US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 294 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00901
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
patent denied · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00904
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00904, leaving the original IPR findings in place.
patent denied · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00901
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH’s patent 11,677,798.
patent · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00903
Court decision.
patent · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
patent · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
patent denied · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
patent null · May 13, 2024
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
· IPR2024-00914
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
patent · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00905
fuboTV Media Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '555 Patent, challenging 23 claims related to adaptive streaming technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Ogdon and SMIL 2.0 anticipate or render the claimed multi-bitrate streaming methods obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
patent instituted · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00904
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '680 Patent, arguing the multi-bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found strong arguments for institution based on established frameworks. This move initiates a critical examination of the patent's validity in the media streaming space.
patent null · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00903
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
patent null · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00902
fuboTV Media Inc. has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to invalidate the patent.
patent null · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00901
fuboTV Media Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '798 Patent, asserting that its adaptive bitrate streaming claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that prior art combinations, including Ogdon/Allen and SMIL 2.0 standards, render the claimed features obvious.
patent null · May 13, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
· IPR2024-00889
BOTE, LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review against Twitch LLC's '458 Patent concerning inflatable paddleboards. The petitioner challenges 15 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over various prior art references. The IPR has been instituted, moving the case toward a full evidentiary hearing.
patent instituted · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
patent instituted · May 13, 2024
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
· IPR2024-00914
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
patent instituted · May 13, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
· IPR2024-00889
BOTE, LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Twitch LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,479,458 for inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims would be obvious over prior art references.
patent instituted · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
patent Final Written Decision · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
patent · May 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00151
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,510,636 footwear patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art knit‑shoe references.
patent · May 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00150
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike’s 9,060,562 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, asserting that all 23 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art such as Dua‑592 and Okamoto.
patent · May 11, 2024
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00096
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
patent · May 11, 2024
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2025-00146
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak's 10,165,879 patent covering removable cap assemblies for drink containers, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent · May 11, 2024
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2025-00140
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak’s 11,851,250 drink‑bottle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art cap‑assembly references.
