John A. HUDALLA
44 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
44 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
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.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS and FORTINET successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction regarding device reconfiguration while accepting the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Krantz and Herrmann.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet successfully defended claims of InfoExpress’s network‑access control patent in IPR2024‑00677; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems and FORTINET successfully instituted an IPR against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann. The Board agreed that combining network authentication (Krantz) with policy enforcement (Herrmann) would teach the claimed method for auditing devices.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing a failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in its prior art search and unfavorable General Plastic factors. The Board found that the Petitioner could not have reasonably avoided finding highly relevant references, leading to the denial of institution for all 16 claims at issue.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO LABS INC. successfully achieved institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Patent No. 9237935, challenging claims related to prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Dynatek regarding certain limitations, despite preliminary rejections on other grounds.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.