US 6628417

I'll search for the patent and any related litigation activity.

Let me check for any litigation or PTAB proceedings involving this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and abstract.

Bottom line

I was able to confirm the bibliographic record of US 6,628,417 ("the '417 patent") and identify its claims in substance, but I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 appeal, IPR/PGR, or district court litigation involving this patent number. The "CAFC 2026 docket" portion of your request comes back empty — that is an absence-of-evidence finding, not a clearance opinion.

One important identifier note up front: I did not auto-correct anything. I searched the literal string 6628417 / 6,628,417. Every hit traced back to the same document, US 6,628,417 B1. No results for neighboring numbers (e.g., 6,628,147 or 6,662,417) were substituted.

1. Bibliographic data (as displayed on Google Patents and corroborated by Justia's citation tables)

Continuation-family note (relevant for anyone running infringement/LTE analysis): a divisional, US 7,271,928 B2 (Naito et al., Canon, granted 2007-09-18), was filed 2003-07-14 as app. 10/618,027 and is expressly "a division of application No. 09/431,269, filed on Nov. 1, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,628,417." Both share the same title and spec. A separate but related Canon filing is US 2004/0174561 A1 (Fukunaga et al., division of 09/363,826, filed 1999-07-30) — same technical neighborhood (network print/image-collection server) but a different application family; do not conflate.

2. Abstract

⚠️ Caveat: the authoritative full text you supplied does not include an abstract field, and my searches did not return the '417 abstract as a verbatim quoted string. The following is the abstract of the divisional US 7,271,928 B2, which shares the disclosure and which I retrieved from the issued patent PDF. I am labeling it as such rather than presenting it as the '417 abstract verbatim:

"This invention provides a service which allows the user of the client apparatus that submits a print request to preview an image to be printed, and can reduce the information volume with the client apparatus to achieve quick response, and prints a high-quality image with the requested size. For this purpose, a center server (102) on the network stores and manages display image data, and transfers requested display image data upon receiving a request from a client computer. Upon receiving a request including a print size from the client computer, the center server sends the print size and information that specifies an image to an image server which saves high-resolution images. Upon receiving the information, the image server processes high-resolution image data to have the designated size, and sends back the processed image data to the center server. The center server sends the received image data to a print server to make it print the data."
— US 7,271,928 B2, Abstract (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com PDF)

The stated object in the '417 specification (your authoritative source) matches: the invention aims to let a client user preview the image to be printed, keep the information exchanged with the client small for high responsiveness, and still print a high-quality image at the requested size.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Caveat on verbatim fidelity: I could not retrieve a clean, numbered claim listing for the '417 patent in the sources returned. What follows is drawn from the claim-phrased "Definitions" block in the Google Patents full text you supplied, plus the summary-of-invention paragraphs. Treat the scope as reliable and the exact wording/claim numbering as needing confirmation against the USPTO PatentCenter claim text before you rely on it in any filing.

Independent claim A — "data communication apparatus" (server-side, network-connected)

Substance: a server on a network that:

• Image saving means — stores first image data for display and second image data of higher resolution than the display data (i.e., a display/edit resolution proxy plus a high-resolution print original).
• Transmission means — sends the first (low-res display) image to a client over the network on request.
• Reception means — receives a print request including a print size from the client over the network.
• Calculation means — when the print request arrives, computes the size of the print image data to be generated from the second (higher-resolution) image data corresponding to the first image data, based on the print size in the request.
• Processing means — processes the second image data to obtain print image data matching the calculated size.
• Output means — outputs that print image data to predetermined print means.

Plain English: the server shows you a cheap thumbnail, but when you order a print it works out exactly how many pixels are actually needed for the size you asked for, and generates the print file at that size from the good copy — rather than shipping the full-resolution master every time. That's the bandwidth-saving core.

Independent claim B — the broader system/invention characterization

Substance: a system comprising:

• Image saving means for storing images;
• Data processing means able to generate and edit an image (or a document using the image) to be stored in the saving means;
• Order reception means for receiving a print order for a document edited by the data processing means, and submitting a print request to an output destination per that order;
• Print image size calculation means for calculating the optimal number of pixels of an image to be printed, as a function of (i) the characteristics of the destination printer and (ii) the output size;
• Print image transmission means for retrieving an image from the saving means under the direction of the image size calculation means and generating a print image; and
• Print control means for receiving the submitted print request and controlling printing.

Plain English: same idea, expressed as a full pipeline — edit on the client, order from the server, have the system derive the ideal pixel count from this printer's capabilities plus the requested physical size, pull the matching-resolution source image, and print.

Dependent-claim subject matter expressly recited in the specification summary

• Image data corresponding to a maximum-sized image is sent to the print control means.
• The output size of the ordered image is obtained when the data processing means analyzes the document (client-side determination).
• The output size of the ordered image is obtained when the order reception means analyzes the document (server-side determination) — i.e., the alternative location for the same step.
• Multiple images of different pixel counts are stored, and on generating a print image the system retrieves the image with the smallest pixel count that is still larger than the image to be generated (a "next-size-up from cache" rule — this is the resized-print-image re-use mechanism keyed to the resized print image storage device / original image location management table).
• The generated print image is saved in the image saving means and reused.
• The generated print image is not saved in the image saving means (express alternative to the above).

Supporting structures in the spec for these: the print image size calculation table (FIG. 38 — fields for printer type, output paper type, DPI, and a correction coefficient), the original image location management table (FIG. 12), the watermark information management table (FIG. 37, covering invisible / unremovable-visible / removable-visible watermarks with registration-timing vs. transmission-timing embedding), and the image use fee management table (FIG. 39, basic fee table + correction table keyed to printer type and paper type). Note the size calculation includes a correction coefficient beyond raw DPI × physical size, so the claim term "optimal number of pixels" is squared to the printer/media pair, not just to the paper dimensions.

4. CAFC 2026 dockets / USPTO litigation check — negative result

Searches run and what they returned:

So: no pending or decided CAFC appeal, and no identified IPR/PGR or district court case, involving US 6,628,417 as of the searches performed. I cannot certify a null result as exhaustive; USPTO PatentCenter's "Litigation" tab and Docket Navigator/PACER would be the authoritative next steps if this matters for a freedom-to-operate or damages analysis. Also relevant: the patent expired 2019-11-01 and is marked "Expired – Lifetime," which materially reduces the prospect of new enforcement activity.

5. Anomalies and uncertainties I will not paper over

1. Spansion reassignment entry. The Google Patents record shows a 2015-03-13 reassignment to "SPANSION LLC, SPANSION INC., SPANSION TECHNOLOGY LLC" styled as a "RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST," assignor Barclays Bank PLC. That is at odds with the patent being a Canon Kabushiki Kaisha asset in the printing/document-imaging space; Spansion is a flash-memory business. I am reporting the entry literally as recorded (per your no-auto-correction rule) but flagging it as an apparent database artifact/mis-association rather than patentable evidence of an ownership transfer of the '417 patent. Current assignee of record on the page is listed as Canon Inc.
2. Claim text fidelity. As noted, my verbatim claim text is not from a numbered-claims source; the "Definitions" rendering in the Google Patents HTML is a claim-phrased deconstruction. The claim count and the precise independent/dependent split are uncertain from my sources.
3. Internal spec inconsistency worth knowing. The FIG. 14 description refers to "the print server 102," but 102 is defined throughout as the center server. Purely an internal labeling slip in the document; do not read it as a second embodiment.
4. Two-part priority story. US filing 1999-11-01, JP priority 1998-10-30. Any §102/§103 art date analysis should use the JP priority date, and confirm the JP priority document (JP 2000-198248 A / app. JP 28468099 A) actually supports the claims.
5. Terminology in the spec is means-plus-function-flavored ("image saving means," "calculation means," "processing means," "output means"). If this patent is ever asserted, §112(f) construction risk is high for those limitations — worth flagging even though the patent has expired.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6628417/en (full text, bibliographic data, classifications, "Definitions"); https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/92/3a/2b/2ced91e7584ff5/US7271928.pdf (US 7,271,928 B2 front page and abstract — division of 09/431,269); https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6628417-B1 (assignee/priority corroboration); https://patents.justia.com/ (citation-list appearances only); https://www.pattersonsheridan.com Federal Circuit summary for week ending April 24, 2026.