Invalidity dossier
US 9654353
Framework supporting content delivery with rendezvous services network
Current assignee: Sandpiper Cdn LLC
Added 8/25/2026, 6:51:03 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: US 9,654,353 B2
Title: Framework supporting content delivery with rendezvous services network
Patent number: US9654353B2
Application number: US13/714,510
Inventors: Christopher Newton; Lewis Robert Varney; Laurence R. Lipstone; William Crowder; Andrew Swart
Original assignee: Level 3 Communications LLC
Current assignee (as listed): Sandpiper CDN LLC
Key dates:
- Prior art date / priority date: 2012-12-13
- Filing date: 2012-12-14
- Publication date (grant): 2017-05-16
- Anticipated expiration: 2032-12-14
- Legal status: Active
Related family members noted: US20140173041A1; PCT/US2013/074824 (WO2014093717A1); EP13861539.8 (EP2932401B1); HK16103772.0 (HK1215817B); CA2894873 (CA2894873C).
Purpose and plain-language scope (per the supplied excerpt): The patent concerns a framework supporting content delivery that includes a rendezvous services network. The classification H04L41/50 (network service management, ensuring proper service fulfilment according to agreements) indicates a network management context. The listed prior-art keywords—services, service, rendezvous, control, collector—suggest the framework organizes multiple services, including a rendezvous service and control/collector components, to coordinate content delivery. Based on the title and classification alone, the claimed subject matter appears directed to managing and coordinating delivery of content across a network using rendezvous services.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9654353/en
What this excerpt does not establish: The supplied text contains no claims, abstract, or detailed description. It does not establish the specific limitations of any claim, the precise technical operation of the rendezvous services network, the exact relationship among the control, collector, and rendezvous services, or the scope of protection actually granted. It also does not establish validity, enforceability, or the accuracy of the listed assignee, legal status, or dates, which the source itself notes are assumptions rather than legal conclusions. No litigation, ownership-transfer, or prior-art analysis is included here, per the source excerpt.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:04:04 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9654353. 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.