Patent Cases

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, jointly moving to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01026

Court decision.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01026

Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging VideoLabs' patent 8667304 related to Conditional Access/DRM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are anticipated by prior art reference Russ under Section 102, and are obvious in view of Robert under Section 103.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of VideoLabs' patent related to Conditional Access and DRM technology. The petitioner argues that the core concept of bridging security systems is anticipated or rendered obvious by multiple prior art references, including Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

patent null · Jun 14, 2024

Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

patent null · Jun 14, 2024

Roku challenged VideoLabs' patent 8291236 in an IPR proceeding, alleging that the core concepts of bridging security systems were anticipated by prior art. Petitioner argues that claims related to dynamic encryption and entitlement management are obvious over references like Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.

patent null · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01008

Intel Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson's patent on deblocking filter features, asserting obviousness over various prior art references. The core arguments focus on how asymmetric decision-making and specific offset equations are routine modifications of existing video compression techniques.

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG

· IPR2024-00975

Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01026

Roku successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to conditional access and DRM technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art 'Russ' and 'Robert.'

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims related to conditional access and DRM systems were unpatentable over prior art (Russ). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103), leading to institution of the IPR.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its challenge against VideoLabs' patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation). The Board found sufficient support for anticipation over prior art 'Russ,' while denying institution on obviousness grounds.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01008

The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'