Sandpiper Cdn, LLC v. Comcast, Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 1 Nov 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 4 May 2026, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9660876B2US9762692B2US9628347B2US8478903B2US7013322B2
- Case no.
- 2:24-cv-00886
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 Nov 2024 – 4 May 2026
- Duration
- 549 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Comcast CDN technology
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Collector mechanisms in a content delivery network
A computer-implemented method operable in a content delivery service (CDN), includes, by a collector system: receiving multiple event streams of event data, said multiple event streams comprising event data from a plurality of CD services in said CDN, each event of said event streams comprising: (i) a timestamp for said event, (ii) information relating to said event; and producing state data relating to information represented in said event data of said multiple event streams while being able to asynchronously respond to queries relating to said state data.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 23 May 2017
- Earliest priority
- 13 Dec 2012
- Est. expiry
- 13 Mar 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIPSTONE, LAURENCE R. · CROWDER, WILLIAM · SWART, ANDREW · NEWTON, CHRISTOPHER · VARNEY, LEWIS ROBERT
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L12/911G06F15/173H04L29/06H04L29/12G06F9/50G06F15/167G06F15/177H04L12/24H04L29/08G06F12/0808H04L12/26H04L41/0893H04L41/12H04L43/08H04L47/70
- Prosecution counsel
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
- Examiner
- HUQ, FARZANA
Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)
A content delivery network has at least a first tier of servers. A content delivery method includes, at a first server in the first tier of servers, obtaining a request from a client for a resource. If the resource is available at the first server or at a peer of the first server, then the resource is served to the client from the first server. Otherwise, it is determined whether the resource is popular, and if the resource is determined to be popular, then the first server obtains the resource and the first server serves the resource to the client. If the resource is determined not to be popular, the client is directed to a second server, not in the first tier of servers, and the second server serves the resource to the client. The second server may be in a second tier of servers or it may be an origin server.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 Sep 2017
- Earliest priority
- 4 Apr 2008
- Est. expiry
- 26 Dec 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2026-00174 · Patentability · filed by Microsoft Corp
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- FULLAGAR, DAVID · NEWTON, CHRISTOPHER · LIPSTONE, LAURENCE
- Classification
- H04L29/08H04N7/173H04N21/222H04N21/231H04N21/258H04N21/472
- Prosecution counsel
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
- Examiner
- WINDER, PATRICE
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Sandpiper Cdn, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L12/911G06F15/173H04L29/06
- Counsel
- Andrew M. Long · Cesar A Udave , I · James Travis Underwood · Jordan T. Bergsten · Mary Jane Peal · Maxwell C. Mcgraw · Melissa Richards Smith · Robert H. Reckers · Samuel George Bernstein
- Firm
- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Gillam & Smith LLP, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Houston), Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Comcast, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alena Farber · Ashok Ramani · Colin Aaron Keith · David Lisson · Deron R. Dacus · Gersham Johnson · James Y Park · Keon Zemoudeh · Micah G Block · Rachael S Bacha · Robert M. Vrana · Ryan P. Newell · Thomas Glenn Saunders · Xueyao Chen · Zhikun Jiang
- Firm
- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, The Dacus Firm PC, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
- Also named
- Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a/ Comcast Technology Solutions · Comcast Corporation
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew M. Long | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Cesar A Udave , I | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James Travis Underwood | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jordan T. Bergsten | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Mary Jane Peal | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Maxwell C. Mcgraw | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Robert H. Reckers | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Samuel George Bernstein | Sandpiper Cdn, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Alena Farber | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Ashok Ramani | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Colin Aaron Keith | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| David Lisson | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Deron R. Dacus | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Gersham Johnson | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| James Y Park | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Keon Zemoudeh | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Micah G Block | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Rachael S Bacha | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Robert M. Vrana | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Ryan P. Newell | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Thomas Glenn Saunders | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Xueyao Chen | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
| Zhikun Jiang | Comcast, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Sandpiper CDN, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity; and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a/ Comcast Technology Solutions (“Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 133.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the abovecaptioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Case 2:24-cv-00886 · E.D. Tex. · closed 4 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:24-cv-00886?
2:24-cv-00886 is a patent infringement action brought by Sandpiper Cdn, LLC against Comcast, Corp., filed on 1 Nov 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 4 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-00886?
US9660876B2 (“Collector mechanisms in a content delivery network”), assigned to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC, currently active; US9762692B2 (“Handling long-tail content in a content delivery network (CDN)”), assigned to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC, currently active; US9628347B2 (“Layered request processing in a content delivery network (CDN)”), assigned to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC; US8478903B2 (“Shared content delivery infrastructure”), assigned to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC|DIGITAL ISLAND, INC.; US7013322B2 (“System and method for rewriting a media resource request and/or response between origin server and client”), assigned to SANDPIPER CDN, LLC|CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, ACTING THROUGH ITS CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH AS SECOND LIEN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT. The record also lists Comcast CDN technology.
How was case 2:24-cv-00886 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Sandpiper CDN, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity; and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC d/b/a/ Comcast Technology Solutions (“Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 133.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:24-cv-00886 take?
549 calendar days, from filing on 1 Nov 2024 to closure on 4 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-00886?
Andrew M. Long, Cesar A Udave , I, James Travis Underwood, Jordan T. Bergsten, Mary Jane Peal, Maxwell C. Mcgraw, Melissa Richards Smith, Robert H. Reckers and Samuel George Bernstein are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Sandpiper Cdn. Alena Farber, Ashok Ramani, Colin Aaron Keith, David Lisson, Deron R. Dacus, Gersham Johnson, James Y Park, Keon Zemoudeh, Micah G Block, Rachael S Bacha, Robert M. Vrana, Ryan P. Newell, Thomas Glenn Saunders, Xueyao Chen and Zhikun Jiang appear for defendant Comcast.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-00886 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.