RealTime Data v. CenturyLink & Veritas: 5-Patent Data Compression Dispute Dismissed
RealTime Data, LLC sued CenturyLink and Veritas Technologies in California’s Northern District, asserting five data compression and encoding patents against cloud backup and NetBackup appliance products. After more than five years of litigation, all parties jointly moved to dismiss — ending RealTime’s claims with prejudice while defendants’ counterclaims exit without prejudice.
Five-year data compression patent battle ends in joint dismissal
RealTime Data, LLC — a non-practising entity operating under the trade name IXO — filed this infringement action on 2 October 2018 in the Northern District of California before Chief Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. The complaint targeted CenturyLink, Inc., CenturyLink Communications, LLC, and Veritas Technologies, LLC, asserting five US patents: US9054728B2, US9116908B2, US8643513B2, US7415530B2, and US7161506B2. The accused products included CenturyLink’s Secure Online Backup service (formerly savvisdirect) and Veritas’s NetBackup 5230 Appliances and NetBackup software, all alleged to implement patented data compression and encoding methods.
The case closed on 12 January 2024 via a joint motion to dismiss granted by the Court. Under the order, RealTime’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring refiling of the same claims against these defendants. Defendants’ counterclaims and defenses, by contrast, are dismissed without prejudice, meaning CenturyLink and Veritas retain the theoretical ability to reassert those positions in future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
The five-year duration is notable: most district court patent cases that resolve short of trial do so within two to three years, suggesting this dispute navigated substantial procedural complexity before the parties reached agreement. The joint nature of the motion and the asymmetric prejudice terms — plaintiff’s claims extinguished permanently, defendants’ preserved — is a pattern consistent with a settlement in which RealTime received some form of consideration without the terms entering the public record. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain confidential.
Filing to filing in 1928 days
Days from filing to dismissal — over 5 years of active litigation before resolution
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RealTime Data, LLC | Company | Non-practising entity (d/b/a IXO) — holder of data compression & encoding patent portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Centurylink, Inc. | Company | CenturyLink, Inc. / CenturyLink Communications, LLC: US telco & cloud services provider; Veritas Technologies, LLC: enterprise data management and backup software vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian David Ledahl | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | C. Jay Chung | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jay Chung | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Zhi Yang Liao | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc Aaron Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nancy Claire Abernathy | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Anthony Kroeger | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas John Ward , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for RealTime Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas L. Sawyer | Attorney | Counsel for Centurylink, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sallie Kim | Chief Judge | California Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Court’s order reflects a fully negotiated exit: RealTime’s claims are extinguished with prejudice, eliminating any refiling risk on these five patents against CenturyLink and Veritas. The without-prejudice dismissal of defendants’ counterclaims is a standard protective measure preserving their invalidity arguments — a concession sellers of consideration commonly require. The own-costs ruling, unusual after five years of complex multi-patent litigation, is consistent with a confidential settlement in which each side absorbed its own legal spend as part of a broader commercial deal.
US9054728B2 and four further patents — data compression & encoding methods
The five asserted patents — US9054728B2, US9116908B2, US8643513B2, US7415530B2, and US7161506B2 — form part of RealTime Data’s extensive portfolio covering data compression, encoding, and decompression methods. The application filing dates range from the mid-2000s through the mid-2010s, spanning a period of rapid growth in cloud storage and enterprise backup. The patents broadly cover techniques for compressing data streams in real time, with claims that RealTime has consistently argued read on the compression and deduplication methods embedded in commercial backup and storage products.
For enterprise backup and cloud storage vendors, RealTime’s compression portfolio represents a persistent licensing risk. The portfolio has been asserted in numerous district court actions across the US, targeting a wide range of storage, networking, and cloud infrastructure companies. The accused products here — NetBackup appliances and CenturyLink’s cloud backup service — are representative of the product categories RealTime consistently targets. Any company offering compressed or deduplicated backup, archival, or data transport services should assess exposure to this portfolio before new product launches or market expansions.
Should your backup or storage product run an FTO against RealTime’s compression patents?
R&D and product teams building or acquiring compressed backup, cloud storage, or data deduplication capabilities should treat RealTime’s compression portfolio as a baseline FTO priority. The five patents asserted here cover methods that are broadly applicable to how modern backup appliances and cloud backup services handle data — meaning off-the-shelf and custom implementations alike may fall within claim scope. Given RealTime’s enforcement track record, FTO analysis should precede any product launch, acquisition, or OEM agreement in this space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of US9054728B2, US9116908B2, US8643513B2, US7415530B2, and US7161506B2 — and flag related family members and continuation applications. Claim monitoring alerts will notify you if RealTime files continuation patents or new assertions in this space, giving your team early warning before enforcement letters arrive.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9054728B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related data compression patent cases — NPE enforcement in backup & storage
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the data compression & backup IP landscape
RealTime Data is a prolific NPE in the compression space. This outcome carries implications for backup vendors, cloud storage providers, and anyone operating near its patent portfolio.
NPE compression campaigns target backup and cloud storage at scale
RealTime Data has filed dozens of compression-patent suits across multiple jurisdictions and defendants. Backup appliance vendors and cloud storage providers — particularly those offering deduplicated or compressed storage — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. A joint dismissal with prejudice against specific defendants does not neutralise the remaining portfolio against new targets.
Own-costs outcomes indicate neither side held overwhelming leverage
When five years of litigation ends with each party absorbing its own fees, it suggests the merits were genuinely contested and no clear winner emerged before settlement. For defendants in similar compression patent suits, this signals that vigorous defence — including invalidity counterclaims — can create sufficient uncertainty to drive a negotiated exit without fee exposure.
RealTime v Centurylink — key questions answered
The case was dismissed via a joint motion granted on 12 January 2024. RealTime Data’s infringement claims against CenturyLink and Veritas Technologies were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring refiling. Defendants’ counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs and attorney’s fees. No trial or dispositive court ruling preceded the dismissal.
RealTime Data asserted five US patents: US9054728B2, US9116908B2, US8643513B2, US7415530B2, and US7161506B2. These patents cover data compression, encoding, and decompression methods. The accused products included CenturyLink’s Secure Online Backup service and Veritas’s NetBackup 5230 Appliances and NetBackup software.
Dismissed with prejudice means RealTime Data is permanently barred from filing the same patent infringement claims against CenturyLink Communications, LLC and Veritas Technologies, LLC. The dismissal extinguishes those specific causes of action as a matter of law. RealTime retains its patents and may pursue other defendants, but cannot refile against these particular defendants on the same grounds.
Defendants’ invalidity and other counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning CenturyLink and Veritas did not formally abandon or waive those positions. This is a standard protective term in negotiated dismissals — it preserves defendants’ ability to assert invalidity in future proceedings, such as IPR petitions, if needed. It does not mean the counterclaims were rejected by the Court on the merits.
The accused products were: CenturyLink’s Secure Online Backup service (formerly savvisdirect) and all versions and variations thereof; Veritas NetBackup 5230 Appliances and all versions and variations thereof; and Veritas NetBackup software and/or appliances. These products were alleged to implement data compression and encoding methods covered by the five asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.