US 9116908

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 9,116,908:

US Patent 9,116,908: System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval

• Title: System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval
• Assignee: Realtime Data LLC
• Inventor: James J. Fallon
• Filing Date: June 12, 2014
• Issue Date: August 25, 2015
• Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for accelerating data storage and retrieval using lossless data compression and decompression. A data storage accelerator uses one or more high-speed data compression encoders to compress data. This compressed data is then stored in a target memory or storage device, which has a lower input data storage bandwidth than the original input data stream. Similarly, a data retrieval accelerator employs one or more high-speed data decompression decoders to decompress data at a rate equal to or faster than the input data stream from the target memory. The decompressed data is then output at a rate greater than the output rate from the target memory or storage device.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method for accelerated data storage and retrieval): This claim describes a method where data is received at a high input rate, compressed by at least one encoder, and then stored in a slower storage device. Later, this compressed data is retrieved from the storage device and decompressed by at least one decoder, resulting in an output data stream that is faster than the retrieval rate from the storage device. The key idea is that compression allows a faster input stream to be written to a slower device, and decompression allows a retrieved compressed stream to be output at a faster rate.
• Independent Claim 20 (System for accelerated data storage and retrieval): This claim describes a physical system designed to perform the method of Claim 1. It includes a "data storage accelerator" with a compressor to handle the high-speed input and storage to a slower device, and a "data retrieval accelerator" with a decompressor to retrieve data from the slower device and output it at a higher rate.
• Independent Claim 35 (Method for accelerated data storage): This claim focuses specifically on the storage aspect. It details a method where an input data stream, coming in at a rate faster than the storage device can handle, is compressed. The compression process is efficient enough (compression rate is at least equal to the ratio of the input data rate to the storage rate) to allow the continuous storage of the incoming high-speed data.
• Independent Claim 42 (Method for accelerated data retrieval): This claim focuses specifically on the retrieval aspect. It describes a method where a compressed data stream is retrieved from a storage device. This retrieved compressed data is then decompressed. The decompression ratio is managed (equal to or greater than the ratio of the data access rate to the maximum accepted output data rate) to ensure a continuous and optimal high-speed output of the decompressed data.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets (May and June 2026 scheduled cases) did not yield any authoritative information directly mentioning US patent 9,116,908.

US Patent 9,116,908 has been involved in extensive litigation, as detailed by information available through Unified Patents and Darts-ip. Here's a summary of the known cases and their statuses:

District Court Litigation:

• Delaware District Court
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01995 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:20-cv-01498 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-00893 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-00925 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-00972 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01543 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01544 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01635 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01676 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01621 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01769 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-00653 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01163 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01164 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01197 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01198 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01199 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01201 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01202 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01267 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01491 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01540 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01544 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01566 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-01750 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01200 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-02017 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-02062 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:19-cv-00031 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:19-cv-00357 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:19-cv-00394 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:19-cv-00395 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:19-cv-00492 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:20-cv-01497 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01964 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• California Northern District Court
  • Case: 3:17-cv-02109 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 3:17-cv-06397 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 3:17-cv-06701 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 3:18-cv-06029 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 3:19-cv-01504 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 4:17-cv-02373 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Colorado District Court
  • Case: 1:17-cv-02479 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-01373 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• California Central District Court
  • Case: 2:19-cv-06160 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Massachusetts District Court
  • Case: 1:17-cv-11279 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:17-cv-12499 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 1:18-cv-12188 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case: 6:16-cv-00086 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:16-cv-00087 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:16-cv-00089 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:16-cv-00961 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:16-cv-01035 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:16-cv-01037 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00071 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00118 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00119 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00120 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00121 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00122 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00123 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00124 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00125 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:17-cv-00126 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:18-cv-00182 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:18-cv-00188 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:18-cv-00383 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
  • Case: 6:18-cv-00385 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Litigation:

• Case: 18-1366 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 19-2198 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 19-2201 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 19-2202 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 19-2204 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 21-2251 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 21-2291 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• Case: 23-1232 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).

U.S. Supreme Court Litigation:

• Case: 23-498 (Source: Unified Patents Portal).

PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Litigation:

• IPR2017-02007: Not Instituted - Merits (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2017-01196: Settlement (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2017-00364: Final Written Decision (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2016-00377: Not Instituted - Merits (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2017-01629: Settlement (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2016-01002: Final Written Decision (Source: Unified Patents Portal).
• IPR2016-01672: Final Written Decision (Source: Unified Patents Portal).

The "Plaintiff(s)" and "Defendant(s)" details for each specific case number are not readily available in the provided snippets. While Unified Patents lists a "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" search filter on their litigation portal, the individual case entries for US9116908 on Google Patents (sourced from Unified Patents) do not explicitly provide these parties for each listed case number. Similarly, Darts-ip indicates that it provides access to litigation history, counterparties, and outcomes, but these specific details for US9116908 are not directly extracted from the provided snippets.

Therefore, I cannot provide the specific plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) for each case, nor the exact filing dates and precise outcomes beyond what is indicated for the PTAB cases (e.g., "Settlement," "Final Written Decision," "Not Instituted - Merits").US Patent 9,116,908 has been involved in extensive litigation across various U.S. federal courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Realtime Data LLC is the current assignee of the patent.

Below is a list of known litigation involving US Patent 9,116,908, based on available data. Specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and detailed outcomes or filing dates are not consistently provided for every entry in the available public records from the search results, but jurisdictions and case numbers are listed.

District Court Litigation:

• Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01995
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01498
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00893
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00925
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00972
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01543
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01544
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01635
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01676
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01621
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01769
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-00653
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01163
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01164
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01197
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01198
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01199
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01201
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01202
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01267
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01491
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01540
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01544
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01566
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-01750
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01200
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-02017
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-02062
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00031
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00357
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00394
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00395
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00492
  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01497
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01964
• California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-02109
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-06397
  • Case Number: 3:17-cv-06701
  • Case Number: 3:18-cv-06029
  • Case Number: 3:19-cv-01504
  • Case Number: 4:17-cv-02373
• Colorado District Court
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-02479
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-01373
• California Central District Court
  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-06160
• Massachusetts District Court
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-11279
  • Case Number: 1:17-cv-12499
  • Case Number: 1:18-cv-12188
• Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00086
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00087
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00089
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-00961
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01035
  • Case Number: 6:16-cv-01037
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00071
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00118
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00119
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00120
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00121
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00122
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00123
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00124
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00125
  • Case Number: 6:17-cv-00126
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00182
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00188
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00383
  • Case Number: 6:18-cv-00385

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Litigation:

• Case Number: 18-1366
• Case Number: 19-2198
• Case Number: 19-2201
• Case Number: 19-2202
• Case Number: 19-2204
• Case Number: 21-2251
• Case Number: 21-2291
• Case Number: 23-1232

U.S. Supreme Court Litigation:

• Case Number: 23-498

PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Litigation:

• IPR2017-02007: Outcome: Not Instituted - Merits
• IPR2017-01196: Outcome: Settlement
• IPR2017-00364: Outcome: Final Written Decision
• IPR2016-00377: Outcome: Not Instituted - Merits
• IPR2017-01629: Outcome: Settlement
• IPR2016-01002: Outcome: Final Written Decision
• IPR2016-01672: Outcome: Final Written Decision

The available information from the search results does not consistently provide the specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), or precise filing dates for all listed cases. However, Darts-ip and Unified Patents are noted as resources for detailed patent litigation data, including parties and outcomes.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven AIA trial proceedings filed against US patent 9,116,908. One proceeding resulted in a Final Written Decision invalidating certain claims, while another was terminated due to settlement. Five other petitions were not instituted or reached a final written decision. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture, with some claims potentially invalidated via IPR and others having survived PTAB scrutiny or remaining untested. It's important to note that the patent has also faced multiple challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in district courts, with some claims ultimately found ineligible as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit.

IPR2016-01002 — Dell Inc.; Riverbed Technology, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; Teradata Operations, Inc.; Echostar Corporation; Hughes Network Systems, LLC; and Veritas Technologies LLC v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: IPR2016-01002 was instituted, but the specific filing date for this proceeding is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets. However, a related case IPR2016-00783, involving Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. v. Realtime Data LLC on a different patent, was filed on April 1, 2016.
• Status: Final Written Decision. The PTAB found claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: J. John Lee.
• Petition grounds: The exact claims and prior art challenged in IPR2016-01002 are not fully detailed in the provided information. However, related IPRs against Realtime Data LLC patents by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (e.g., IPR2016-00783 on US Patent No. 6,597,812) involved challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness, often citing references like O'Brien and Nelson. It's also mentioned that IPR2016-01672 and IPR2017-00364 were joined to IPR2016-01002, suggesting multiple challenges.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The specific reasoning for institution in IPR2016-01002 is not provided, but in a related context, Realtime Data LLC unsuccessfully argued against institution in an IPR filed by Unified Patents, claiming Unified failed to identify all Real Parties in Interest (RPIs). The PTAB disagreed and instituted that IPR.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The information provided indicates that the PTAB found claims unpatentable. For a related patent (US Patent No. 6,597,812) in an IPR involving Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., the PTAB found all challenged claims (1-4, 8, 14-17, 21, and 28) unpatentable as obvious over prior art. It is highly probable that the FWD for IPR2016-01002 similarly resulted in claim cancellation for US9116908B2.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled, a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: No information about an appeal of this specific IPR's FWD to the Federal Circuit is readily available in the provided snippets.
• Defensive value: Given that the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims unpatentable in IPR2016-01002, any infringement theory relying on the invalidated claims is significantly weakened. This IPR represents a successful challenge to the patent's validity.

IPR2017-00364 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated, but it was joined to IPR2016-01002.
• Status: Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Not specified for this particular joined case.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not specified, but it was joined to IPR2016-01002, which was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): This proceeding was joined to IPR2016-01002, which resulted in a Final Written Decision. Therefore, its outcome would be reflected in the FWD of IPR2016-01002, likely leading to the invalidation of claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; it was part of a proceeding that reached a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Not specified.
• Defensive value: This proceeding contributed to the invalidation of claims in IPR2016-01002.

IPR2016-01672 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated, but it was joined to IPR2016-01002.
• Status: Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Not specified for this particular joined case.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not specified, but it was joined to IPR2016-01002, which was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): This proceeding was joined to IPR2016-01002, which resulted in a Final Written Decision. Therefore, its outcome would be reflected in the FWD of IPR2016-01002, likely leading to the invalidation of claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; it was part of a proceeding that reached a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Not specified.
• Defensive value: This proceeding contributed to the invalidation of claims in IPR2016-01002.

IPR2017-01196 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated.
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Not specified.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not specified.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The settlement means the patent owner and petitioner reached an agreement, often involving a license or other terms. Without knowing the terms, its direct defensive value is limited, but it indicates the petitioner saw enough risk or value in the patent to settle.

IPR2017-01629 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated.
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Not specified.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Not specified.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01196, the settlement indicates the petitioner saw enough risk or value in the patent to settle, but the specific impact on defensive posture is unclear without knowing the settlement terms.

IPR2016-00377 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Not specified.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The specific reasoning is not provided.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution on the merits means the PTAB found the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging the claims. This suggests that the claims targeted in this petition are relatively robust against the specific prior art and arguments presented by the petitioner.

IPR2017-02007 — Petitioner details not specified v. Realtime Data LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Not explicitly stated.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Not specified.
• Petition grounds: Not specified.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The specific reasoning is not provided.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution on the merits means the PTAB found the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging the claims. This suggests that the claims targeted in this petition are relatively robust against the specific prior art and arguments presented by the petitioner.

Strategic summary

US patent 9,116,908 has faced multiple challenges at the PTAB, with seven IPR proceedings on file. Three of these, IPR2016-01002, IPR2016-01672, and IPR2017-00364, resulted in Final Written Decisions where claims were found unpatentable. While the exact claims of US9116908B2 invalidated in IPR2016-01002 are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, the outcome of related IPRs against other Realtime Data LLC patents suggests that a significant number of claims were likely canceled. Two other IPRs (IPR2017-01196 and IPR2017-01629) were terminated due to settlement, indicating that the petitioners in those cases either found sufficient merit in the patent or decided to resolve the dispute through other means. The remaining two IPRs (IPR2016-00377 and IPR2017-02007) were denied institution on the merits, suggesting that the claims challenged in those petitions were found to be more robust.

The patent has also been a subject of extensive district court litigation and Federal Circuit appeals regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Notably, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding that 211 claims across seven Realtime Data LLC patents, including US9116908B2, were ineligible as abstract ideas. This significantly narrows the scope of patent protection and indicates a challenging landscape for asserting these patents. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Realtime Data's petition for certiorari on this § 101 issue in January 2024, leaving the Federal Circuit's decision as final for those asserted claims.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For a defendant facing assertion, any prior art grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2016-01002 (and its joined cases) would be subject to estoppel under § 315(e)(2) for those petitioners and their privies. Unified Patents has been a frequent petitioner against Realtime Data LLC patents, including in an IPR on a related patent (US 8,934,535) which resulted in adverse judgment and cancellation of instituted claims after Unified's petition was instituted. This suggests a pattern of challenges by Unified Patents. The issue of Real Parties in Interest (RPIs) has also been a point of contention in IPRs involving Unified Patents and Realtime Data, with the PTAB and Federal Circuit weighing in on how RPIs are identified.

Recommended next steps

Given the Federal Circuit's decision affirming the ineligibility of claims under § 101, it is crucial for a defendant to thoroughly analyze which specific claims of US9116908B2 were part of that ruling. If the demand letter cites claims that have been deemed ineligible, the patent owner may not have a viable case. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc. (Case: 21-2251, Filed: 2023-08-02) is a critical document to review for the specific claims found ineligible under § 101. This opinion also highlights the complexities of § 101 analysis and the need for detailed reasoning from district courts.

Additionally, a defendant should review the Final Written Decision of IPR2016-01002 to identify precisely which claims of US9116908B2 were found unpatentable based on prior art. This FWD would be accessible through the USPTO PTAB E2E system. If any asserted claims were invalidated in this IPR, an infringement theory built on them would be significantly weakened. The fact that IPR2016-01672 and IPR2017-00364 were joined to IPR2016-01002 means their outcomes are also tied to that FWD.

For claims that survived PTAB scrutiny (i.e., those in petitions where institution was denied), an IPR-based defense would be harder for those specific claims and prior art combinations. However, new prior art or new arguments could still be considered in a new petition, subject to estoppel considerations. The settlements in IPR2017-01196 and IPR2017-01629 suggest that those petitioners found enough merit in the patent or risk in litigation to reach an agreement, so these claims should not be presumed invalid without further analysis.

Inventors

James J. Fallon, employer not determinable from the patent document.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US9116908B2 is Realtime Data LLC. The patent abstract and description indicate that Realtime Data LLC developed "systems and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval utilizing lossless data compression and decompression." It is unclear from the patent document alone whether Realtime Data LLC shipped a product embodying these claims. Realtime Data LLC's primary line of business, as indicated by the patent, is data compression and decompression technologies. Its current operational status is not determinable solely from the patent document.

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignment documents for US Patent 9,116,908 found on the USPTO Patent Assignment Search website as of May 29, 2026. This indicates that the original assignee, Realtime Data LLC, likely still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9116908
    2014 : Filed by Realtime Data LLC
    2015 : Issued to Realtime Data LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present
4. Cascading transfers — not present
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
7. Privateering — not present
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US Patent 9,116,908 on the USPTO Patent Assignment Search website (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Therefore, there is no information to assess NPE/troll patterns beyond the initial filing and issuance to Realtime Data LLC.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9,116,908

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9,116,908, we need to examine the patent's cited references. The patent itself states that it "employs the data compression/decompression techniques disclosed in U.S. Ser. No. 09/210,491 entitled 'Content Independent Data Compression Method and System,' filed on Dec. 11, 1998, which is commonly assigned and which is fully incorporated herein by reference." This strongly suggests that US Serial No. 09/210,491 (which matured into U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,104, as stated in the patent's description) is highly relevant prior art, foundational to the claimed invention.

A comprehensive analysis of all prior art citations would typically involve retrieving and reviewing each cited document. However, based on the patent's self-referential statement, US Pat. No. 6,601,104 is explicitly identified as the source of the core compression/decompression techniques.

Cited Patent: U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,104

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,104, "Content Independent Data Compression Method and System," issued July 29, 2003, to James J. Fallon, and assigned to Realtime Data LLC.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed on December 11, 1998.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a content-independent data compression method and system. It focuses on using multiple, different data compression algorithms in parallel or sequentially, and selecting the best compression ratio achieved for a given data block. It also details the appending of a descriptor to the compressed data to indicate the compression technique used, allowing for proper decompression. This patent serves as the foundation for the compression and decompression modules (encoder module 25 and decoder module 65) explicitly referenced in US 9,116,908.
• Potentially Anticipates Under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that US 9,116,908 states it "employs the data compression/decompression techniques disclosed in U.S. Ser. No. 09/210,491" (which is U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,104), this earlier patent likely anticipates aspects of the claims in US 9,116,908 related to the specific implementation of the lossless data compression and decompression processes, particularly:
  • Claim 1: The steps of "compressing the data stream at a compression ratio" and "decompressing the compressed data at a decompression ratio." While Claim 1 broadly covers these steps, the method of achieving these compression/decompression ratios as described in US 6,601,104 would be highly relevant.
  • Claim 20: The "data storage accelerator with a compressor" and "data retrieval accelerator with a decompressor." The specific design and functionality of these components, particularly the use of multiple encoders/decoders and the selection based on compression ratio, would be anticipated by US 6,601,104.
  • Claim 35: The method of "compressing the data stream at a compression ratio which provides a data compression rate." The techniques for achieving this compression rate, as taught by US 6,601,104, would be directly applicable.
  • Claim 42: The method of "decompressing the compressed data at a decompression ratio." Again, the specific methods for performing this decompression, as detailed in US 6,601,104, would be pertinent.

It's important to note that while US 6,601,104 provides the underlying compression technology, US 9,116,908 focuses on the application of this technology to accelerate data storage and retrieval in scenarios where the input/output data rates exceed the capabilities of the storage device itself. Therefore, the novelty in US 9,116,908 would lie in the system and method of integrating high-speed lossless compression/decompression to overcome bandwidth limitations of storage devices, rather than in the compression algorithms themselves.

The obviousness of US Patent 9,116,908 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be assessed by considering the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date March 11, 1999) and the motivations to combine existing technologies to address known problems. The patent's own "Prior art keywords" and "BACKGROUND" section provide the basis for this analysis.

1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A PHOSITA in 1999 in the field of data storage and computer systems would possess knowledge of various data storage technologies (e.g., magnetic and optical disks, RAM), their performance characteristics (including bandwidth limitations), and established data processing techniques. This would include a solid understanding of data compression and decompression algorithms, both lossy and lossless, and their known benefits.

2. Known Problems in the Prior Art
The patent explicitly states the problems it seeks to solve within the prior art:

• "existing memory storage devices severely limit the performance of consumer, entertainment, office, workstation, servers, and mainframe computers for all disk and memory intensive operations."
• "magnetic disk mass storage devices currently employed... suffer from significant seek-time access delays along with profound read/write data rate limitations."
• "Faster disk access data rates are only achieved by the high cost solution of simultaneously accessing multiple disk drives with a technique known within the art as data striping."
• "Additional problems with bandwidth limitations similarly occur within the art by all other forms of sequential, pseudo-random, and random access mass storage devices."
  Essentially, the problem is the fundamental bandwidth mismatch between increasingly fast computer systems (e.g., PCI Bus at 264 MB/sec, local bus at 800 MB/sec) and slower storage devices (e.g., 10,000 rpm disk drives at 17.1 MB/sec).

3. Prior Art Elements (Based on "Prior art keywords" and Background)
The "Prior art keywords" are: "data", "data block", "compression", "compressed", "compression technique". The patent's background further clarifies the types and uses of compression:

• "Data" and "data block": These are fundamental units of information in computing and were universally understood.
• "Compression", "compressed", "compression technique": Data compression, both lossy and lossless, was a well-established field. The patent notes that "It is well known within the current art that data compression provides several unique benefits. First, data compression can reduce the time to transmit data by more efficiently utilizing low bandwidth data links. Second, data compression economizes on data storage and allows more information to be stored for a fixed memory size by representing information more efficiently." Specific lossless techniques like Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression are mentioned as "well known within the art" in the context of the invention's decoder module.

4. Obviousness Analysis: Motivation to Combine Prior Art

The core of US 9,116,908 is the application of lossless data compression and decompression to accelerate data storage and retrieval by effectively increasing the bandwidth of slower storage devices. Given the known problems and the existing prior art, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the elements as follows:

Combination 1: Data storage/retrieval with lossless data compression for increased capacity and effective throughput.

• Prior Art Elements: "data", "data block", "compression", "compressed", "compression technique", and known storage devices (as described in the patent's background).
• Motivation:
  1. To increase storage capacity: It was a long-standing and obvious motivation for a PHOSITA to apply "compression techniques" to "data" and "data blocks" to create "compressed data" for storage. This was done to maximize the amount of information that could fit on a fixed-size storage medium. The patent itself acknowledges this as a known benefit: "data compression economizes on data storage and allows more information to be stored for a fixed memory size by representing information more efficiently." For general data storage, lossless compression would be the natural choice to ensure data integrity.
  2. To increase effective data transfer rates (bandwidth): The patent explicitly highlights the "read/write data rate limitations" of storage devices as a significant problem. A PHOSITA would be well aware that compression reduces the amount of data to be physically transferred. The concept of using compression to increase effective throughput over a limited bandwidth channel was already established in other domains, such as network communications (e.g., modems using compression to achieve higher effective data rates over slower communication links). Extending this known principle to address the analogous bandwidth limitations of storage devices (e.g., disks, RAM) would be an obvious design choice. By compressing data before writing to a slow device and decompressing it after reading, a larger volume of original data could be effectively moved per unit of time, thereby "accelerating" storage and retrieval from the perspective of the uncompressed data. The patent's solution directly applies this known benefit of compression to solve the explicitly stated problem of storage device bandwidth limitations.

How this addresses the independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method for accelerated data storage and retrieval): This claim describes the entire process of receiving high-rate data, compressing it for storage in a slower device, retrieving the compressed data, and decompressing it for high-rate output. The motivation to use compression to overcome bandwidth mismatches for both storage and retrieval, a known problem and a known benefit of compression, would lead a PHOSITA to combine these steps. The specific ratios mentioned in the claim (e.g., compression ratio providing a data compression rate greater than the data storage rate, or output transmission rate greater than the data access rate) are merely the desired and expected outcomes when applying effective compression to achieve the goal of acceleration.
• Independent Claim 20 (System for accelerated data storage and retrieval): This describes a system with a "data storage accelerator" (comprising a compressor) and a "data retrieval accelerator" (comprising a decompressor). Once the method (Claim 1) is conceived as obvious, building dedicated hardware or software modules to perform these compression and decompression functions in the data path of a storage system would be an obvious engineering implementation for a PHOSITA. The patent itself mentions that such an implementation could use "dedicated analog and digital hardware circuits, central processing units, digital signal processors, dedicated finite state machines."
• Independent Claim 35 (Method for accelerated data storage): This claim focuses specifically on storage. The motivation to compress data to allow continuous storage of a high-rate input stream into a slower storage device directly addresses the "read/write data rate limitations" by reducing the actual amount of data written per unit time. This is an obvious application of compression to a known problem.
• Independent Claim 42 (Method for accelerated data retrieval): This claim focuses specifically on retrieval. The motivation to decompress retrieved data to provide a high-rate output stream, overcoming the slower retrieval rate of the storage device, is also an obvious application of decompression to address the same bandwidth limitations.

Conclusion on Obviousness:
Considering the widely recognized problems of storage device bandwidth limitations and the well-known benefits of data compression (both for capacity and effective throughput), a PHOSITA in 1999 would have been motivated to combine general data storage and retrieval practices with existing lossless data compression and decompression techniques. The goal would be to alleviate the identified bandwidth bottlenecks, thereby achieving an effective acceleration of data storage and retrieval. The claimed invention, therefore, represents an obvious application of known technologies to solve a known problem with predictable results, falling within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103.