US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.

patent · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent null · Sep 5, 2024

Court decision.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00521

Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care have settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites a confidential settlement agreement and the lack of any Board decision on the merits.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

Monarch’s preliminary response argues that Juniper’s obviousness grounds fail because the cited references do not teach a “home gateway” and Li‑2 is not a printed publication, urging the PTAB to deny institution of the IPR.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

Juniper seeks to invalidate Monarch’s ’845 patent covering IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, arguing the claims are obvious over Ananda, Wetterwald, and RFC4380 and requesting the PTAB to institute an IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00560

DISH Network filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications’ 8,631,450 patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied obviousness law by demanding a specific benefit, contrary to precedent, and seeks reversal.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung Electronics, its U.S. affiliate and Harman reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00521

Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,298,056 covering continuous glucose monitoring technology. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted termination without a final written decision.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

patent denied · Sep 2, 2024

Monarch’s infringement suit against Cisco over Patent 8,451,845 was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, ending the dispute before the PTAB could institute an IPR.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00560

The USPTO denied Dish Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' broadband patent. The denial leaves the original institution decision intact.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

patent instituted · Sep 2, 2024

Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00562

DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00560

DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00538

Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,054 owned by InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (Sections 102/103). The petitioner argues that the patent lacks written description support for its method using Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi transfer, asserting prior art reference Forutanpour anticipates or renders the claims obvious.