. Ground 2 — Claim 3 (and claims 4–5) obvious over Kenner + Burns + Broadcast.com (admitted) + US 6,115,035 / US 5,991,801

Claim 3 requires (i) a propagation server transmitting a requested video feed over the Internet; (ii) a master server receiving a request to use a feed in a requested display presentation format on a video Web page linked to the client's own Web site; and (iii) a video Web page generation module that automatically generates the page and links it to the client's site; plus template selection from a plurality of stored templates and upload of the requester's identification graphics.

Motivation. (1) Cost: the admitted Broadcast.com model demonstrates the demand for outsourcing hosting of a client's video presence. (2) The patent concedes the goal is "a marked reduction in production costs for creating video Web pages." (3) Template-based automated composition was the ordinary way to cut per-client cost — the classic "known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement" rationale. (4) Burns supplies the specific teaching that the server can automatically rewrite the page to bind the client's page to server-hosted video — the very "linking" step of claim 3, and the same mechanism the patent uses defensively (composite video image) to stop de-linking.

Claims 4–5. Claim 4 (ad templates) follows directly from Kenner's advertising embodiment and the admitted Broadcast.com model. Claim 5 (live-events programming hosted by the master server and linked to a production company's site) is met by the combination of US 5,991,801 (Rebec — global digital video news distribution) or the admitted MAX.i.c.Live 3600 system (multiple simultaneous live feeds via the Internet for off-site processing) with Broadcast.com's hosted-programming service. Neither adds anything structurally beyond the claim-3 architecture plus a content category.

4. What the patent owner would argue, and the residual weaknesses

1. Secondary considerations are absent from the record. The prior sections establish no litigation and no PTAB proceedings on this patent, and the search surfaced no evidence of commercial success, copying, industry praise, or licensing attributable to the claimed architecture. Nexus-based rebuttal evidence is therefore unavailable on the present record. (Confidence: moderate — absence of searchable evidence is not proof of absence.)
2. The claimed combination is genuinely narrow. Claim 1's saving limitation is the simultaneous requirement that (a) the master server hands over the camera-type ID, and (b) the mapping lives in client-side GUI files. A patent owner could argue non-obviousness of bundling type identification with authorization-granting. The rebuttal is that Kenner already returns a resolved destination address with the authorization result, and Ono already returns a camera-specific control-authority message — so what remains is the obvious addition of which protocol the destination speaks, a datum a POSITA must transmit to make browser control work at all.
3. § 101 overlay (not § 103, but relevant to posture). Claims 3–5 are largely business-method / page-generation claims of the Alice-era type. If a defendant raises § 101, the § 103 case above becomes belt-and-suspenders — and, per the prior PTAB section, no IPR estoppel constrains the invalidity case because no AIA trial ever occurred.
4. Expiration dominates. Per the prior sections, the patent expired 2020-01-24 and pre-AIA § 286 now bars recovery of damages accruing more than six years before any complaint. A § 103 invalidity case is worth developing for past-damages windows preserved by any pre-2020 complaint (which the prior sections could not rule out) — not for prospective relief.

5. Bottom line

On the record of this patent's own face — nine § 102(e) references plus six admitted Background systems — every element of claims 1–5 appears in, or is an obvious substitution within, the combination of:

• US 6,133,941 (Ono/Canon) — network camera control + control-authority issuance to clients;
• Perception Robotics (admitted) — browser-based camera control via a Web-page control-parameter menu;
• US 5,956,716 (Kenner/Gruber, InterVu) — centralized index manager that authorizes a request, bills it, and resolves it to a destination IP address;
• US 5,991,306 (Burns/Leach, Microsoft) — POP-level caching and automated server-side Web-page generation around streaming video; and
• Broadcast.com (admitted) plus US 5,991,801 — hosted, linked video programming for client sites.

The motivation is supplied by the patent itself: the economic pressure to replace dispatched camera crews, the heterogeneity of camera command sets (admitted), the already-known browser plug-in/driver-per-device model, and the admitted custom-interface-module conversion practice. The combination is a predictable aggregation of known elements performing the same functions — the KSR paradigm of obviousness.

Confidence and caveats. High confidence in the prior-art inventory, in the § 102(e) availability of the cited references (all pre-date 1999-01-26 as filings), and in the element mappings to Ono, Kenner, and Burns. Moderate confidence in the precise wording of granted claims 1–5 (I worked from the previously generated summary's Espacenet-derived claim structure, which is internally contradicted by the later PTAB section's claim-count disclaimer), and lower confidence regarding the 10th cited document on the Espacenet list (not retrieved) and the exact bibliographic details of the Perception Robotics non-patent reference (available only as a Background admission — no independent document located before the search limit was reached). Verify the printed claim set and any litigation docket before relying on this analysis in a filing.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6564380/en · https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citedDocuments?CC=US&NR=6564380B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=13&date=20030513&DB=&locale=en_IE · https://patents.google.com/patent/US6133941 · https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5956716A](/patent/US5956716A)/en · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[5991306](/patent/5991306) · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/64/28/bd/6ccbb57dbc23ad/US5991306.pdf · https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6133941](/patent/6133941)