THU A. Dang
104 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
104 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent in an IPR, resulting in all 20 claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petition unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art event‑organization and location‑based systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art references Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petitioner’s arguments unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all twenty claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The decision finalizes the IPR with a sweeping cancellation.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The PTAB held that Meta Platforms' petition proved all 20 claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent obvious over Burfeind and Crowley, rendering the claims unpatentable.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies LLC's patent (8230101), challenging claims 7-12 based on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The Board found that the Petition met the reasonable likelihood standard, particularly regarding how Lamkin discloses key limitations related to content location and tree structure.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of its IPR against BOE Technology Group, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the new Director’s guidance did not apply.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent 7586121, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the Petitioner across all challenged claims (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 2, 6).
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The Board found all seven challenged claims unpatentable, rejecting the patent owner's narrow construction of 'passivation layer.' The petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references (Anzai and Yamazaki) taught or rendered obvious the claimed invention in OLED devices.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 16-30 of the patent are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Ellis and Spivey, teach or suggest all limitations of several challenged claims related to live event streaming and data synchronization.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining Ellis and Spivey taught an 'event socket' to improve latency, while other grounds were also met by the combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge a patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB because another, earlier petition challenging the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
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.