US PTAB IP Litigation

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 21, 2024

The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-00796

The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.

· PGR2024-00032

Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.

Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--

· PGR2024-00034

Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.

Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--

· PGR2024-00034

Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.

patent null · May 21, 2024

Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH

· IPR2024-00948

Ascend Elements challenges Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent (11050097) by asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references, such as Hanisch with Meador and Shin, renders the claimed features predictable for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00941

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the claims covering adaptive bitrate streaming are obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combinations of references like Ogdon and Allen, supplemented by Klements and Gamble, teach every limitation of the challenged claims.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00950

Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).

patent denied · May 21, 2024

Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH

· IPR2024-00948

Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00941

The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.

patent denied · May 21, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 21, 2024

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-00796

MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.

Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--

· PGR2024-00034

Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).

patent final · May 21, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024

The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

patent instituted · May 20, 2024

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00925

Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.

patent instituted · May 20, 2024

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00924

Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent instituted · May 20, 2024

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC