Invalidity dossier
US 7676599
System and method of binding a client to a server
Current assignee: Upland Software Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 6:46:22 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US 7,676,599 B2 — Patent Overview
Title: System and method of binding a client to a server
Patent number: US7676599B2 | Application: US11/043,680 | Filing date: 2005-01-26 | Grant date: 2010-03-09 | Priority date: 2004-01-28 | Status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2025-08-14)
Inventors: John M. Cooney; Awais Ali; Fabrizio Talucci; Charlie Zimmerman
Assignee/current owner of record (per source): Upland Software Inc (originally i2Telecom IP Holdings Inc; the source also lists intermediate assignments)
Purpose (from the excerpt): The invention "relates generally to implementation of client-server networks. More particularly, the present invention provides systems and methods for maintaining the binding of a client, particularly a client with limited computational and storage resources, with at least one server."
Plain-language scope (from the excerpt): The patent addresses dynamic binding between clients and servers. The stated rationale is that distributing clients among servers keeps combined server resources allocated to provide optimal service—accounting for "routing distance" (number of Internet hops and message delivery latency)—and that as more clients are added, distribution may become sub-optimum and require clients to be redirected to different servers. A second stated benefit is continuity of client services if a server fails or is taken off-line for maintenance. The excerpt also supplies general background on DNS (name-to-IP-address resolution, root name servers, top-level domains) and lists prior-art keywords: server, addresses, fit, client, list. Classifications include H04L67/1001, H04L67/1004–1008, H04L61/2503–2575 (NAT traversal/STUN), H04L65/1104 (SIP), and H04L12/2856.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not quote any claim language, so the precise claimed scope is unverified; the text is explicitly an excerpt with omitted passages (a truncated DNS passage is visible). It does not show figures, detailed embodiments, or prior-art analysis. Dates, assignee, and status are noted by the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions. No litigation, validity, or ownership conclusions are drawn here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:36 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7676599. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.