Invalidity dossier
US 9246965
Source assignment based on network partitioning
Current assignee: Conviva Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 8:37:48 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 9,246,965 B1
Title: "Source assignment based on network partitioning" (per the supplied Google Patents page).
Assignee/Inventor: Original assignee and current assignee listed as Conviva Inc. Inventors: Ion Stoica, Hui Zhang, Xi Liu, Florin Dobrian, Henry Milner.
Identifying numbers and dates (as listed): US 9,246,965 B1; application US 13/752,252; filed 2013-01-28; granted/published 2016-01-26; priority date stated as 2012-09-05; legal status listed Active with adjusted expiration 2033-10-26. Classification centers on H04L (network arrangements/protocols, real-time media packet communication, e.g., H04L65/60 streaming of media packets; H04L65/613 control of the source by the destination) and H04N21/ (selective content distribution, monitoring of downstream path, bandwidth available, end-user video-on-demand interface).
Purpose and plain-language scope: The page's own Definitions section describes "content such as video files and live streaming/video on demand content" and "client machines," noting "Users are increasingly using networks" (excerpt truncated). The title and its recurring keywords — client, clients, instructions, video streaming, content, partition, aggregating, distribution, buffering, monitoring — indicate subject matter directed to selecting/assigning which source serves streaming content to clients, based on how a network is partitioned. Beyond this, the supplied text does not set out the claims.
What the excerpt does not establish: It supplies no claim language, abstract, or detailed description (the abstract/claims are truncated), so the exact claimed scope, limitations, and technical mechanism cannot be stated. It also omits independent evidence regarding validity, enforceability, ownership transfers beyond the recorded 2013 assignment, and prior art. Although the page contains automated litigation and "family" links, no analysis of those is offered here, and the legal-status line is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9246965/en (fetched 2026-09-23).
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:16 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9246965. 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.