US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-01351

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to end the proceeding before any merits are decided.

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

· IPR2024-01351

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

The PTAB denied Hulu's petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media's eSports event platform patent, citing a prior district‑court §101 invalidity ruling and efficiency concerns.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Hulu seeks Director Review of two instituted IPRs covering its streaming‑technology patent after a district court ruled the claims invalid under §101. The patent owner argues the Board should deny institution under Fintiv and the Trial Practice Guide, and stay the proceedings.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

patent instituted · Aug 22, 2024

The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute inter partes review of Piranha Media’s eSports patent, finding the petition failed the compelling merits standard. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Hulu filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s request to deny institution of an IPR covering U.S. Patent 11,463,768. The Board applied Fintiv factors and found no basis to block institution, keeping the challenge alive.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Hulu’s parallel IPR petitions against Piranha Media’s streaming‑technology patent were instituted despite a district court finding all claims invalid under §101. The patent owner seeks Director Review, arguing the panel should have denied institution under Fintiv guidance and the Trial Practice Guide.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Court decision.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

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

· IPR2024-01351

Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.

Google LLC v.--

· IPR2024-01320

Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.

· IPR2024-01305

Genius Sports has filed a petition for inter partes review of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial under §314(a).

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.

· IPR2024-01308

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697 covering live‑sports video and data streaming. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey and Herzog and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel claims 1‑9.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01335

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’905 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on Ludtke and Kon prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.

· IPR2024-01309

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.

Google LLC v.--

· IPR2024-01319

Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01334

Apple has filed an IPR petition against Proxense's 8,886,954 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ludtke and Kon. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01333

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent on obviousness grounds, relying on the Ludtke and Kon references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

Google LLC v.--

· IPR2024-01318

Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’042 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is not justified.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.

· IPR2024-01307

Genius Sports has filed a petition to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering live‑score overlay on video streams. The petition asserts obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, and Spivey references and asks the Board to institute the IPR.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

patent null · Aug 22, 2024

Hulu challenges Piranha Media Distribution’s patent via Inter Partes Review (IPR), arguing that combining prior art references Eldering-I and Eldering-II renders the claims obvious under 103. The petitioner asserts that user actions like skipping ads constitute a change in viewing parameters, thereby triggering adaptive ad rescheduling taught by the cited prior art.

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

Hulu has filed a Petition challenging Piranha Media Distribution's patent covering adaptive ad insertion in video streaming. The core argument is that the claims are obvious when combining prior art references Wu and Doherty. This challenges the validity of the technology used in digital media delivery.