Claim Chart: De La Vega Patents vs. Knovio (2025)

Prepared October 19, 2025 · For web publication
Patent Analysis Live Streaming Claim Chart Knovio
⚠️ Disclaimer: This is a non-legal, non-exhaustive mapping for public discussion. Precise claim language and prosecution histories should be analyzed by a registered patent attorney for any infringement or validity conclusions. This chart represents allegations and opinions based on publicly available patent documentation.

Patents Overview

De La Vega Patents (Priority: 2003)

Gabriel De La Vega Jr.'s foundational patents covering mobile live-streaming technology:

📄 US 10,205,986 B2 - Streaming Video Selection System 📄 US 10,958,961 B2 - Real Time Streaming Video Platform

Key Claims: Mobile device captures/transmits live video; users select and control streams; server manages multiple broadcasts; audience participation and interaction; real-time two-way controls; licensing model embedded in architecture.

Knovio/OpenExchange Patents (Issued: 2020)

Knovio's patents developed by KnowledgeVision Systems, now part of OpenExchange:

📄 US 10,560,502 B2 - Re-synchronize Live Media Streams 📄 US 10,652,293 B2 - Record & Replay Synchronized Media 📄 US 9,633,358 B1 - Earlier Knovio Live Patent

Key Claims: Automatic discovery of live content; alerts users to relevant streams; synchronizes streams/events across multiple networks/devices; ensures multimedia elements stay in sync despite network latency; NeverLate™ feature for late arrivals.

📰 Read official OpenExchange announcement

Side-by-Side Comparison

Legend: Overlap Both patents address similar functionality Difference Distinct implementation approaches Distinct Feature unique to one patent family
De La Vega Patents (Selected Elements) Knovio Patents (Selected Features) Comparison Analysis
US 10,205,986 B2
Mobile device captures/transmits live video; users select and control streams from multiple broadcasters.
US 10,560,502 B2
System re-synchronizes live media streams, commands, and on-screen events transmitted through different internet pathways.
Overlap Both involve transmitting live video across networks to audiences.

Difference De La Vega emphasizes broadcast initiation and user selection; Knovio focuses on synchronization of multimedia elements across network paths.
US 10,205,986 B2
Server manages multiple user broadcasts; audiences can join, select different streams, and interact with content.
US 10,560,502 B2
Automatic discovery mechanism alerts users to available live streams; viewers connect directly to discovered sessions.
Overlap Both systems connect audiences to active live streaming sessions.

Difference De La Vega describes managing broadcaster sessions end-to-end; Knovio emphasizes discovery/recommendation without detailing broadcaster management.
US 10,205,986 B2
Audience selection and participation are integral; viewers choose streams and engage with content in real-time.
US 10,560,502 B2
Discovery filters/recommends streams matching viewer interests and preferences.
Overlap Both facilitate user engagement and content discovery funnel.

Difference De La Vega centers on audience controls during viewing; Knovio focuses on pre-viewing discovery and filtering.
US 10,958,961 B2
Interactive broadcasting with two-way viewer controls; real-time inputs (e.g., yes/no polling) and audience engagement features.
US 10,560,502 & 10,652,293 B2
Synchronizes streams, commands, and on-screen events across multiple networks/devices to ensure consistent experience.
Overlap Consistent multi-device experience supports interactive features.

Difference De La Vega claims emphasize interactive controls and engagement; Knovio focuses on transport-level timing and synchronization mechanics.
US 10,958,961 B2
System ensures consistent experience across multiple viewer devices; interactive elements function uniformly.
US 10,560,502 B2
Handles variations in network performance, buffering, and latency to deliver multimedia in perfect sync across all devices.
Overlap Both address multi-device consistency as core requirement.

Difference De La Vega's claims encompass interactive feature consistency; Knovio specifically targets technical synchronization of multimedia elements.
US 10,958,961 B2
System supports replay and on-demand access to live-streamed content after broadcast.
US 10,652,293 B2
Records and replays synchronized media streams with NeverLate™ feature; late arrivals can join in progress, view from beginning, or skip around while maintaining sync.
Overlap Both enable replay and catch-up functionality for live content.

Difference Knovio's NeverLate™ adds specific innovation for joining mid-stream with full synchronization; De La Vega covers broader replay architecture.
US 10,958,961 B2
Licensing model embedded in system architecture; permission structures for content usage and distribution.
Knovio Patents
No licensing model or permission architecture described in patent claims.
Distinct De La Vega patents claim licensing/permission structures as integral system component.

Knovio patents do not address licensing mechanisms in their disclosed features.
Priority Date: 2003
De La Vega's patents trace priority back to 2003 applications, establishing early conception of mobile live streaming architecture.
Filing/Issue Dates: 2017-2020
Knovio patents filed 2017-2018; issued 2020. Earlier related patent US 9,633,358 issued 2017.
Distinct De La Vega claims earlier priority by approximately 14 years.

This priority difference is central to the comparison and potential validity/infringement analysis.

Citations & Evidence Resources

Official USPTO patent links and public documentation for independent review:

De La Vega Patents

Knovio/OpenExchange Patents

Related Context

Notes for Legal Counsel

Recommended Analysis Framework:

  1. Claim-by-Claim Mapping: Map each asserted claim term to exact Knovio disclosures (specification + claims) with precise element identifiers
  2. Prosecution History: Capture prosecution history estoppel and any narrowing amendments for both patent families
  3. Priority Chain Analysis: Verify priority dates and continuation chains for both patent families
  4. Product Evidence: Add product-to-practice evidence (whitepapers, demos, SDK documentation, technical specifications) to corroborate feature implementation
  5. Prior Art Search: Conduct comprehensive prior art search focusing on pre-2003 and 2003-2017 period
  6. Invalidity Analysis: Assess potential invalidity defenses for all patents involved
  7. Infringement Theory: Develop detailed infringement theory under doctrine of equivalents and literal infringement
  8. Damages Calculation: Prepare damages framework considering reasonable royalty vs. lost profits

Key Questions for Analysis:

Contact & Professional Inquiry

Seeking Legal & Financial Partners

Gabriel De La Vega Jr. is seeking experienced patent litigation attorneys and litigation funding partners to pursue patent rights enforcement. Areas of interest:

  • Patent Litigation Attorneys: Experienced in technology patent disputes, claim construction, and infringement analysis
  • Litigation Funders: Portfolio funding, contingency structures, and strategic case financing
  • Technical Experts: Live streaming technology, video synchronization, and mobile broadcasting systems
  • Journalists & Researchers: Fair reporting on patent disputes and technology innovation

Contact Information:

Email: notifications@tvknowsyou.com
Phone/Text: +1 (702) 249-8291
Website: tvknowsyou.com

For attorneys & litigation financiers only — no sales or robocalls

Legal Disclaimers