US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 275 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00531
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.
patent null
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00530
Meta Platforms, Inc. challenged Sitnet, LLC's patent (9877345), arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness based on combining known concepts in situational awareness systems.
patent instituted
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00529
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent 8332454, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Amidon, Wong, and Gogic. The PTAB institution decision was strongly favored due to compelling merits and favorable parallel litigation status.
patent instituted
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00528
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
patent null
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00526
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
patent null
Next Step Group, Inc. v.Deckers Outdoor Corporation
· IPR2024-00525
Next Step Group challenges Deckers Outdoor Corporation's '161 patent design in a PTAB petition, asserting invalidity under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including competitor products like the Emu Stinger Micro Boot and UGG Classic Mini.
patent null
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
· IPR2024-00521
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 null
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
· IPR2024-00520
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00519
Aylo Freesites Ltd filed a Petition challenging 21 claims of the '772 Patent related to adaptive streaming content delivery. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious in view of prior art references, specifically Leaning and Gamble.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00518
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (9407564) on adaptive bitrate streaming, arguing that claims 1-16 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that prior art references, particularly Leaning and Gamble, disclose the claimed elements of network performance monitoring and sequential playback.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00517
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '798 Patent in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Leaning and Allen, render the claimed adaptive bitrate streaming technology predictable. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over content delivery methods.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00516
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (US 10,951,680) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Leaning, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00515
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (10,469,555) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patented multi-bitrate content streaming system is rendered invalid by prior art references Leaning and Allen. This challenge targets a wide range of claims related to adaptive bitrate technology.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00514
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,469,554 regarding Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) under Section 103. The petition asserts that the claimed streaming methods are obvious in view of prior art references including Leaning, Allen, and SMIL 2.0.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00513
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156) before the PTAB, asserting that claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and anticipated under § 102. The petitioner argues that prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola disclose all elements of the challenged claims regarding adaptive rate switching.
patent null
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00512
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (11470138) before the PTAB, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and anticipation under § 102. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Leaning, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to demonstrate that the claimed streaming methods are already known in the industry.
patent null
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
· IPR2024-00511
Motorola Solutions challenges STA Group's wireless communications patent (9319852) in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on various combinations of prior art, including Shaffer/Keller and Chowdhury/OMA-PoC Documents.
patent null
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00510
AT&T Mobility LLC and others filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed wireless communication features are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references including Babaei, Fwu, Lee, and Agiwal. This initial petition sets up a complex technical battle over 5G/LTE signaling techniques.
patent instituted
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00509
Reolink Innovation Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Patent No. 847842 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition presented multiple combinations of prior art, including Lorex Guide/Kim and Throughtek-2012/Lorex Video, arguing the claimed P2P connection methods were predictable.
patent instituted
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00508
The PTAB has instituted IPR proceedings against Immersion Corporation's patent, finding that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Rosenberg and Brock. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding how these older systems disclose modulated haptic effects based on extra-sensory input. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of the technical scope of haptic feedback in handheld devices.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00507
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
patent null
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00506
Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining various prior art references renders nearly all challenged claims unpatentable.
patent instituted
Cisco Systems Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00505
Cisco Systems Inc. initiated an IPR challenging Portsmouth Network Corporation's '986 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art reference Gai. The petition focuses on Spanning Tree Protocol (STP), arguing that Gai discloses network reconfiguration methods applicable to both upstream and downstream dummy traffic during link failures.
patent null
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00503
Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed ring topology flow allocation methods are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Kovvali and Kalman renders the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
