US 8856221

Search results and CAFC docket status

CAFC / 2026 dockets: I searched for a Federal Circuit appeal involving patent 8856221 in 2026 and found no CAFC docket or appeal matching this patent number. The most recent 2026 activity is at the district court level: a Washington Western District jury verdict (Valve Corp. v. Rothschild, No. 2:23-cv-01016) reported around Feb. 17, 2026, involving US8856221B2 — but that is not a CAFC proceeding, and I found no indication of a pending or decided Federal Circuit appeal as of the search date. Post-trial motions and a possible later appeal remain possible; I cannot confirm any CAFC filing with confidence.

Patent summary — US 8,856,221 B2 (US8856221)

(Identifiers read literally; this is the "‑221" family member, not to be confused with the parent US 8,307,089 or other Rothschild cloud patents.)

Abstract (as granted): "A system, method and device for media content storage and delivery. A server has a receiver in communication with a processor. The receiver receives a request message. The request message includes media data indicating requested media content and a consumer device identifier corresponding to a consumer device. The processor determines whether the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device. If the processor determines that the consumer device identifier corresponds to the registered consumer device, then the processor determines whether the request message is one of a storage request message and a content request message. If the request message is the storage request message, then the processor is further configured to determine whether the requested media content is available for storage. If the request message is the content request message, then the processor initiates delivery of the requested media content to the consumer device."

In plain language: the patent covers a server that receives a request identifying both content to be stored/delivered and the requesting consumer device; it only proceeds if the device is registered; it then classifies the request as either a "storage" request (record this content for later) or a "content" request (stream/download it now) and acts accordingly — verifying availability before storing, or initiating delivery for streaming. Dependent claims add verifying content existence, prompting registration of unregistered devices, checking restrictions, time-data indicating how long content is retained, confirmation messages, and financial-cost calculation (the cost theme carried over from the parent patent).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Caveat on claim text: the granted claim set is not reproduced verbatim in the authoritative text I was given (it was truncated), and the search snippets/OCR of the granted patent (e.g., exhibits in Valve Corp. v. Rothschild, W.D. Wash.) only show fragments. I can state the general architecture with high confidence, but the exact count and boundaries of the independent claims (and whether the device claim is independently numbered) should be verified against the USPTO full-text if precision is needed.

• Independent system claim (granted claim 1): A media-content storage-and-delivery system having a first server with (a) a receiver that receives a request message containing media data identifying requested media content plus a consumer-device identifier, and (b) a processor that (i) determines whether the device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device; (ii) if registered, determines whether the request is a storage request or a content request; (iii) if a storage request, determines whether the requested media content is available for storage; and (iv) if a content request, initiates delivery of the requested media content to the consumer device.

• Independent method claim (appears as granted claim 7): The corresponding method performed by the server — receiving the request message with media data and consumer-device identifier, checking registration, classifying the request as storage vs. content, verifying availability if storage, and initiating delivery to the consumer device if content is requested. Dependent method claims add receiving a storage-confirmation message, sending a registration prompt for unregistered devices, verifying the identifier is associated with an end user, restriction checks, and financial-cost computation.

• Consumer-device claim: The pre-grant publication and family disclose an independent consumer-device claim (device with memory storing consumer/storage-cost data, a transmitter sending the storage request, and a receiver getting a confirmation message with cost). The granted patent appears to carry this concept into dependent form (e.g., a claim adding a "second transmitter" configured to transmit a storage request), but I could not verify the exact independent/dependent numbering in the granted patent from the sources available.

Other notes / uncertainty

• Litigation posture: Heavy enforcement history (Delaware, N.D. Cal., W.D. Wash., Texas, Massachusetts, etc.); PTAB proceedings IPR2015-01181 and IPR2018-01001 both settled. In Feb. 2026, a Washington federal jury found Rothschild-related entities liable under Washington's Patent Troll Prevention Act / Consumer Protection Act and for breach of a 2016 license, with reported damages figures varying across sources ($25K vs. ~$152K — I could not reconcile this discrepancy). Whether this verdict is appealed to the CAFC was not apparent from my searches.
• Authoritative confirmation: Bibliographic details match Google Patents (the authoritative text provided) and USPTO-derived aggregators; minor one-day date differences (filing Oct. 14 vs. 15; grant Oct. 6 vs. 7; expiration Nov. 20 vs. 21) exist between sources and should be resolved against the USPTO record if precision matters.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,856,221 across multiple sources.

I have initial results. Let me dig deeper into the comprehensive litigation list via additional searches.

The patent has extensive litigation history. Let me search for more specifics, including IPR proceedings and recent 2025–2026 cases.

Based on my research, US Patent 8,856,221 ("the '221 patent," System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment, owned by Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC / entities controlled by Leigh M. Rothschild) has been involved in extensive litigation. This is a heavily-asserted patent with well over 100 district-court dockets aggregated against it (per the Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation listing and a Docket Navigator run cited in the Valve case), plus PTAB proceedings. Below is the known litigation I could verify with specific case details. Where I could not confirm a status, I say so.

PTAB / IPR proceedings

1. Unified Patents Inc. v. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC — IPR2015-01181

   • Petitioner: Unified Patents Inc.; Patent Owner: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC
   • Filed: May 14, 2015 (challenging claims 1–13 of the '221 patent)
   • Status: Settled/terminated (Unified Patents blog confirms filing; Google Patents lists status as settlement). Note: Unified stated its 2015 filing was prompted by Rothschild's ~10 March 2015 suits against content-delivery companies.

2. Alarm.com, Inc. v. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (a/k/a Leigh M. Rothschild) — IPR2018-01001

   • Petitioner: Alarm.com, Inc.; Patent Owner: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC
   • Filed: May 8, 2018 (challenging claims 1–13)
   • Status: Terminated–Settled (termination date October 5, 2018, per PTAB records).

District court litigation (verified specifics)

1. Valve Corporation v. Leigh Rothschild, Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC, Display Technologies, LLC, Patent Asset Management, LLC, Meyler Legal, PLLC, and Samuel Meyler

   • No. 2:23-cv-01016-JNW, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
   • Filed: July 7, 2023
   • Nature: Valve (declaratory-judgment plaintiff) sought DJ of invalidity/unenforceability of the '221 patent, breach of the 2016 Global Settlement & License Agreement (which licensed the '221 patent to Valve), and bad-faith patent assertions under Washington's Patent Troll Prevention Act/Consumer Protection Act. Defendants counterclaimed infringement of the '221 patent (filed May 8, 2025), which was dismissed with prejudice on December 8, 2025 (Dkt. 170).
   • Status: Valve prevailed. Trial began February 10, 2026; the jury found for Valve on all claims (breach of contract, PTPA, CPA) and awarded ~$152,000. Post-trial motions (including Valve's fee request) were pending as of early 2026. An order dated Feb. 9, 2026 limited Valve's invalidity trial to claim 7 only.

2. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Nirvato Software Pvt Ltd.

   • No. 2:25-cv-00852-JRG-RSP, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Div.)
   • Filed: August 23, 2025 (complaint on the docket)
   • Status: Not confirmed from my searches; early-stage as of late 2025.

3. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. CodeLathe Technologies, Inc.

   • No. 1:25-cv-00918, W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright)
   • Filed: ~June 2025
   • Status: Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation, February 26, 2026 (settled; no merits ruling).

4. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Wasabi Technologies LLC

   • No. 1:25-cv-11742, D. Mass. (Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton)
   • Filed: June 16, 2025
   • Status: Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (each party to bear its own fees); dismissal occurred before answer/MSJ.

5. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Exclusive Group LLC

   • No. 1:23-cv-00285, D. Del. (Judge Maryellen Noreika)
   • Filed: 2023
   • Status: Dismissed without prejudice (voluntary dismissal under Rule 41; no merits ruling).

6. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Bright Livingston Consultancy Pvt Ltd. d/b/a Webnexs.com

   • No. 2:25-cv-01241, E.D. Tex.
   • Filed: December 2025
   • Status: Dismissed with prejudice, February 20, 2026 (voluntary, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)).

7. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Snowflake, Inc.

   • No. 1:25-cv-12935, D. Mass.
   • Filed: October 7, 2025 (per filings in the Valve case)
   • Status: Not confirmed from my searches.

8. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Tencent America LLC

   • No. 1:25-cv-08340, S.D.N.Y.
   • Filed: October 8, 2025 (per filings in the Valve case)
   • Status: Not confirmed from my searches.

9. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. ADT, Inc.

   • No. 6:23-cv-00339, W.D. Tex.
   • Filed: May 9, 2023 (accusing "Blue by ADT" media storage/delivery systems; claim 7 exemplary)
   • Status: Not confirmed from my searches.

10. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Plex, Inc.

    • No. 5:23-cv-4773, N.D. Cal. (2023) — referenced in Valve-case filings
    • Also earlier: Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Plex, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-404 (E.D. Tex.), which was dismissed following settlement (per Valve-case exhibits referencing orders of dismissal and notices of settlement in 2:16-cv-385 and 2:16-cv-404).
    • Status of the N.D. Cal. case not confirmed.

11. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.

    • No. 2:16-cv-385, E.D. Tex.
    • Status: Dismissed (settled — unopposed motion to stay and notice of settlement; order of dismissal of all claims, per Valve-case exhibits).

Broader assertion waves (aggregated, not individually verified)

The '221 patent was asserted in large multi-defendant waves, predominantly by plaintiff Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC, including:

• ~10 cases filed March 2015 against content-delivery companies (the campaign Unified Patents cited when filing IPR2015-01181). The Google Patents litigation listing shows numerous 2015 E.D. Tex. cases (e.g., 6:15-cv-00226 through 6:15-cv-00238, 6:15-cv-00526/00527) tied to the patent.
• 2016–2018 E.D. Tex. cases (e.g., 2:16-cv-00402–00406, 2:16-cv-00934, 2:16-cv-01261–01266, 2:16-cv-01448, 2:17-cv-00205/00206, 2:18-cv-00333/00334).
• Delaware cases (e.g., 1:17-cv-01626 through 1:17-cv-01630; 1:18-cv-00187; 1:18-cv-01156/01157; 1:19-cv-00378, -00703, -01605/01606; 1:20-cv-00391–00397, -00666/-00669/-00672; 1:21-cv-00626–00632; 1:23-cv-00285; 1:23-cv-00298) and cases in N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal., D. Colo., D. Md., D. Mass., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y., S.D.N.Y., D. Utah, W.D. Wash., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., and D. Fla. listed against the patent on the Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation pages.

Caveat on completeness and accuracy: I could not, within available search steps, verify party names, filing dates, and current status for every docket in the aggregated litigation list (many of those dockets appear to be Rothschild-plaintiff infringement suits that settled or were dismissed, consistent with the pattern above). The most authoritative per-case verification would come from PACER, the Unified Patents portal case list (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), and the PTAB (the two IPRs above). The headline, fully-adjudicated matter is the Valve case (No. 2:23-cv-01016), where the patent owner's infringement counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice and Valve won a jury verdict against the Rothschild entities in February 2026.

If you want, I can drill into any specific docket number from the aggregated list to attempt to pull its parties and status.