Invalidity dossier
US 9628345
Framework supporting content delivery with collector services network
Current assignee: Sandpiper Cdn LLC
Added 8/25/2026, 6:51:00 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: US9628345B2
Title: Framework supporting content delivery with collector services network
Patent number: US9628345B2
Application number: US13/714,489 (filed 2012-12-14)
Priority date: 2012-12-13
Grant/publication date: 2017-04-18
Original assignee: Level 3 Communications LLC. The source text lists the current assignee as Sandpiper CDN LLC, noting listed assignees may be inaccurate and that no legal analysis was performed.
Inventors: Christopher Newton, Lewis Robert Varney, Laurence R. Lipstone, William Crowder, Andrew Swart
Other versions: US20140173040A1; related family filings include PCT/US2013/074824 (WO2014093717A1), EP13861539.8 (EP2932401B1), HK16103772.0 (HK1215817B), and CA2894873 (CA2894873C).
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent concerns a framework that supports content delivery using a "collector services network." The patent classification is H04L41/50 (network service management, e.g. ensuring proper service fulfilment according to agreements), with additional classifications in G06F15/00. Prior-art keywords listed in the source are "services," "service," "collector," "control," and "reducer," indicating the framework organizes content delivery around services including collector and reducer functions.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9628345](/patent/US9628345)/en
What the excerpt does not establish: Although the source lists a first worldwide family litigation filing and a 2024-07-09 assignment to Sandpiper CDN LLC, no litigation, ownership-transfer, or validity analysis is provided here. The excerpt does not include the claims, specification text, detailed description, or drawings, so the precise scope of the claimed invention cannot be stated from this material. Legal status fields are described in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions, and no independent verification has been made. The anticipated expiration date (2032-12-14) is likewise stated as an assumption. Nothing here establishes validity, enforceability, or prior-art relationships.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:04:05 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9628345. 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.