Invalidity dossier
US 9098464
System and method for assigning requests in a content distribution network
Current assignee: AT&T Intellectual Property II LP
Added 9/23/2026, 6:58:40 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 — US 9,098,464 B2
Title: System and method for assigning requests in a content distribution network
Assignee / Inventors: Original assignee AT&T Intellectual Property II LP; current assignee listed as AT&T Intellectual Property II LP and AT&T Inc. Inventors: Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi and Mohammad Hossein Bateni.
Key dates: Priority date 2008-12-05; application US 14/094,192 filed 2013-12-02; publication US 2014/0089522 A1 on 2014-03-27; granted 2015-08-04; anticipated expiration 2028-12-05. Legal status listed as Active (a status assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Purpose: The disclosure addresses assignment of client requests among cache servers in a Content Distribution Network (CDN). Because each provider edge router generally directs all its requests to a single cache server under IP anycast routing, and because each cache server has finite capacity (processor, memory, bandwidth), exceeding that capacity can degrade response times. Rather than always using the closest cache server, the described approach can direct requests to a more distant cache server to avoid overloading a nearer one, and can use a route controller that exchanges routes with provider edge routers and receives load information from cache servers to influence routing.
Plain-language scope: The patent describes a CDN environment (e.g., the anycast system 200) with provider edge routers, cache servers (216, 218), and a route controller (232). Cache servers advertise a shared anycast address (e.g., via BGP); the route controller distributes routes to the anycast address so provider edge routers can steer traffic to a selected cache server, accounting for server capacity and setup costs. The excerpt references flow diagrams (FIGS. 3–5) for allocating requests between cache servers, but does not reproduce those method steps.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full claim text, the complete specification or drawing content, the specific request-allocation algorithms, or the full description of FIGS. 3–5. It also does not establish prosecution history, claim scope as construed, or the accuracy of the listed legal status and expiration date.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:23 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9098464. 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.