Invalidity dossier
US 8175989
Music recommendation system using a personalized choice set
Current assignee: ChoiceStream Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 1:57:37 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: US8175989B1 — Music Recommendation System Using a Personalized Choice Set
Title: Music recommendation system using a personalized choice set
Assignee: ChoiceStream Inc (original assignee and listed current assignee; the source cautions that listed assignees "may be inaccurate").
Inventors: Dinesh Gopinath and Jayendu S. Patel.
Key dates: Priority date 2007-01-04; filing date 2008-01-03 (application US11/968,999); granted/publication date 2012-05-08. Status listed as "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2030-12-31.
Purpose: The patent addresses music recommendation. It relates to forming one or more "choice sets" of recommendable items, where at least one is a personalized choice set formed for a user based partly on data associated with that user (e.g., activity history). A recommendation set is then formed from the choice sets using additional data associated with the user that was not used in forming the personalized choice set. The description further discusses statistical modeling at artist, song, and album levels; multi-level user preference models; and modeling users as having multiple disparate preference "pockets."
Plain-language scope (based on the supplied text): The disclosed approach builds a tailored pool of candidate items for a user, then narrows that pool into recommendations using separate user data and/or a different method. Claim concepts described include: forming choice sets possibly divided into classification groups (e.g., normalized genre); forming a recommendation set using a second method different from the first, both adapted to the user; restricting choice sets to items sharing a common attribute; selecting items by creative parties represented in a user's history or similar creative parties; deriving preferences from activity history, surveys, or rankings; and presenting the recommendation set to the user. Recommendable items can include media/audio/music and aggregations such as playlists. Methodologies mentioned include item-correlation-based and user-profile-based approaches. Classifications: G06N7/00 and G06N7/01.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not establish litigation, validity, enforceability, or prior-art scope; ownership-transfer accuracy; the full text of every claim; or details of figures/tables omitted from the excerpt.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8175989](/patent/US8175989)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:42 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8175989. 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.