US PTAB IP Litigation

Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka responded to DISH's Director Review request, arguing the PTAB's decision finding all claims of US 9,407,564 unpatentable was correct and should not be overturned.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Petitioners fuboTV Media and Yanka Industries filed an authorized response opposing DISH’s Director Review request on patent 10,757,156. They argue the Board’s decision was correct, that DISH raised new and irrelevant theories, and that the request should be denied.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00906

Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB erred in instituting an IPR against Samsung by ignoring the Fintiv factors and the rescinded 2022 Guidance Memo. The company seeks a denial of institution and an extension of the filing deadline.

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

patent all challenged claims upheld · May 17, 2024

The PTAB denied Duration Media's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of IPR2024‑00937 concerning patent 11,741,482. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

patent terminated or settled · May 17, 2024

The PTAB affirmed all ten claims of the ’329 ad‑viewability patent, finding Duration Media failed to prove obviousness over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins. Claim constructions on “render,” “replacement advertisement,” and the “in‑response‑to” step were adopted.

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

· IPR2024-00938

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

DISH Technologies challenges the PTAB’s finding of obviousness for its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied prior art and procedural rules. The patent owner seeks reversal of the final written decision or termination of the IPR.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

DISH Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The Owner alleges procedural errors, improper theory shifting, and misinterpretation of the Leaning prior art.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00906

Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.

patent terminated or settled · May 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00938

Court decision.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

A joint notice was filed by DISH Technologies and the petitioners confirming that the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00918 contains no confidential information, allowing it to be publicly released.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

The USPTO Director denied FuboTV’s request for a Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00917, keeping the decision that upheld DISH Technologies’ patent.

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

Court decision.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Court decision.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

A joint notice confirms the final written decision in IPR2024-00919 contains no confidential information.

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

· IPR2024-00938

Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

Duration Media LLC challenged Rich Media Club LLC's patents, asserting that claims 1-14 related to viewability measurement are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed technology is obvious when combining prior art references like Koeppel and Seo.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

Petitioners are challenging claims of DISH Technologies' '772 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The core argument centers on prior art, specifically Leaning, which allegedly discloses adaptive bitrate streaming technology. Petitioners also assert that institutional factors strongly favor the institution of the IPR.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

fuboTV Media Inc. has filed a Petition challenging DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent 9407564, asserting that all claimed limitations related to Adaptive Bitrate Streaming are obvious in view of prior art references Leaning and Gamble.

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Petitioners challenged 18 claims of DISH Technologies' adaptive bitrate streaming patent based on obviousness (§ 103), citing prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. The PTAB found strong institutional factors, indicating the case will proceed to substantive review.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology initiated an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory regarding claims related to charge-trap memories. The core argument is that the claimed memory device features are obvious when combining existing knowledge with specific prior art teachings.