Lynne H. Browne
33 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
33 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of SherryWear's intimate apparel patent (9723878) on grounds of obviousness. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over combinations of prior art like Vidal/Spagna and Handras/Spagna.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge SherryWear's bra design patent (9808036) on grounds of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision found that Nike had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted claims, leading to trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge SherryWear's apparel patent, leading the Board to institute proceedings on obviousness grounds. The decision focuses on whether combinations of prior art references teach or suggest the claimed design elements in intimate apparel.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. The dispute centers on whether specific probe packet techniques in coaxial networks are obvious.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,909, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,726,504 B2 before the IPR was instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The IPR against SitePro’s patent 11,294,403 was terminated after the parties settled the dispute, including related district‑court litigation, before any trial was instituted.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,488,871 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their PTAB dispute over Patent 11,175,680 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, ending the proceeding before trial.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent in a third parallel IPR was denied by the PTAB, citing procedural guidance against redundant petitions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Entropic Communications, challenging 76 claims. The Board declined to use discretionary denial despite the petitioner's filing of multiple parallel proceedings.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast's attempt to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent was denied by the PTAB due to a previously instituted parallel proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's patent 11381866, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The decision emphasizes the Board's policy favoring single petitions for efficiency.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Comcast could prevail, allowing review of all 20 claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's petition to challenge patent 9210362, citing the existence of a parallel IPR proceeding that had already been instituted.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding cable modem architecture claims 18 and 19 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for institution, specifically failing to demonstrate obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims in patent 8223775. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations, including Rabenko and Kim, particularly concerning modular hardware upgrades.
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.