US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Sep 2, 2024

Dexcom and Abbott filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 2, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00565

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.

patent denied · Sep 2, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00565

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.

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

· IPR2024-00537

Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Dexcom, Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims 1, 13, and 29 of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent (US 11298056). The challenger asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Patel-2009 and Paradigm® REAL-Time. This petition also argues against discretionary denial, asserting the arguments are new and diligent.

patent denied · Sep 2, 2024

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00565

Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.

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

· IPR2024-00562

DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.

patent denied · Sep 2, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00560

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.

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

· IPR2024-00559

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.

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

· IPR2024-00538

Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.

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

· IPR2024-00537

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against InterDigital's patent 8737933, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Microsoft. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to secure discretionary denial, moving the case to the merits phase.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.