John A. HUDALLA
66 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
66 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV and Yanka Industries successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (8868772) covering Adaptive Bitrate Streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Gamble, leading to the institution of all 21 challenged claims.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims relating to live event content delivery systems are likely unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness for multiple claims, leading to institution.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive regarding live event broadcasting claims. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments that the claimed technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Ellis and Spivey. This sets the stage for a full trial on unpatentability grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision was granted, finding sufficient rationale for the Petitioner to combine teachings from prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically found that combining Ellis's content source with Spivey’s live data server devices would improve latency in real-time event delivery.
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR against claims 16-30 of the '218 patent, finding sufficient evidence to overcome initial defenses. The Board found that Petitioner successfully demonstrated a rationale for combining prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) to meet the institutional standard for obviousness.
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.
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 Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s attempt to challenge Maxell, Ltd.'s patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that proceeding with the review would be inefficient due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and TCL's late filing.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against WSOU Investments regarding network protection claims (8982691). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding that prior art references inherently disclose key claim limitations.
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.
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.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
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.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1–3,5,16–20,22,26–28,30 of U.S. Patent 10,469,554 are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and thus unpatentable, while claims 4,7,8,10–14,23–25 remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, while 8 claims survive. The decision affirms most of fuboTV’s objections but leaves several claims intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that many claims of the ’555 adaptive‑rate streaming patent are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0), rendering them unpatentable, while other claims remain valid.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over a magnetic‑connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The denial hinged on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references and specific claims not being supported by cited teachings.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
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.
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.