US 6760749

Here's a concise summary of US patent 6760749:

US Patent 6760749: Interactive conference content distribution device and methods of use thereof

• Title: Interactive conference content distribution device and methods of use thereof
• Assignee: Polycom LLC
• Inventors: Wayne Dunlap, Michael Hogan, Kristin Dunn, Oden J. McMillan, Rick VanderKam, Samantha Kha, DahRenn Ba
• Filing Date: 2000-05-10
• Issue Date: 2004-07-06
• Abstract: A multimedia distribution device encodes and transmits audio/video content from a videoconference over a network using streaming technology. For conferences with presentations, the device converts presentation content into standard graphic image formats for synchronous distribution with the audio/video stream. Viewers interact with this content via a multiple-window user interface, featuring a streaming media player for audio/video and a separate window for presentations. An interactive text entry interface allows viewers to send comments or questions to presenters in real-time. For large audiences, the system can utilize a remote streaming server and a network server, which caches presentation images to minimize display latency by allowing viewer browsers to pre-load them before the corresponding audio/video content arrives.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Multimedia Distribution Device - Audio/Video Focus): This claim describes a device for distributing live conference audio and video. It includes a network connection to receive audio (speech) and video (human behavior) from a videoconferencing unit. An encoder converts this audio/video into a streaming format, and a stream server then sends this stream to other devices connected to the network.
• Claim 3 (Multimedia Distribution Device - A/V + Presentation Data): This claim expands on the device in Claim 1 by adding the capability to handle presentation materials (like slides). In addition to the components of Claim 1, it includes a data interface to receive presentation data and a file conversion engine to turn that data into graphic image files. The key here is that the audio/video stream also contains a link to where these graphic images are stored.
• Claim 17 (Multimedia Distribution Device - Detailed A/V + Presentation Data): This claim describes a multimedia distribution device with specific interfaces for a network, an audio and video source (like a videoconferencing device), and a presentation data source. It includes an encoder for the audio/video, a file conversion engine for presentation data into graphic image files, and a stream server to transmit the encoded audio/video and a link to the graphic image files over the network to remote terminals.
• Claim 29 (Multimedia Distribution Device - General Data Transmission with Web Server): This claim describes a multimedia distribution device for sending audio, video, and other data between local and remote locations over a digital network. It has a network interface, an audio/video interface (for a videoconferencing device), a streaming encoder for audio/video, a streaming server to transmit this data, and a web server for handling image and text data.
• Claim 37 (Method for Multimedia Conferencing): This claim describes a method for conducting multimedia conferences. It involves receiving audio and video from a local conference unit, encoding that into a streaming format, and then transmitting the streaming audio/video, still images, and text data over a network.
• Claim 44 (Multimedia Distribution Device - Simplified A/V): This claim defines a multimedia distribution device with a single interface connecting to both the network and a videoconferencing device to receive audio and video data. An encoder processes this data into a stream, and a stream server transmits this stream over the network to remote terminals.
• Claim 46 (Multimedia Distribution Device - Simplified A/V + Presentation Data Link): This claim builds on the device of Claim 44. Its single interface also receives presentation data. It includes a file conversion engine to create and store graphic image files from the presentation data. Crucially, the stream server incorporates a link to the location of these graphic image files within the transmitted data stream.

Uncertainty Regarding CAFC Dockets (2026):
As of April 26, 2026, no specific results were found in the provided search snippets for US patent 6760749 in the CAFC 2026 dockets. The search results contained general information about CAFC cases in 2026 but no direct mention of this particular patent. The patent's legal status is "Expired - Lifetime" according to Google Patents, which makes active litigation in 2026 less probable, unless it pertains to past infringement that is still being litigated.

US Patent 6760749, titled "Interactive conference content distribution device and methods of use thereof," has been involved in litigation.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

• Case: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:05-cv-00520
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information, but the record indicates "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court".
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome or Current Status: The current legal status of the patent is "Expired - Lifetime" as of the anticipated expiration date of May 10, 2020. The litigation status is listed as "Critical" and "First worldwide family litigation filed."

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 6,760,749.

No PTAB Activity on File

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings found.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent's claims have not been challenged in inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method proceedings. This means all claims are currently considered valid as issued from the USPTO, but also remain untested in these specific trial formats.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 6,760,749 has no record of any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) filed against it. Consequently, all 57 claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 3, 17, 29, 37, 44, and 46, remain untested and are currently sustained as granted. There are no claims that have been canceled or invalidated through these specific administrative trial processes.

Given the lack of PTAB proceedings, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner or their privies. This means that all prior art grounds, including those that could be raised under § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness), are theoretically still available for a new challenger to assert in a future IPR. There are no discernible patterns of challenges, patent owner responses, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no such proceedings exist for this patent.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity for US6760749, the recommended next steps are as follows:

1. Due Diligence: If facing assertion of this patent, conduct thorough prior art searches focusing on the priority date of May 10, 2000. The absence of PTAB challenges does not inherently validate the strength of the claims against all prior art.
2. Monitor for New Filings: Continuously monitor for any newly filed AIA trial petitions against US6760749, as this could change the defensive posture significantly.
3. Consider a Petition: If an infringement assertion is made, a defendant may consider filing an IPR petition if strong prior art invalidating one or more asserted claims can be identified, as the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving previous PTAB challenges.## Proceedings overview
   There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 6,760,749.

No PTAB Activity on File

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings found.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision (if issued): N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent's claims have not been challenged in inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method proceedings. This means all claims are currently considered valid as issued from the USPTO, but also remain untested in these specific trial formats.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 6,760,749 has no record of any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) filed against it. Consequently, all 57 claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 3, 17, 29, 37, 44, and 46, remain untested and are currently sustained as granted. There are no claims that have been canceled or invalidated through these specific administrative trial processes.

Given the lack of PTAB proceedings, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner or their privies. This means that all prior art grounds, including those that could be raised under § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness), are theoretically still available for a new challenger to assert in a future IPR. There are no discernible patterns of challenges, patent owner responses, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no such proceedings exist for this patent.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US patent 6,760,749, the absence of PTAB activity indicates that the patent has not been subjected to these specific administrative validity challenges.

1. Conduct thorough prior art searches: Given that the patent's claims are untested in PTAB, a strong prior art search focused on the priority date of May 10, 2000, is crucial to identify potential invalidity grounds.
2. Monitor for new filings: Regularly check the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for any newly filed petitions against US6760749, as this status can change.
3. Evaluate IPR/PGR feasibility: If strong prior art is found, consider initiating an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) (if applicable) against the asserted claims. The absence of previous challenges means there's no pre-existing PTAB record to contend with, and the patent owner has not yet had to defend the claims in this forum.

Inventors

• Wayne Dunlap
• Michael Hogan
• Kristin Dunn
• Oden J. McMillan
• Rick VanderKam
• Samantha Kha
• DahRenn Ba

The patent does not list employer information for the inventors.

Original assignee

Polycom LLC. Polycom was a major provider of videoconferencing and voice communication equipment, known for shipping products embodying its claims, such as the ViewStation™ videoconferencing device. Polycom LLC was acquired by Plantronics, Inc. (now Poly) in 2018. Plantronics itself was acquired by HP Inc. in 2022.

Assignment timeline

• 2000-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2000-05-10 — Reel 011382/0252

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HOGAN, MICHAEL, BA, DAHRENN, DUNLAP, WAYNE, DUNN, KRISTIN, KHA, SAMANTHA, MCMILLAN, ODEN J., VANDERKAM, RICK
  • Assignee: POLYCOM, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROGER H. WIGHT, WRIGHT & TALBOT LLP, 600 CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, UNITED STATES, 94108
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to operating company.

• 2013-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2013-12-16 — Reel 031304/0046

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: POLYCOM, INC., VIVU, INC.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Correspondent: MARINA C. RYAN, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Securitization of assets by an operating company.

• 2016-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2016-09-29 — Reel 038234/0628

  • Conveyance: Grant Of Security Interest In Patents - Second Lien
  • Assignor: POLYCOM, INC.
  • Assignee: MACQUARIE CAPITAL FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: JEFFREY M. ALBERT, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Securitization of assets by an operating company.

• 2016-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2016-09-29 — Reel 038234/0630

  • Conveyance: Grant Of Security Interest In Patents - First Lien
  • Assignor: POLYCOM, INC.
  • Assignee: MACQUARIE CAPITAL FUNDING LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: JEFFREY M. ALBERT, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Securitization of assets by an operating company.

• 2016-09-27 (executed) / recorded 2016-09-29 — Reel 038234/0634

  • Conveyance: Release Of Security Interest
  • Assignor: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Assignee: POLYCOM, INC., VIVU, INC.
  • Correspondent: MARINA C. RYAN, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Release of prior security interest. Note: Marina C. Ryan of Latham & Watkins LLP recurs.

• 2018-07-03 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel 041837/0861

  • Conveyance: Release Of Security Interest
  • Assignor: MACQUARIE CAPITAL FUNDING LLC
  • Assignee: POLYCOM, INC.
  • Correspondent: JEFFREY M. ALBERT, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Release of security interest. Note: Jeffrey M. Albert of Latham & Watkins LLP recurs.

• 2018-07-03 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel 041837/0863

  • Conveyance: Release Of Security Interest
  • Assignor: MACQUARIE CAPITAL FUNDING LLC
  • Assignee: POLYCOM, INC.
  • Correspondent: JEFFREY M. ALBERT, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000, COSTA MESA, CA, UNITED STATES, 92626
  • Context: Release of security interest. Note: Jeffrey M. Albert of Latham & Watkins LLP recurs.

• 2018-07-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-10 — Reel 041846/0978

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: PLANTRONICS, INC., POLYCOM, INC.
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Correspondent: JOSEPHINE L. MA, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, 333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CA, UNITED STATES, 90071
  • Context: Securitization of assets following acquisition of Polycom by Plantronics.

• 2022-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2022-09-02 — Reel 052219/0811

  • Conveyance: Release Of Patent Security Interests
  • Assignor: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: POLYCOM, INC., PLANTRONICS, INC.
  • Correspondent: ALAN T. STEVENS, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, 333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CA, UNITED STATES, 90071
  • Context: Release of security interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6760749
    2000 : Filed by inventors
         : Assigned to Polycom Inc
    2013 : Securitized to Morgan Stanley
    2016 : Securitized to Macquarie Capital
         : Morgan Stanley release
    2018 : Macquarie release
         : Securitized to Wells Fargo
    2022 : Wells Fargo release

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. All recorded assignees (Polycom, Morgan Stanley, Macquarie Capital Funding, Wells Fargo) are well-known operating companies or financial institutions.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees appear on common NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Jeffrey M. Albert of Latham & Watkins LLP appears as correspondent on reels 038234/0628, 038234/0630, 041837/0861, and 041837/0863. Marina C. Ryan of Latham & Watkins LLP also recurs on reels 031304/0046 and 038234/0634. This firm primarily handles corporate and finance legal work for operating companies, indicating standard securitization and release transactions rather than NPE activity.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers are separated by several years, consistent with standard corporate finance and acquisition events, rather than rapid transfers between shell entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. Without specific litigation filing dates, it is not possible to confirm this signal. However, given the nature of the other transfers, it is unlikely.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The assignments reflect securitization and releases in the normal course of business for Polycom and its acquirer, Plantronics, not a bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests Polycom or Plantronics transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors on their behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the patent has expired, and Polycom and its subsequent owner Plantronics (now Poly) have been involved in various corporate transactions, the assignment records primarily show transfers related to securitization and releases of security interests. There is no evidence of the patent being transferred to a shell entity or a known NPE. The recurrence of Latham & Watkins LLP as correspondent for several securitization and release events is consistent with typical corporate legal practices for operating companies and financial institutions.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

For US patent 6760749, the most relevant prior art identified within its own description is U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,637. This patent is referenced in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION" section of US6760749 as having evolved from a related application.

Here's the breakdown of this prior art reference:

1. Full Citation:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,637 B1, titled "Web-Enabled Presentation Device And Methods Of Use Thereof," issued on May 27, 2003, with an application filing date of December 2, 1999. [cite: The provided patent text for US6760749 states the application number 09/452,900 filed Dec 2, 1999 became US Pat. No. 6,569,637.]

2. Publication/Filing Date:

• Filing Date: December 2, 1999. [cite: The provided patent text for US6760749 states the application number 09/452,900 filed Dec 2, 1999 became US Pat. No. 6,569,637.]
• Publication/Grant Date: May 27, 2003.

3. Brief Description:
U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,637 discloses a web-enabled presentation device and methods for its use. The device includes a network interface, multiple data interfaces for receiving presentation data from various sources, a file conversion engine to transform presentation data into a standard image format for distribution, and a web server for transmitting this content to network-connected terminals. It features a user interface for meeting administration and content selection. Critically, one embodiment describes the device as being integrated with a videoconferencing device, allowing presentation content to be transmitted in a single stream along with audio and video content. Viewers can access this content via a conventional web browser featuring a multiple-window user interface, where presentation content is displayed in a separate window. Additionally, the user interface includes an interactive text entry capability for viewers to send comments or questions to meeting participants.

4. Claims Potentially Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Given that U.S. Pat. No. 6,569,637 was filed on December 2, 1999, which is prior to the May 10, 2000 filing and priority date of US6760749, and it was granted before US6760749, it serves as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Based on the abstract of US6,569,637, it potentially anticipates a significant number of claims in US6760749, particularly those related to the core functionality of combining streaming videoconference audio/video with synchronized presentation content and interactive text communication in a web-based, multi-window interface.

Specifically, the following claims of US6760749 are potentially anticipated:

• Claim 1: The abstract of US6,569,637 mentions the device being "integrated with a videoconferencing device, such that presentation content is transmitted in a single stream with audio and video content," which implies the presence of a network interface to receive audio/video, an encoder to create a stream, and a stream server to transmit it.
• Claim 3: US6,569,637 explicitly describes "data interfaces for receiving presentation data," a "file conversion engine for converting the presentation data into a standard image format," and the integration of presentation content into a "single stream with audio and video content." This covers the combination of audio/video and a link to graphic images in a stream.
• Claim 4: US6,569,637 states "a web server for transmitting the presentation content to terminals located at nodes of the network," directly anticipating the role of a web server in transmitting graphic images.
• Claim 8: The abstract details a "multiple-window user interface through a conventional web browser, with the presentation content displayed in a separate window," and an "interactive text entry interface" for viewer communication, directly anticipating the three-window display and text entry feature.
• Claim 17: Similar to Claim 3, the comprehensive description in US6,569,637's abstract of integrating videoconferencing audio/video with converted presentation images for streaming distribution anticipates the elements of this claim.
• Claim 22: As a dependent claim relating to the multi-window user interface and interactive text entry, it is anticipated by the explicit description in US6,569,637's abstract.
• Claim 29: This claim covers a multimedia distribution device with network/audio/video interfaces, a streaming encoder, a streaming server, and a web server for image and text data. All these functionalities are described or directly implied by the abstract of US6,569,637.
• Claim 34: This dependent claim, describing a web page with three windows for streaming video/audio, images, and text entry, is directly anticipated by US6,569,637's description of its multi-window user interface.
• Claim 37: This method claim encompasses receiving, encoding, and transmitting streaming audio/video, still images, and text data over a network. The abstract of US6,569,637 describes the device's operations in a manner that performs these method steps.
• Claim 41: As a dependent claim to Claim 37, specifying the network as the Internet and the display in three web browser windows, it is anticipated by US6,569,637's "web-enabled" device and "multiple-window user interface through a conventional web browser."
• Claim 44: This broader device claim for audio/video streaming from a videoconferencing device is anticipated by the integration of the device with a videoconferencing unit for audio/video streaming described in US6,569,637.
• Claim 46: This broader device claim combines audio/video streaming with presentation data conversion and linking within the stream. These functionalities are comprehensively covered by the description in US6,569,637's abstract.
• Claim 51: As a dependent claim, the multi-window web page with video, images, and text entry is directly anticipated by US6,569,637's abstract.

The provided patent text for US6760749B1 includes a "Description of the Prior Art" section, which outlines the general state of the art and the problems it sought to overcome. However, this section does not list specific prior art references (e.g., other patents, publications) that would typically be used in a 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness analysis to identify combinations of existing technologies. Instead, it describes general practices and limitations of existing systems.

Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US6760749 obvious, nor can I explain the motivation to combine them, because no specific, citable prior art documents are provided within the designated "Prior Art section" of the given patent text.

Based on the descriptive "Description of the Prior Art" section provided, the recognized needs addressed by US6760749 include:

• A merger of high-quality videoconferencing technology with efficient, state-of-the-art data compression and transmission technology for real-time distribution of personal interaction and slide presentations to a large audience.
• The ability of remote viewers to communicate with conference participants during the conference.

Without specific prior art references, a detailed obviousness analysis as requested cannot be performed.