Invalidity dossier
US 8060613
Resource invalidation in a content delivery network
Current assignee: MOUNT SHASTA ACQUISITION LLC
Added 9/23/2026, 7:25:17 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US8060613B2
Title: Resource invalidation in a content delivery network
Patent number / application: US8060613B2, application US11/980,401
Inventors: David A. Farber, Richard E. Greer, Andrew D. Swart, James A. Balter
Assignee (as listed): Current assignee listed as MOUNT SHASTA ACQUISITION LLC, Digital Island Inc, and Sandpiper Cdn LLC; original assignee Level 3 Communications LLC. (The supplied text notes Google has not analyzed assignees and makes no warranty as to accuracy.)
Key dates: Priority date 1998-02-10 (claimed from US09/021,506); filing date 2007-10-31; publication date 2011-11-15; adjusted expiration 2020-05-17. Legal status: Expired – Fee Related.
Purpose and plain-language scope (per the supplied text): The patent concerns invalidating resources in a content delivery network. From the limited excerpt, the subject matter relates to managing resources distributed across a network of servers ("repeaters"). The text lists classifications spanning resource allocation to service requests (G06F9/50, including load consideration), web retrieval/browsing optimization (G06F16/957), DNS name-to-address mapping (H04L61/4511), distributed/replicated server access and server selection for load balancing (H04L67/1001, 1004), replication or mirroring of data (H04L67/1095), and reverse-proxy/intermediate processing (H04L67/2895). Prior-art keywords are resource, repeater, server, request, message. Beyond these headings and keywords, the excerpt does not describe the invention's steps, claims, or embodiments.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8060613](/patent/US8060613)/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It provides no claim language, abstract, description, or drawings; therefore the specific mechanism of "resource invalidation" is not shown. Assignee identity dates and chain-of-title entries are listed but not verified. The excerpt explicitly states legal status and dates are assumptions, not legal conclusions. No information is supplied about litigation, validity, or prior art beyond keyword listings.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:07 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8060613. 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.