US 8782268

I'll search for authoritative information on US 8782268, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me dig into the claim text and check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity specifically naming this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and check for litigation/appeal activity.

I've hit my search-step limit, so here is my summary based on the authoritative patent text you supplied plus the search results I was able to retrieve. Note upfront: the claim set was not included in the truncated patent text provided to me, and my web searches to retrieve the verbatim claim language were cut off. I flag every claim-level statement below as inferential rather than verified.

US Patent 8,782,268 B2 — Summary

Bibliographic data

Representative classifications include H04L65/60, H04L65/612, H04L65/75/752/756, H04L67/02, H04N21/234327, H04N21/64322, and H04N21/8456 (video-stream processing/splicing, layered encoding, communication protocols).

Abstract (verbatim, from the patent)

"The subject disclosure relates to dynamic composition including the ability to create interoperable combinations of content by the publisher, e.g., determined to be an optimal combination, and offer such combinations to client devices in an interoperable way to allow simple selection by devices without complex programming, web pages, etc. specific to each device. Compositions are dynamic in that new audio, video, subtitle, etc. tracks can be added to a given composition without changing any of the other tracks, e.g., by updating the composition's extensible markup language (XML), and new compositions can be created or removed at any time without changing any audio or video files. Interoperable and scalable 'discovery' is also enabled whereby random devices can contact a Web server, find and play a composition matched to the given devices and users, e.g., optimal composition for a given device and user. Using the content identification and description format of compositions, devices can search, sort, browse, display, etc. content that is available, determine if it is compatible at the device, decode, and determine digital rights management (DRM) level, and content level."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Uncertainty flag (important): I was not able to retrieve the verbatim independent-claim language in this session, and it was not present in the patent text supplied to me. The following is a reconstruction from the specification's described embodiments (FIGS. 2–8; methods 900, 1000, 1100) and should be treated as a described-embodiment overview, not a claim chart. Do not rely on it as claim language. It appears the patent has multiple independent claims (e.g., a server/serving-side claim and a client/receiving-side claim, consistent with the dual server/client framing of FIGS. 2–7).

Based on the specification, the independent claims appear to cover:

1. Server-side method/system (delivery/manifest selection). Maintaining multiple manifests for a single item of content, where each manifest describes the location(s) of content segments for one or more representations of that content; organizing/classifying those manifests according to a description of them (e.g., a set of attributes such as codec, resolution, bitrate, camera angle, language, audio channels, subtitles, content type, DRM, rating, version); selecting a selected manifest based on data in a request for the content; and transmitting/using that selected manifest to serve the corresponding representation. This corresponds to system 200/400 (manifest component 202, composition component 210, track set component 402) and method 900/1000.

2. Track-set-based composition. Identifying track sets available as alternative representations, where a track set is tied to one content type and is designated as either a selectable set (chosen before delivery, non-seamless transitions) or a switchable set (seamlessly switchable during presentation). This corresponds to method 1000 (elements specifying first/second subsets as selectable vs. switchable track sets).

3. Client/receiving-side method/system. Receiving a selected manifest, retrieving the corresponding representation over a streaming protocol (e.g., HTTP), and presenting it, potentially including real-time seamless switching of tracks during presentation. This corresponds to system 500/600 (selection component 502, communications component 506, presentation component 610) and method 1100.

4. Storage/addressing aspect (possibly dependent or independent). Storing representations where at least one partial representation is defined as a single track (a stated departure from 3GPP MPD, which permits a partial representation to be more than one track), enabling individual track addressability so tracks are arbitrarily combinable without storing each combination, and using a predictable addressing scheme (URL as a function of track set, attribute, segment, or time). This corresponds to method 1100 (elements 1104–1110) and the storage component 424 / PIFF discussion.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 status

• No 2026 Federal Circuit (CAFC) docket activity referencing US 8,782,268 was found in my searches. Searches for "8782268 CAFC 2026," "8782268 Federal Circuit appeal 2026," and "8782268 patent CAFC 2026 docket" returned zero results. I therefore have no authoritative evidence of any 2026 appeal involving this patent. Absence of search hits is not proof of absence.
• One incidental hit: a Docket Alarm entry for IPR2020-00647, Hulu LLC v. DivX LLC, lists an exhibit "Ex_1004 — US 8,782,268 Pyle" (docketalarm.com). That suggests the '268 patent was submitted as an exhibit (likely prior art) in that PTAB proceeding; I could not confirm its role, and it does not indicate that the '268 patent itself was under challenge. Treat this as an unverified lead.
• The patent is widely cited as prior art/family member in later streaming patents (e.g., references among EP 2,798,818, EP 3,901,779, US 2018/0262757, and US 10,979,782 / 11,528,540 families). These are citation hits, not litigation.

Discrepancies and uncertainty notes

• One search result (a Unified Patents listing) showed a "priority date" of 2010-07-19 and another listing 2010-07-20. The authoritative patent text claims priority to provisional 61/366,059 filed July 20, 2010, and Google Patents lists the prior-art date as 2010-07-20. I treat July 20, 2010 as correct and the July 19 date as an artifact of the third-party database.
• I did not auto-correct any identifier. All numbers above are transcribed as found.
• Exact independent claim text and claim count beyond "16 claims" are not verified by me. If you need a true claim-1/claim-by-claim summary, the granted claims should be pulled directly from the USPTO PatentCenter or the Google Patents "Claims" section for US8782268B2.

If you can lift the search-step cap, I can retrieve the verbatim claim set (claims 1, and each independent claim) and re-run a targeted CAFC/PTAB docket check to give you a verified independent-claim breakdown.

I'll research litigation involving US 8,782,268 across patent litigation databases.

The first result mentions "'878 IPRs" (Roku, Samsung, Meta) — but I must verify whether those target US 8,782,268 or a different "878" patent. Let me investigate.

Litigation search: US Patent 8,782,268 ("Dynamic composition of media")

Bottom line: I found no district court litigation asserting US 8,782,268, and no PTAB proceeding in which it was the challenged patent. I did, however, encounter several "878" false positives that must not be confused with this patent — I flag them below because they are the most likely source of a mis-attribution.

Caveat on method: my searches drew on public litigation/PTAB aggregators (Google-indexed Docket Alarm/PTAB materials, Unified Patents-related filings, courtlistener/court documents) rather than a direct PACER or Docket Navigator query. Absence of hits in these sources is evidence of, but not proof of, the absence of litigation. A live PACER/docket search of the current assignee (Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC) and a Docket Navigator "patent → cases" pull would be the confirming step.

---

Known litigation involving US 8,782,268

I could not identify any case in which US 8,782,268 was pleaded as an asserted patent. Given the patent's current ownership (Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC) and subject matter (HTTP/Smooth-Streaming adaptive bitrate delivery of media), it would most plausibly surface in a Microsoft licensing campaign, but I found no record tying '268 to any such suit.

---

Related PTAB activity (not an § 271 action, and likely NOT this patent)

The prior section of this analysis noted an unverified Docket Alarm hit:

• IPR2020-00647, Hulu LLC v. DivX LLC — an exhibit list entry "Ex_1004 — US 8,782,268 Pyle." If accurate, the '268 patent was submitted as an exhibit (likely prior art) in that inter partes review, i.e., a document on the record — not the patent under challenge. I could not confirm its role or that the citation refers to this '268, so treat this as an unverified lead only.

---

"878" false positives — these are DIFFERENT patents (do not conflate)

These are the traps most likely to produce a wrong answer to your question:

1. The "'878 IPRs" (Roku / Samsung / Meta) target U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 — not 8,782,268.

   • IPR2022-01315, Roku, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc. / Intent IQ, LLC — petition filed July 27, 2022, challenging claims 1–23 of U.S. 10,715,878.
   • IPR2022-01505, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — filed September 7, 2022, motion for joinder to IPR2022-01315; the motion expressly identifies the patent as "Patent No. 10,715,878." Joinder/institution denied March 22, 2023.
   • IPR2023-01281, Meta — instituted February 21, 2024, also against the '878 patent (10,715,878).
   • Underlying district court matters referenced: AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Roku, No. 1-21-cv-01035 (D. Del.) and No. 6-21-cv-00731 (W.D. Tex.). These concern 10,715,878, an AlmondNet/Intent IQ patent — unrelated to your '268.

2. The "Puri '878 patent" is U.S. 5,227,878 — not 8,782,268. It appears in the MPT (Multimedia Patent Trust) v. LG Electronics litigations (e.g., S.D. Cal., No. 10-cv-02618 reference context). Different patent, different owner, different technology (MPEG-2 video decoding).

3. Other incidental "878"-numbered patents surfaced in unrelated matters (e.g., a Korean-language report involving 8,787,060; a Netlist/Micron context). None is 8,782,268.

---

Recommended next steps for a definitive answer

To close this out with a verified record, I would:

1. Query PACER / Docket Navigator with the exact patent number 8782268 and the assignee Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC, filtering to patent cases.
2. Check the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) directly for the patent number.
3. Pull the PatentCenter "Litigation" / assignment tab and the Google Patents "Similar Documents → Litigation" panel for US 8,782,268.
4. Confirm the IPR2020-00647 (Hulu v. DivX) exhibit role directly in PTAB records.

If you need a hard statement for a filing: on the present record, I can say that no litigation involving US 8,782,268 has been identified, while expressly disclaiming that this is exhaustive. I would not represent affirmatively that the patent "has never been litigated" without the PACER/Docket Navigator confirmation above.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" default against live sources before writing up.

The first-pass results contain a critical ambiguity I need to resolve: several hits discuss an "'878 patent" with claims 1–23, but US 8,782,268 has only 16 claims. I need to determine whether those proceedings target this patent or a different '878.

PTAB / AIA trial proceedings — US 8,782,268 B2 ("Dynamic composition of media")

Verification mode: Canonical list taken from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest) = empty. I then ran live web searches to check for anything ODP hasn't indexed. I hit my search-step cap before the last three queries returned, so I note explicitly below what is verified vs. unresolved.

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) have ever been filed against US 8,782,268. No petition number anywhere in the record I retrieved names the '268 patent as the challenged patent; every hit naming "8,782,268" does so as prior art (Exhibit 1004, "Pyle"), not as patent-under-review.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB cancellation, no FWD, and no estoppel to lean on. The patent is facially un-challenged and un-hardened — nobody has tested claims 1–16, so nothing is canceled and nothing is confirmed patentable by the Board. Unlike the "survived two IPRs and is hardened" posture, you get the opposite of a roadmap: no institution decision parsing the claims, no construed terms, no Board reasoning to borrow. But you also face no § 315(b) one-year bar and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, meaning an IPR against this patent remains fully available to a defendant today, subject only to the current discretionary-denial climate.

---

Adjacent proceedings where US 8,782,268 appears as prior art (NOT on the patent)

These two are the only AIA trials I verified in which US 8,782,268 is actually named. In both, it is a § 102(e) prior-art exhibit, and Microsoft is not a party.

IPR2020-00647 — Hulu, LLC (with Netflix, Inc.) v. DivX, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent under review: US 9,270,720 — not 8,782,268
• Filed: petition dated 2020-03-11 (Paper 3); real parties in interest Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC
• Status: Final Written Decision issued 2021-09-27; challenged claims sustained (Netflix failed to meet its burden on claims 1–5 and 12)
• Judge panel: not retrieved
• Petition grounds: § 103(a) over (1) Pyle (US 8,782,268) + Marusi (EP 2180664), and (2) Lewis (US 2012/0047542) + Marusi
• Institution decision: instituted 2020-10-01 (Paper 9), including over DivX's argument that Pyle teaches "filtering" only via pre-existing manifests
• FWD (claim level): Board held Netflix did not prove claims 1–5 and 12 of the '720 patent unpatentable. The Board found the Pyle+Marusi combination deficient on the "filtering the list of assets" limitation: Netflix mapped Pyle's pre-existing manifest to "filtering" but Pyle's new manifest (unrelated to the pre-existing set) to "generating," so Pyle's new manifest "could not describe each asset in the filtered list of assets." Board likewise rejected the Lewis-based "retrieving" theory.
• Appeal: Netflix appealed. Consolidated with IPR2020-00648 as Nos. 2022-1203, 2022-1204; affirmed 2023-10-25 (Fed. Cir.; Chen, J., majority; Dyk, J., dissenting). Panel held all of Netflix's arguments were forfeited because they were not presented to the Board. Opinion: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1203.OPINION.10-25-2023_2211191.pdf ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9435057](/patent/9435057)/netflix-inc-v-divx-llc/
• Defensive value to you: Negative for a Pyle-based invalidity theory. The '268 patent was the primary reference Netflix used, and it failed; the Board and Fed. Cir. have now effectively mapped Pyle's limits (selects a pre-existing manifest on request; composes new manifests independent of the request). If your invalidity theory is "Pyle" against a manifest/index-file claim, expect DivX-style pushback.

IPR2020-00648 — Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent under review: US 9,998,515 — not 8,782,268
• Filed: 2020 (petition Paper 3, 2020-03-11 range); challenged claims 1–6, 8–10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19
• Status: FWD 2021-09-27; challenged claims sustained
• Petition grounds: § 103(a) over Pyle (US 8,782,268) + Marusi, and Lewis + Marusi. The FWD expressly footnotes Pyle as "U.S. Patent No. 8,782,268 B2 (Ex. 1004, 'Pyle'). Pyle was filed November 3, 2010, published January 26, 2012, and claims priority to a provisional patent application that was filed July 20, 2010."
• FWD (claim level): Board found the Pyle-based theory failed the "generating a top level index file" limitation (transmitting a manifest into storage ≠ generating), and rejected the Lewis "retrieving" theory.
• Appeal: consolidated into Nos. 2022-1203 / 2022-1204; affirmed 2023-10-25, on forfeiture grounds.
• Defensive value: Same as above, and useful confirmation that the '268 patent's own priority chain (provisional 61/366,059, filed 2010-07-20) was accepted as § 102(e) art by the Board. FWD PDF: https://lowensteinweatherwax.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-09-27-IPR2020-00648-Final-Written-Decision.pdf

Note on cross-reference: the previously generated bibliographic section flagged an incidental Docket Alarm hit — "Ex_1004 — US 8,782,268 Pyle" in IPR2020-00647, and treated it as "an unverified lead" that the patent was "submitted as an exhibit (likely prior art)." That is now verified: it is prior art, in both IPR2020-00647 and IPR2020-00648. Nothing about those proceedings challenges the '268 patent itself.

---

⚠️ False positives — do NOT cite these as proceedings against this patent

My searches repeatedly surfaced an "878 patent" in a 2022–2024 IPR cluster. That is a different patent. Evidence:

• IPR2022-01315 (Roku, filed 2022-07-27) and IPR2022-01505 (Samsung, filed 2022-09-07) challenged "claims 1–23" of the '878 Patent over Madhavan in view of Baum, Harrington (US 8,040,819) and Damick/Rankin/Varghese; both institution decisions were denials (2023-03-13 and 2023-03-22), with Director Review denied in the Roku case.
• IPR2023-01281 (Meta), instituted 2024-02-21, asserting Sitaraman (US 6,427,170) against the same '878.
• US 8,782,268 has only 16 claims (claims 1, 13 and 16 independent — confirmed from the granted-claims listing at https://patents.justia.com/patent/8782268). A challenge to claims 1–23 cannot target this patent. Do not treat IPR2022-01315 / IPR2022-01505 / IPR2023-01281 as proceedings on US 8,782,268.

(This also resolves an open item in the earlier summary: the claim set is now verified as 16 claims — superseding the "not verified" caveat there.)

Second flagged item — unresolved: a 2020-11-27 stay motion cites briefing about a "'268 patent" IPR and a "'542 patent" institution deadline of 2021-01-16, referring to the PTAB finding the '268 IPR merits "particularly strong." I could not identify which patent that "'268" is, and I am not attributing it to US 8,782,268. Given the plaintiff/defendant framing there (a patent owner dropping claims) and the Microsoft ownership of '268, it is most likely a different patent number. Treat as unverified; do not rely on it either way.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: All claims 1–16 are UNTESTED — none canceled, none confirmed. That is the whole picture. There is no FWD to point to, no certificate of cancellation, no surviving-claims list. Any statement that claims of 8,782,268 were "upheld" or "invalidated" would be fabricated.

Estoppel landscape: Because no IPR/PGR was ever filed against this patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has accrued against anyone with respect to its claims. There is likewise no § 315(b) one-year bar unless and until an infringement complaint asserting the '268 patent is served. Practically, a defendant facing a demand letter on the '268 patent is in an unusually clean position: the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art is available in an IPR. (Estoppel does bind Netflix/Hulu as to what they presented or reasonably could have presented in IPR2020-00647/00648 — but that estoppel attaches to the '720 and '515 claims and to Pyle-based arguments, not to the claims of the '268 patent.)

Pattern signals: No repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents filing found), no patent-owner appeal campaign on this patent. US 8,782,268's practical role in the ecosystem is as Microsoft's own Smooth Streaming/PIFF manifest prior art — it has been cited as a § 102(e) reference in the DivX adaptive-streaming IPRs and is a heavy forward-citation node in later streaming patents. Assignee is Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC (recorded 2014-12-09), and I found no evidence this patent has ever been asserted — consistent with zero IPR activity. A well-asserted patent of this vintage and importance would normally have attracted petitions by now; the absence is a signal about assertion, not about validity.

Held-up caveat: I could not run my final three verification queries (step cap). The "no PTAB activity" conclusion rests on the ODP block plus the searches that did return; I found nothing contradicting it. If you need a belt-and-suspenders check, run a PTAB E2E / PTAB Center search on 8,782,268 and on the application number 12/938,747 (a petition can be indexed by application number rather than patent number).

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being accused of infringing US 8,782,268:

• There is no FWD to quote — do not build a brief around an IPR disposition, because none exists. Instead, budget for a fresh IPR. The absence of § 315(b)/(e)(2) exposure is your opening.
• The obvious candidate art lives in the same technical neighborhood the Board already accepted as § 102(e) art: the Microsoft Smooth Streaming specification, 3GPP TS 26.234 MPD, PIFF (Bocharov et al., 2009), MPEG-DASH / ISO/IEC 23001-6 (2010–2011), and Madhavan (US 8,180,674). Note only that I verified these as art used in other DivX-related proceedings; I have not charted any of them against claims 1–16 of this patent.
• Given the current discretionary-denial posture (see the March 26, 2025 Interim Processes memo and the FAQ referenced in recent Board briefing), file early relative to any parallel district case, and be ready to address Fintiv/General Plastic factors.

If you are reviewing a demand letter that cites this patent:

• Check whether the letter cites claims 1–16 (real) or purports to cite "claims 1–23" — the latter is the wrong patent and signals copy-paste from the DivX/adaptive-streaming docket.
• Nothing about this patent has been narrowed by the PTAB. It is neither vulnerable-by-precedent nor hardened-by-precedent; it is simply untested.

Sources for the specific opinions cited:

• Fed. Cir., Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Nos. 2022-1203, 2022-1204 (2023-10-25): https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1203.OPINION.10-25-2023_2211191.pdf and https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9435057/netflix-inc-v-divx-llc/
• IPR2020-00648 FWD (2021-09-27): https://lowensteinweatherwax.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-09-27-IPR2020-00648-Final-Written-Decision.pdf
• IPR2020-00647 exhibit list naming "U.S. Patent No. 8,782,268 to Pyle et al. ('Pyle')" as Ex. 1004: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00647/Hulu_LLC_v._DivX_LLC/docs/06-08-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit_List-25-Petitioners_Updated_Exhibit_List.pdf
• PTAB E2E docket portal for proceeding verification: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/

I'll research the assignment record for US 8782268, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me look for the specific USPTO assignment records and any litigation involving this patent.

This is a significant lead — an IPR naming this patent. Let me investigate further.

I hit the search-step cap on the follow-up query, but I retrieved enough to reconstruct the recorded chain and to surface a concrete PTAB development. Here is the assignment analysis.

Retrieval caveat up front: I could not pull the USPTOD Assignment Center fields directly in this session. Specifically, I do not have the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record names for either recorded event. What I can state is corroborated by three independent listings (Google Patents legal events, the Unified Patents patent portal, and the golden.com patent record), all of which show the same two-event chain and the same current assignee. Any reel/frame or correspondent entry below is marked as unverified rather than fabricated.

---

Inventors

Employer confirmation for Hughes: a Fraunhofer FOKUS Media Web Symposium speaker bio states Hughes "came to Microsoft in 1998" and has since worked on "PM Digital Media Standards and Strategy," contributing to DECE Common File Format ("UltraViolet"), MPEG DASH, and MPEG Common Encryption. That places him squarely inside Microsoft at the 2010 filing and beyond — the same standards work the '268 specification describes.

Unusual patterns: None observed. There is no evidence of inventors departing Microsoft within 12 months of the July 20, 2010 provisional / Nov. 3, 2010 filing. Hughes in particular is documented as a long-tenured Microsoft standards contributor into the mid-2010s. This is the opposite of the pre-fire-sale precursor pattern the task asks me to screen for.

Refinement to the prior summary: the earlier section flagged that it could not verify the claim set. I retrieved the claim text, but note it is from the pre-grant publication US 2012/0023251 A1 (Justia mirror), which shows independent claims 1 and 16 (a server/manifest-composition system claim and a client/receiving-side system claim) plus dependents running to at least claim 18. The earlier summary's "16 claims" figure refers to the granted patent. Flagging the discrepancy: the application claims I retrieved are not the granted claims, and their counts differ (≥18 published vs. 16 granted). Do not treat the retrieved text as the granted claim set.

Original assignee

Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA; original assignee on the face of the granted patent).

• Primary line of business: operating company — software, cloud services, consumer devices (NASDAQ/NYSE-listed, "MSFT"). Not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodiment: Yes. The '268 disclosure is explicitly a "next generation smooth streaming transport protocol," and Microsoft shipped the corresponding technology (IIS Smooth Streaming, and later Azure Media Services / Smooth Streaming). The claims map onto that shipping product line.
• Current status: operating. Ownership now sits in Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC (formed 2014), a wholly owned Microsoft IP-management subsidiary. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of the assignor.

Assignment timeline

Two recorded events appear in every source I checked (Google Patents legal events, Unified Patents portal, golden.com). Both are intra-Microsoft; no third party ever entered the chain.

• 2010-11-03 (executed) / recorded 2010-11-03 — Reel unverified / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor-to-company)
  • Assignor: Robert Kilroy Hughes; Harry Pyle
  • Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — I could not pull the correspondent-of-record field. This is a material gap for the recurrence test below.
  • Context: Original employment/obligation assignment at filing; recorded the same day the application was filed.

• 2014-12-09 (recorded) — Reel unverified / not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest (Microsoft's standard post-2014 internal transfer into its patent-holding subsidiary)
  • Assignor: Microsoft Corporation
  • Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization / change of holder only — Microsoft formed Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC in 2014 as its central patent-holding entity and migrated its portfolio into it. No economic change in beneficial ownership.

No later assignment is recorded in any source I checked. Unified Patents and golden.com both continue to list Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC as the assignee of US 8,782,268. So the chain terminates inside the Microsoft corporate family.

Building on the prior summary's PTAB lead: the earlier section flagged an incidental exhibit mention in IPR2020-00647 (Hulu v. DivX). I now have a firmer 2025–2026 data point: IPR2026-00054, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia Media Holdings LLC, filed Nov. 5, 2025 and terminated Feb. 25, 2026, lists Exhibit 1006 — U.S. Patent No. 8,782,268 ("Pyle") (sandbox.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00054). In that proceeding the '268 patent is prior art asserted by the petitioner (Disney) against Adeia's challenged '639 patent — it is not the patent under review, and Microsoft is not a party. This is a defensive/prior-art use of the Pyle reference, not an assertion of the '268 patent. (Do not conflate this with the unrelated "'268 Patent" appearing in InterDigital v. Disney / C.D. Cal. No. 2:xx-cv-9561, which concerns color-gamut mapping — a different patent.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8782268
    2010 : Provisional 61366059 filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Microsoft Corporation
    2014 : Patent granted to Microsoft
         : Transfer to Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC
    2025 : Pyle reference used as prior art in Disney IPR

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only post-filing transfer (2014-12-09) moved the patent from Microsoft Corporation to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, a wholly owned operating-company subsidiary — not a licensing-only shell. No "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" third party appears; no registered-agent address; no single-member litigation LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Microsoft Corporation nor Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock / Spangenberg NPE rosters. The '268 patent is used in PTAB proceedings, but only as a prior-art exhibit against a licensing entity (Adeia) in IPR2026-00054 — the reverse of an NPE assertion.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not verifiable. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for either event, so I cannot run the recurrence test. This is the single most important open item; it should be resolved by pulling the two reel/frame entries at the Assignment Center directly.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded events, ~4 years apart, both intra-Microsoft. No chained LLC hops, no shared anonymous correspondence addresses.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last transfer (2014-12-09) precedes any identified proceeding by ~11 years and is an internal reorg, not an assertion-enabling transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Microsoft never entered bankruptcy; no Chapter 7/11 sale of this asset.
7. Privateering — not present. No transfer of the '268 patent to a third-party NPE backed by Microsoft; Microsoft retained beneficial ownership throughout.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present as a chain endpoint. The chain ends at Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, an operating-company subsidiary, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (The patent's use as invalidating prior art in IPR2026-00054 is defensive in effect, but that is not a chain termination.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The only two recorded events (2010-11-03 inventor assignment to Microsoft Corporation; 2014-12-09 internal transfer to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC) keep the patent inside the Microsoft corporate family, and Microsoft is a product-shipping operating company that embodies the claimed Smooth Streaming technology — no NPE signal is present. I explicitly caveat the "assertion" prong: I found no evidence Microsoft is suing a competitor on this specific patent; the '268 patent surfaces in IPR2026-00054 only as prior art used against a licensing entity, which if anything is a defensive posture. If a strict reading requires a documented competitor suit, the honest characterization is simply operating-company ownership with no NPE indicators; I am choosing "Operating-company assertion" because the enumerated list has no "clean operating-company holder, non-asserting" bucket and every shell/asserter/cascade marker screened negative.

Verify the two reel/frame entries and the correspondent-of-record directly at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search publication number 8782268.

Open verification items (do not treat as findings): (a) reel/frame for both events; (b) correspondent names — the key unrun recurrence test; (c) whether any later Microsoft-internal or divestiture assignment exists beyond the two captured.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the actual "References Cited" list from the patent.

Let me pull the front-page references directly from the patent databases.

US Patent 8,782,268 — Prior-Art / Citation Analysis

Step-limit notice: I hit the tool-call cap before I could pull the verbatim front-page "(56) References Cited" list from the granted patent. I will be explicit below about what is verified versus not verified, and I will not fabricate citation entries. One of my search hits was a false positive (an EPO search report for EP 1982969, a completely unrelated chemical/mechanical case) — disregard it. The Chinese-language and battery-electrode results are also unrelated noise.

---

1. Patent identification (verified against the authoritative text)

This matches the number you specified (8,782,268) exactly. No auto-correction applied.

---

2. New proceeding finding (updates the earlier summary)

The earlier summary said no 2026 appellate activity was found. I now have a 2026 PTAB hit that the earlier pass missed:

• IPR2026-00054, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Petitioner.
• Exhibit 1006 = "US Patent No. 8,782,268 'Pyle'", filed/dated Nov. 5, 2025 (PTAB docket).
• Source: Docket Alarm/PTAB case page for IPR2026-00054.

Interpretation (flagged as inference): the '268 patent appears as an exhibit — i.e., used as prior art by Disney against another challenged patent, not as the patent under challenge. So the earlier characterization (the '268 patent surfacing as prior-art exhibit in PTAB proceedings) is consistent: it also appeared as Exhibit 1004 in IPR2020-00647 (Hulu v. DivX). I could not verify the target patent of IPR2026-00054. Treat as a lead, not a conclusion.

---

3. Prior-art citations for the '268 patent — what I could and could not verify

3a. Not retrieved (be aware)

The front-page examiner/applicant citations ("U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" and "FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS" columns printed on US 8,782,268) were not retrievable in this session — my searches for the verbatim "(56) References Cited" block returned unrelated patents. I therefore cannot give you the examiner-cited patent numbers with confidence, and I will not invent them. To get them verbatim, pull the granted-PDF front page directly (USPTO PatentCenter or the patentimages PDF link for US8782268B2) — that is the authoritative source for the § 102/§ 103 citations actually made against this application.

3b. Verified prior-art references named in the patent's own text (authoritative source = the patent you supplied)

These are the documents the specification itself identifies as the state of the art / conventional systems, and they are the most defensible supporting references I can cite from the authoritative text:

Why these are the right starting points: your task is the "most relevant prior art," and the specification itself frames the invention as an advance over exactly these references. Any real § 102 challenge to '268 will almost certainly be built from an MPD/manifest reference (3GPP TS 26.234 family) combined with a segmented-HTTP-streaming reference (HLS or Smooth Streaming) — not from a single "magic" anticipatory patent.

3c. What I could not establish

• The specific examiner-cited U.S. patent numbers on the '268 front page. Unverified.
• Whether any single reference anticipates any specific claim under § 102. The verbatim claim set was not in the text provided (the earlier summary already flagged that the claim language could not be retrieved and that its claim overview was inferential). A proper anticipation chart requires (a) the exact claim text and (b) element-by-element mapping. I cannot responsibly assert "Reference X anticipates claim N" without both.

---

4. Anticipation mapping — how I would frame it (contingent, per the earlier inferential claim breakdown)

Because the earlier summary's claim descriptions are inferential, treat these as candidate § 102 theories, to be confirmed once the actual claims are pulled:

---

5. Bottom line

1. US 8,782,268 = "Dynamic composition of media" (Microsoft), confirmed.
2. The most relevant prior art for '268 is the family of standards/practices the patent itself names: 3GPP TS 26.234 (MPD), Apple HTTP Live Streaming, Microsoft Smooth Streaming/SSTP, PIFF, and ISO/IEC 13818-1 & 14496-12 — all pre-dating the Jul. 20, 2010 priority date and thus potential § 102(b) art, with PIFF/SSTP being the most pointed because the patent concedes their features.
3. The examiner's exact front-page citations were not retrievable in this session, so I have deliberately not listed specific U.S. patent numbers for them — listing unverified numbers would violate the accuracy requirement. Pull the granted-PDF front page for the authoritative list.
4. New proceeding: IPR2026-00054 (Disney), Exhibit 1006 = US 8,782,268 "Pyle" (Nov. 5, 2025) — the '268 patent is being used as prior art by Disney, consistent with its earlier appearance in IPR2020-00647 (Hulu v. DivX).

If you lift the step cap, I can (a) fetch the verbatim "(56) References Cited" block from the granted PDF, (b) retrieve the exact claims 1–16, and (c) produce a true element-by-element § 102 chart against each cited reference.

I'll pull the actual prior-art record for this patent (References Cited, related art) and the claim language, since the earlier sections flagged those as unverified.

Key finding: the '268 patent is appearing as prior art (Ex-1006 "Pyle") in a 2025 Disney petition (IPR2026-00054). Let me get the full claim set and the patent's References Cited section.

I've hit the search-step limit, so here is the §103 analysis based on the patent text you supplied, the claim text I was able to verify (claim 1 verbatim, via Justia), and the prior-art record I could retrieve. I flag clearly what is verified vs. inferred.

---

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,782,268 B2 ("Dynamic composition of media")

0. Verification status (read first)

Two things follow from the last two rows:

1. The granted claim 1 is narrower than the published claim 1 — the "track set component … classified as one of selectable or switchable" limitation was added during prosecution. Under §103, that addition is precisely where the validity fight lives.
2. The '268 disclosure is now itself being used as prior art against later streaming patents, which is a strong signal that its subject matter sits squarely in the ordinary-skill design space rather than at the inventive-activity frontier.

Because I could not retrieve the patent's own "References Cited," the grounds below use (a) the patent's own admissions of what was known ("Applicant Admitted Prior Art," AAPA), and (b) well-documented prior art in the HTTP-adaptive-streaming field as of the July 20, 2010 priority date. I mark which ground rests on which.

---

1. Governing framework

• Statutory basis: The application was filed Nov. 3, 2010 and claims priority to provisional 61/366,059 (July 20, 2010) — both before the March 16, 2013 AIA changeover. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs.
• Test: Graham v. John Deere — (1) scope/content of prior art; (2) differences between prior art and claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; then (4) secondary considerations. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex supplies the rationales (predictable combination, known technique to improve a similar device, "obvious to try," design incentives/market forces).
• Critical date: For §102(b), the one-year bar runs to ~July 20, 2009 (provisional). For §102(a), anything publicly known before July 20, 2010.

Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA): A bachelor's degree in computer science/electrical engineering (or equivalent) plus ~2+ years of experience designing network media delivery, or a master's with less experience. The POSITA is familiar with HTTP, adaptive bitrate streaming, MPEG-2 TS / ISO Base Media File Format (ISO/IEC 14496-12), manifests/playlists, and HTTP server/client content negotiation.

---

2. The claim at issue (verified)

Claim 1 — a system that facilitates HTTP delivery of streaming media, comprising:

(i) at least one processor and at least one memory;
(ii) a manifest component that maintains multiple manifests for a single item of content, wherein each manifest describes at least one location of one or more content segments associated with one or more representations of the content, each manifest associated with a particular configuration of the single item of content;
(iii) a composition component that organizes the multiple manifests in accordance with descriptions of the multiple manifests and selects a particular manifest … based upon data included in a request for the content; and
(iv) a track set component that identifies track sets available as alternative representations of the content or content segment, the track sets used to adjust the HTTP delivery;
(v) wherein the track sets are classified as one of selectable or switchable — a selectable track set is selectable prior to delivery, and a switchable track set is seamlessly switchable with respect to another switchable track set during presentation.

Dependents I could verify:

• 2: each manifest further describes a set of attributes (codec, resolution, bitrate, camera angle, language, channels, subtitles, content type, DRM, rating, version — spec ¶¶ attributes 300).
• 3: organization via an object model defining those attributes.
• 4: a track set is tied to one and only one content-component type (audio, video, subtitles/text, or enhancement layer).
• 5: the composition component composes a new manifest from track-set attributes.
• 7: a storage component maintaining at least one representation.
• 11: the location is described by a URL.

So the independent-claim core is a server-side, manifest-per-configuration, request-driven selection architecture with a selectable/switchable track-set taxonomy.

---

3. Scope and content of the prior art

Every reference below predates the July 20, 2010 priority date (most by a year or more). Dates marked "verified in search" were confirmed in this session; others are from my knowledge of the field and are flagged as such.

Documented PTAB context. A PTAB petition states: "Claim 8 is obvious over Pyle alone or Pyle and Barraclough … each relates to methods for streaming media content in response to a request based on, for example, characteristics and/or capabilities of the requesting device" (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558619/...). Here "Pyle" = US 8,782,268. In other words, petitioners are treating the '268 patent's own disclosure — including its request-driven manifest selection based on device capabilities — as citable prior art. And the Disney IPR2026-00054 (Nov. 5, 2025) submitted '268 as Ex-1006 ("Pyle"). That does not decide §103 for '268, but it confirms the field mapped this subject matter to ordinary skill well before/around the priority window.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — HLS (Pantos) + Smooth Streaming/SSTP (in view of the 3GPP MPD backdrop)

Maps to claim 1:

• "Multiple manifests for a single item of content … each manifest associated with a particular configuration" → HLS's master/variant playlist + per-variant media playlists; Smooth Streaming's per-quality-level manifests. Multiple index documents for one movie, each keyed to a configuration (bitrate/resolution/device class).
• "Each manifest describes at least one location of … content segments associated with … representations" → HLS media playlists list segment URIs; MPD/SSTP describe segment URLs/templates.
• "Composition component organizes the multiple manifests … selects a particular manifest based upon data included in a request" → variant selection by device/bandwidth (HLS), server/client content negotiation (Smooth Streaming); Barraclough expressly supplies request-capability-based selection.
• "Track set component … alternative representations … classified as selectable or switchable" → Smooth Streaming's per-media-type StreamIndex with multiple QualityLevels (seamless = switchable) vs. separately chosen audio-language/text tracks (chosen before playback = selectable); HLS's alternate-audio renditions (selectable) vs. within-variant bitrate switching (switchable).

Motivation (KSR): (1) Both references solve the same problem — serving one item of content to heterogeneous clients over plain HTTP — so a POSITA had reason to combine. (2) The combination is a predictable use of known techniques (playlists/manifests + variant selection) and yields only expected benefits (fewer stored files, better device fit). (3) Design incentive / finite solutions: the patent's own Background confesses the "combinatorial complexity problem" and frames the invention as an improvement over MPD/Smooth Streaming. When the patentee admits the problem and the field already had per-variant indexes and seamless switching, the claimed architecture is the natural next step — a "known technique improve[d] … in the same way" (KSR).

Ground 2 — 3GPP MPD + PIFF/ISO Base Media File Format

Maps to claim 1 (manifest/segment-location and per-representation structure) and to the track-set/addressing concepts, plus dependents 7 and 11 (storage component; URL-described locations). PIFF/ISOFF supplies independent single-track storage and addressing, which the patent admits, and which underlies the "track sets as alternative representations."

Motivation: The patent expressly adopts MPD as its baseline and PIFF as its file format. Substituting one standardized container/addressing scheme (PIFF/ISOFF) for another known one (fragmented MP4/MPEG-2 TS) is (KSR) a simple substitution of a known element to obtain a predictable result; the patent touts exactly the expected benefit (independent track addressing + DRM interoperability). AAPA alone can carry much of this ground.

Ground 3 — Ogdon + Shteyn (+ SMIL 2.0 as the selection-semantics reference)

Maps to claim 1: Ogdon teaches HTTP delivery at multiple quality levels with mid-stream quality shifting (switchable representations); Shteyn teaches server-side partitioning into segments delivered over HTTP (segment locations in a manifest); SMIL supplies declarative alternative-selection ("switch"/select) semantics that map to the selectable vs. switchable classification.

Motivation (KSR): Combining an HTTP quality-shifting streamer (Ogdon) with a server-side file-segmentation scheme (Shteyn) to manage the "combinatorial complexity" was obvious to try — a small, finite set of known delivery techniques. Adding SMIL's well-known "choose one vs. vary over time" alternative model to label track groups as selectable/switchable is a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.

Ground 4 — Dependent claims

---

5. Why a POSITA would combine — consolidated rationales

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. All references address HTTP adaptive streaming to heterogeneous devices. Combining references from the same field to solve the same problem is presumptively obvious.
2. The patent admits the prior art. The specification's own Background recites MPD, Smooth Streaming/SSTP, PIFF, and DVD/Blu-ray as existing, and describes the invention as "various enhancements" to an MPD-based Smooth Streaming protocol. AAPA of this depth substantially pre-builds the prima facie case.
3. Predictable results. Multiple per-configuration manifests, request-driven selection, and a selectable/switchable taxonomy each yield only their expected benefits (fewer stored muxes; better device fit; seamless vs. non-seamless switching) — (KSR) "combination of familiar elements according to known methods."
4. Design incentive / market forces. The patent's own "256 muxed versions → 138,240 files" narrative is an admitted market/engineering pressure to move to per-configuration indexes with independent track storage — the classic "design incentive" rationale.
5. Finite identified solutions. Segmenting media, indexing it with a playlist/manifest, selecting by device/network, and switching quality mid-stream were the recognized, finite toolkit; the '268 claims select from it without a new mechanism.

---

6. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

On the present record I found no evidence of nexus-bearing objective indicia (unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, licensing-due-to-the-invention, copying). Notably, licensing to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is a normal commercial assignment/licensing posture, not evidence of nonobviousness. If the patentee argues "smooth end-user experience" or "HTTP rather than specialized media servers," the PTAB record above shows those benefits were already in the prior art (Ogdon/Leaning), so a nexus to the claimed selectable/switchable classification would be required and is not evident. Note too the Yita v. MacNeil principle: objective evidence tied to features already known in the prior art lacks nexus.

---

7. Likely weak points / where the patentee would resist

• Claim 1's "classified as one of selectable or switchable" with "seamlessly switchable … during presentation." A patentee will argue the explicit two-class taxonomy with seamless-vs-non-seamless semantics is the inventive hinge — and it is the limitation added during prosecution (compare published claim 1). The obviousness attack must show SMIL/switch semantics + Smooth Streaming seamless switching render this classification the natural labeling of pre-existing behavior, not a new mechanism. I rate this the closest call.
• "Each manifest associated with a particular configuration of the single item of content." If read broadly (any per-variant index), HLS anticipates/nearly anticipates; if read narrowly (device-profile-specific "compositions"), the Ground 1/2 mapping needs an explicit device-capability-selection reference (Barraclough helps here).
• Claims 6, 8–10, 12–16 may contain method/storage limitations I could not verify; any of them could add a genuinely distinguishing step.

---

8. Bottom line

On the record I can verify, claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious over the combination of (a) HLS/Pantos (multiple per-variant manifests for one content item + variant selection) and (b) Microsoft Smooth Streaming/SSTP (per-track indexes, seamless quality switching, independently stored audio/text tracks), optionally with Barraclough for request/device-capability-driven selection, and with the 3GPP MPD, PIFF/ISOFF, SMIL 2.0, Ogdon, and Shteyn references supporting the manifest, storage, addressing, and selectable/switchable limitations. The strongest validity support for the patent is the explicit selectable-vs-switchable classification limitation (added during prosecution); every other element of claim 1 is disclosed or suggested by the admitted background and the field references.

Caveats I will not paper over: I could not retrieve the patent's own "References Cited" list or the verbatim text of claims 6, 8–10, and 12–16, so this analysis is incomplete as to those claims and does not represent that any named reference was before the examiner. If you can lift the search cap, I will (i) pull the granted claim set and the IDS faces, (ii) verify the Ogdon/Shteyn/Barraclough patent numbers, and (iii) chart claims 6, 8–10, 12–16 element-by-element.