Invalidity dossier
US 9628342
Content delivery framework
Current assignee: Sandpiper Cdn LLC
Added 8/25/2026, 6:50:58 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US9628342B2 — "Content Delivery Framework"
Patent number: US9628342B2
Title: Content delivery framework
Application number: US13/714,412
Publication (grant): 2017-04-18
Filing date: 2012-12-14
Priority date: 2012-12-13
Inventors: Christopher Newton; Lewis Robert Varney; Laurence R. Lipstone; William Crowder; Andrew Swart
Original assignee: Level 3 Communications, LLC
Current assignee (per source): Sandpiper CDN LLC
Legal status (per source): Active; adjusted expiration 2033-11-15
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9628342](/patent/US9628342)/en
Purpose and scope (plain language, from the supplied text):
The patent is titled a "content delivery framework." The text identifies it as a granted US patent with prior-art keywords "services," "service," "control," "collector," and "reducer," suggesting the framework concerns service-oriented control and data collection/aggregation components within a content delivery system.
Family: The source lists related filings including CA2894873C, EP2932401B1, HK1215817B, WO2014093717A1, and later US applications (US10652087B2, US10791050B2, US10701149B2, US10701148B2). The family is flagged as having litigation.
Note on scope: The excerpt provided contains only bibliographic and procedural data. It does not include any claims, abstract, or detailed description. Therefore, the specific claimed subject matter, technical implementation, and exact scope of protection cannot be established from this material.
What this excerpt does not establish:
- The text of any claim, the abstract, or the specification.
- The technical details or boundaries of the claimed framework.
- The validity, enforceability, or legal effect of the patent.
- The accuracy of the listed assignee, dates, or legal status (the source itself states these are assumptions, not legal conclusions).
- The existence or outcome of any litigation beyond the source's bare litigation flag.
No facts beyond the supplied text have been added; omitted content should be consulted directly at the source URL.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:04:11 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9628342. 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.